Here we are, in the same place, after going in a complete circle. The opening post shows how devastating it is to tradition if we interpret Scripture in accordance to what the words of Scripture actually mean.
“The aim of the grammatico-historical method is to determine the meaning required of Scripture by the laws of grammar and the facts of history. The grammatical meaning is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary, and literal sense of the phrases, clauses, and sentences. The historical meaning is that sense which is demanded by a careful consideration of the time and circumstances in which the author wrote. It is the specific meaning which an author’s words require when the historical context and background are taken into account. Thus, the grand object of grammatical and historical interpretation is to ascertain the specific usage of words as employed by an individual writer as prevalent in a particular age.” — (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Exegetical Theology, p. 88).
Isn't it obvious that the book of Daniel itself endorses this method?
DANIEL 2
“There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the days to come. Your dream and the vision that passed through your mind as you lay on your bed are these: As you were lying there, O king, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind” (2:28-30 NIV).
DANIEL 8
“And it came about when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man. And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, ‘Gabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision’ ” (8:16). ... “Son of man, understand that...” (8:17). “And he said, ‘Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur...’ (8:19).
DANIEL 9
“While I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. And he gave me instruction and talked with me, and said, ‘O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision’ ” (9:21-23).
DANIEL 10
“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzer). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in vision” (10:1 NIV).
“Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future” (10:14).
Here is the proof:
Since the angel Gabriel was given a divine command to make Daniel understand the vision (8:16), we expect the angel-interpreter to have faithfully executed that command. It follows immediately therefore that the vision was explained to Daniel so that he might understand it. Hence, the very words and phrases employed were comprehensible terms meaningfully arranged and are to be accepted as Daniel understood them. Thus, we are to seek an understanding of the prophecy from Daniel’s perspective in history and not from a stand-point in the twenty-first century. We are to assume no more than Daniel could have known.
So why didn't these deceivers try to argue against reading Scripture for what it actually says at the very beginning of this debate and save everyone time? Obviously, their method is to encourage everyone in joining the mainstream if that will work. Then they become an intimidating, angry mob. They don't have even one respectable argument to share. All they have to show is righteous indignation. But it's all deceit on their part.
