How Should the Book of Daniel be Viewed?

[Coram_Deo]

I've been studying the book of Daniel and there are some interesting ideas brought to the table as you are probably all well aware of.
Should the book of Daniel be viewed as Prophetic or should it be viewed as a book written after the fact durning the reign of Antichous Epiphanes IV? Any suggestions? Are there books out there that acn help clarify the issue that any of you know of?
Forever Christ's Servant,
Michael

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It was written and compiled by Daniel. That's the simplest explanation, especially when Daniel writes in first person at times. The view that Daniel was written after Antiochus is the prevailing liberal view because they don't believe in predictive prophecy or supernatural religion.

[Edited on 14-11-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, (1917) reprinted since, and available for only around (gasp) $80.00! What!!!!!

Read/reference it online FREE!!! at this site:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/wilson/robert.htm

Outstanding reference.

 

[Coram_Deo]

thank you for your responses I appreciate them. I'm interested in how you, puritansailor, said that it is the thoughts of the Liberals who do not believe in such predictive prophecy. Is it true, as I have read, that Daniel's prophecy is more detailed than any other prophecy given in the Bible, so much so that it seems it would have had to have been written after the fact, and then the concluding argument that the prophecy concerning Antiochous' death is historically inaccurate to the point that it leads many to believe it was written before he died. what do you make of such an argument? (I'm doing a class presentation concerning daniel and desiring to back the conservative side, but my proffessor is more on the Liberal side of things, at least he comes across as such).
Blessings,
Michael

 

[Wannabee]

I don't know how to answer your question to Puritan Sailor, but I have an observation that may be of some help.

Why do liberals accept as historical evidence other writers of history? There are more copies of the OT than any of their other sources. It's authenticity and accuracy is supported more than any other historical writing of the time. In fact, there is not one thing in the OT that can be proven to be erroneous. Based on this alone there is no reason to believe a contradicting source above what the Bible says.

Another question for the liberals is, if you can't rely on this one book to be accurate, then what can we rely on? I know that they'll claim that it's sufficient for faith and practice, but has inaccuacies historically. However, the faith and practice that is so clear in the Scriptures is so because of the historical accuracy of what God has done historically.

Don't know if you can use that. Just a thought.