Book of Daniel and Revelation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ro_A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ro_A

Guest
Peace and grace of God be with you all!

Is there a book that anyone can recommend (or commentaries) on the book of Daniel? I am participating in a bible study with some non-Catholic friends (7th day adventist and non-denominationals). Although they are sincere and good Christians, they have their own way of interpreting the bible (i.e. “the bible can interpret itself” - which makes me chuckle everytime they say it and start arguing about the meaning of certain passages 😉 ).

We started last night and want myself to be prepared because i am not really familiar with the book of Daniel and some issues already came out - i.e. the nations represented by the 4 beasts, and that for them the book of Daniel was written by Daniel himself conflicting with the intro in my Catholic bible that it was uncertain who the real author of the book was.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks and God bless!!!
 
“Rapture” The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie
talks about how the Book of Daniel and Revelation are related.
He also relates them to the Olivet discourse and the Epistles.

He does go line by line in explaining much of the scripture but it is more thematic than anything. He deals with Daniel’s four beasts extensively. I recommend it.
 
Ro_A said:
Peace and grace of God be with you all!

Is there a book that anyone can recommend (or commentaries) on the book of Daniel? I am participating in a bible study with some non-Catholic friends (7th day adventist and non-denominationals). Although they are sincere and good Christians, they have their own way of interpreting the bible (i.e. “the bible can interpret itself” - which makes me chuckle everytime they say it and start arguing about the meaning of certain passages 😉 ).

We started last night and want myself to be prepared because i am not really familiar with the book of Daniel and some issues already came out - i.e. the nations represented by the 4 beasts, and that for them the book of Daniel was written by Daniel himself conflicting with the intro in my Catholic bible that it was uncertain who the real author of the book was.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks and God bless!!!
Click to expand...
FYI, if you’re using the New American Bible (NAB), there are many Catholics who would disagree with the Introductions they give for the various books of the Bible. The text of Scripture is what is free from error, the NAB footnotes and introductions are not guaranteed to be free from error.

In general, these NAB notes follow the modern tendency to think that none of the books of the Bible were actually written by the people whose name they bear. This is one possibility, but not the only for a Catholic (and it is a relatively recent phenomenon).

You might try the Haydock Bible Commentary. Just scroll down and you’ll find the Book of Daniel. This particular commentary follows the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible. That website gives links to that translation so that you can follow along.

Here’s another website that gives links to the writings of the Church Fathers on various books of the Bible. Scroll down for Daniel.
 
You are right, i am using NAB.:confused: What bible translation do you recommend?

In Christ.
 
Ro_A said:
You are right, i am using NAB.:confused: What bible translation do you recommend?

In Christ.
Click to expand...
I just got a copy of the English Standard Version and I like it a lot because it is very readable. It is a Protestant translation but they just released an edition with the deuterocanonical books, including the books that the Orthodox Church uses but not the Catholic Church.

I know that some here will have a problem with using a version translated by Protestants but the most commonly used Bible on this forum is the Revised Standard Version, which the Vatican also uses in its English documents including the Catechism, and it was also translated by Protestant scholars. Also, the translation they are telling you to avoid, and rightfully so, was translated by Catholics. As long as the translation is honest and true to the Greek and Hebrew, I don’t care about the religious affiliation of the translators. (Footnotes and other reference material are another matter but they are minimal in my edition and I have yet to see anything contrary to the Church’s teaching.)

Gary
 
Ro_A said:
You are right, i am using NAB.:confused: What bible translation do you recommend?

In Christ.
Click to expand...
Personally, I prefer the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) that Ignatius Press publishes. Many here also like the Douay-Rheims translation. The NAB is a decent enough translation, it’s just the footnotes and introductions that you have to watch out for.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Personally, I prefer the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) that Ignatius Press publishes. Many here also like the Douay-Rheims translation. The NAB is a decent enough translation, it’s just the footnotes and introductions that you have to watch out for.
Click to expand...
Actually, the NAB does have translation problems. In fact, the version of the Psalms found in NABs today was found to be so bad that the Vatican prohibited its use in the Mass. There is also the issue of inclusive language.

Gary
 
I did notice that the footnotes in NAB are not really that good and helpful.
 
Can anyone of you give me tips on what to watch out for when we do the study on the book of Daniel? Again, i am doing a bible study with some of my non-Catholic friends (7th day Adventist and non-denominationals). Thanks. :o
 
garysibio said:
Actually, the NAB does have translation problems. In fact, the version of the Psalms found in NABs today was found to be so bad that the Vatican prohibited its use in the Mass. There is also the issue of inclusive language.

Gary
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true (and the inclusive language irks me), but I don’t think there are any problems so big that someone will fall into heresy by reading it. At least, I haven’t found anything yet.
 
Ro_A said:
Can anyone of you give me tips on what to watch out for when we do the study on the book of Daniel? Again, i am doing a bible study with some of my non-Catholic friends (7th day Adventist and non-denominationals). Thanks. :o
Click to expand...
If they are “left behind” rapturist types, they will probably try and split Daniel’s visions with a 2,000 year gap. For example: a gap between the iron legs and the iron-clay feet of the statue. In the second vision, a two-millenium gap between the fourth beast and it’s very own horns! And in the third prophecy the put a the gap mid-sentence in (9:26)

There is no textual justification for this but they have to do it in order to deny that Christ set up a Kingdom during His first Advent. (Reigning in heaven and on earth through the Church)

This directly relates to their understanding of the “Rapture” and belief that Christ will have a literal thousand year reign on earth (Rev 20:4). We Catholics understand (20:4) to be the Church age we have been in for 2,000 years.

