Mean

'what it means' Daniel 2:36

Theological liberals and agnostics love to critique the Bible using supposedly historical techniques. When I was at high school I studied the book of Daniel using these 'advanced' techniques, known as higher criticism. Let me tell you how it works:

Daniel interprets a dream. He correctly predicts the end of the Babylonian empire. The higher critics assume because he got it right that the book was written after the fact, not before. Really scientific, eh? If a prophet correctly predicts the future they move the date of the book, not admit that Daniel may have been divinely inspired. Sorry guys, but it just ain't playing fair or open-minded.

They do exactly the same thing with the New Testament. Jesus correctly predicts the fall of Jerusalem decades beforehand. The critics assume the Gospels were written after 70 AD. Hello!? Is it beyond all possibility that God knows the future? He is God, after all. The critics presuppose true prophecy is impossible and thus completely misread the texts.

It may well be reasonable to question allegedly supernatural occurances such as prophecy. But 2000 years later, when Christianity is still here and global to boot, it is arrogant to say you know better than the people who were there at the time. If Jesus isn't the Son of God, why are we still talking about Him, and celebrating His birthday?