Did Daniel Sinfully Accept Worship of Himself?

firstly, there are portions of the Book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, and even some in Greek words (The Greek Words in the Book of Daniel : Jastrow, Morris : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). But, what is the evidence that the original work was not fully written in Hebrew, and later modified? You have yet to produce your evidence to show that the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "segid", cannot be understood of meaning simply "to bow to the ground"? Your OP is nothing more than a personal attack on the Prophet Daniel, and a disgrace!

My last comment on this useless thread!

 

I made no claim about whether the book was originally written entirely in Hebrew or not. There is no need for me take up that issue in this thread. As we have the passage in our Hebrew Bibles, Daniel 2:46 is in Aramaic.

I am grateful to learn that this is your last comment on this thread.

 

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can see that it is legitimate to carefully probe and ponder what Daniel did when Neb. bowed to him and "worshiped" him, as follows.

1. We do read in Scripture of other people having people bow down to them and make obeisance to them. One example that was cited earlier,

Genesis 43:28 And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance.

2. Two other examples have also been cited where something similar occurred but with an important difference that there were statements made about the impropriety of the action:

Acts 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Scripture thus present multiple instances of people bowing down to others and "worshiping" them with differing responses by the one receiving the bowing down and the "worship."

3. What Daniel accepted, however, goes beyond any of these instances because not only did someone bow to Daniel and "worship" him but also things were offered to Daniel:

Daniel 2:46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.

When offerings are made to a human being, the nature of what is done would surely seem to go far beyond someone's merely bowing to him and "worshiping" him.

It may be that Daniel did not sin on this occasion, but seriously probing what he did do is fully warranted given the uniqueness of what took place and the explicit accounts in Scripture both of another top man of God and of an angel's speaking up about the impropriety of the actions when apparently far less was done for them than what was done for Daniel.

 

This entire discussion is based on an argument from silence (that Daniel accepted worship as a god) and unless there is abundant and unambiguous evidence in support, I give such arguments little weight.

 

When a verb for worship is used with reference to something done to a man and accompanied by that same man having offerings made to him, that is not an argument from silence. You can try to make a case that in spite of all that was done for Daniel, he was still not being worshiped as a god, but the text as it stands requires explaining what was done for him and why that does not mean he was worshiped as deity.

I am not insisting that he was worshiped as a god, but I am saying that the text must be fully examined and explained to show why we are not to take what the text says was done as his receiving worship as a god.

 

Daniel did not reject the worship that was offered him on this occasion. He could have recoiled and run away from the king the instant that the king fell on his face.

He certainly could have immediately and loudly protested the king's doing so before they offered to him what the passage says was offered to him.Daniel did not reject the worship that was offered him on this occasion. He could have recoiled and run away from the king the instant that the king fell on his face.

He certainly could have immediately and loudly protested the king's doing so before they offered to him what the passage says was offered to him.

This language from the OP is what I meant by "argument from silence." Scripture is silent about Daniel's reactions or motives. One can infer what one wishes by Daniel's acceptance of honor and a high civic position but that, IMO, falls short of being worshipped as a god.

 

What you have set forth is not what the OP says; I did not repeat the same sentences twice in the OP in the way that you have set them forth here nor did I arrange that duplication into paragraphs the way that you have it here.

This probably is just an unintentional duplication, but as it stands it is not what I said.

 

My apologies for lack of proofreading. I hit copy once and got it twice - computers must be infected with original sin. (j.k.)

 

Not a problem.