So, basically they are inserting huge time gaps in the text, where they don’t belong, while rejecting our understanding of a long time periond that is textually supported.
 
ryanoneil said:
If they are “left behind” rapturist types, they will probably try and split Daniel’s visions with a 2,000 year gap. For example: a gap between the iron legs and the iron-clay feet of the statue. In the second vision, a two-millenium gap between the fourth beast and it’s very own horns! And in the third prophecy the put a the gap mid-sentence in (9:26)

There is no textual justification for this but they have to do it in order to deny that Christ set up a Kingdom during His first Advent. (Reigning in heaven and on earth through the Church)

This directly relates to their understanding of the “Rapture” and belief that Christ will have a literal thousand year reign on earth (Rev 20:4). We Catholics understand (20:4) to be the Church age we have been in for 2,000 years.

So, basically they are inserting huge time gaps in the text, where they don’t belong, while rejecting our understanding of a long time periond that is textually supported.
Click to expand...
What about the four beasts and the four nations? I think they are trying to imply that the 4th nation is the Roman empire.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Yes, that’s true (and the inclusive language irks me), but I don’t think there are any problems so big that someone will fall into heresy by reading it. At least, I haven’t found anything yet.
Click to expand...
True, but why should we set the bar so low when there are much better translations available to us. One of the complaints about the Psalms was that the use of inclusive language destroyed the messianic significance of many of them. The translators of the NAB decided that political correctness was more important than preserving the integrity of the original. I just can’t bring myself to use a translation that was written with that philosophy.

Gary
 
Ro_A said:
Can anyone of you give me tips on what to watch out for when we do the study on the book of Daniel? Again, i am doing a bible study with some of my non-Catholic friends (7th day Adventist and non-denominationals). Thanks. :o
Click to expand...
Be especially careful of the Seventh Day Adventists. Even many Evangelicals consider them to be a cult. They share quite a lot with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

SDAs rely heavily on the writings of Ellen G White whom they believe to be a prophet. She was extremely anti-Catholic. (The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon kind of thing.) Her books are shot through with all kinds of errors yet SDAs treat them as being almost equal with Scripture. The SDAs in your study will be coming from that point of view.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
Be especially careful of the Seventh Day Adventists. Even many Evangelicals consider them to be a cult. They share quite a lot with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

SDAs rely heavily on the writings of Ellen G White whom they believe to be a prophet. She was extremely anti-Catholic. (The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon kind of thing.) Her books are shot through with all kinds of errors yet SDAs treat them as being almost equal with Scripture. The SDAs in your study will be coming from that point of view.

Gary
Click to expand...
I somehow knew that about SDAs. My hope and prayer is to somehow enlighten them about the truth or at least let them know what we as Catholics really believe.
 
garysibio said:
True, but why should we set the bar so low when there are much better translations available to us. One of the complaints about the Psalms was that the use of inclusive language destroyed the messianic significance of many of them. The translators of the NAB decided that political correctness was more important than preserving the integrity of the original. I just can’t bring myself to use a translation that was written with that philosophy.

Gary
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I just don’t want the OP to feel like he has to toss his NAB altogether.
 
Ro_A said:
Can anyone of you give me tips on what to watch out for when we do the study on the book of Daniel? Again, i am doing a bible study with some of my non-Catholic friends (7th day Adventist and non-denominationals). Thanks. :o
Click to expand...
It sounds like it is lead by SDAs trying to sway non-denoms and apparently Catholics too if they can get them.

“Unto 2300 days and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

This will no doubt come up at some point since it forms the key basis of what they teach. They call it their sanctuary doctrine wherein they teach that in 1844 Christ moved from the Holy to the Most Holy place in heaven and at that point sat down at the right hand of God. It backs into their Investigative Judgement etc.

Completely ignoring the many and diverse misunderstandings, heterodox, and heretical aspects of their current interpretation realize that they originally taught that Oct 22, 1844 was the day Christ would come back to earth (after 1843 didn’t work out). When pressed they will say it wasn’t them that taught this it was William Miller. He spawned a number of heretical groups. But yet the entire crowd that formed the SDA movement did believe this date setting. Its called the great disappointment and they believe it is mentioned in Revelation. They believed at that time that they were chosen of God and the world that, correctly, rejected this heretical teaching of date setting had itself rejected God.

After this date, and as a unique group of SDAs, they decided to admit they were wrong that Christ did not come but moved around in heaven from one compartment to another. But they still believed then and still believe now, that those who followed the teaching of date setting by Miller were the ones really following God and the rest of Christendom that opposed date setting was rejecting God. So they say they were wrong but only about the doctrine not about the idea of date setting.

In fact their alleged prophetess saw in vision that it was Gods will for date setting to be taught. That time was never before or after to be a test. But it was God’s will that they should be tested and follow this date setting. She even saw in alleged vision that those who offered prayer to God but didn’t know Christ had moved to the Most Holy from the Holy would have their prayers answered by Satan himself.

Bring this up and they’ll deny it, twist and rephrase all day. And those you speak with probably will be honestly telling you their ideas being legitimately ignorant themselves on this.

There really is no need to move beyond this issue with SDAs but if you do move past there are legion of other issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top