Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Critique of your Little Horn Interpretation

gramster wrote:

 

Now we will take a closer look at the little horn of Daniel 7. This power will help to verify the powers above. It will also help us to understand the other prophecies going forward that take us down to the "times of the end" as promised in the book of Daniel.

Since you have a magnet next to your compass you are sailing the wrong direction.

gramster wrote:

There are 8 identifying marks for this power. We will examine them all.

1. It rose up out of the 4th beast, 8:24.

2. It appeared after the 10 other horns, 8:24.

3. It started small and became big, 8:20.

4. Three of the 10 horns would be "plucked up by the roots" to allow it's rise, 8:24.

5. It would have "eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and speak "words against the most high", 8:25.

6. It would "wear out the saints of the most high", 8:25.

7. It would "think to change times and laws".

8. It would be allotted special power for "a time, two times, and half a time", 8:25.

So you quote the verses and don't discuss them. What's with that?

Plus, shouldn't these verses be from Daniel 7 not 8? You have 8:24 and it should be 7:24, 8:20 and it should be 7:20 .....

Instead how about:

1- It rose up out of the 4th beast - Yeah, the guy I'm thinking about was a Seleucid.

2-Yeah, he appeared after the 10 I mentioned.

3-He was the brother of the king and not directly in line for secession, but a little murder and intrigue was all it took.

4-Seleucus IV is poisoned by Heliodorus who had designs on the throne. He is killed by intrigue of Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV. The next heir would have been Demetrius but he is held hostage in Rome. The infant son of Seleucus was too young to rule and is killed in 170 BCE.

5-Antiochus IV was pretty much the "devil in disguise" as far as the Jews were concerned. He tried to Hellenize them. He set up an altar to Zeus in the Temple. He banned their religion.

6-Antiochus persecuted the Jews, he burned the Torah scrolls, sometimes with the offending Jew. He killed infants that had been circumcised along with their mothers, hanging the dead infant around the mothers neck. He killed priests including Onias which is what is described in Daniel 8:10-11, and in some verses in chap 9 as well as in chap 11.

7-Antiochus banned the practice of the Jewish religion, circumcision, banned the Torah scrolls, burning them and anyone found with them.

8-He was successful for a time.

gramster wrote:

The mighty Roman Empire wasn't conquered by another rising empire like the kingdoms before it. It deteriorated slowly and broke apart into many divisions. Many of these became familiar nations that we have with us yet today. Yet Daniel 7 speaks of a "little horn" power that was to arise from all of this and become great.

As pagan Rome was in the process of decline, the holy Roman Empire was just coming on the scene. It started small, and with time became quite powerful. We have 8 points of identification for this little horn. These 8 points of identification can only refer to this power. No other power on earth fits these 8 points. We will examine each of these 8 points in detail to see how well they fit. 

You need to move that magnet away from your compass. Remove the pieces you jammed into the puzzle and remember Daniel was writing about the Jews and what influenced them, specifically in the 2nd century BCE.

I did try to steer you another direction by criticizing the "limited scope of Daniel" when applied as prophecy, but as a history it fits.

Please read the Books of 1& 2 Maccabees and Jospheus- book 1 The Jewish Wars and his history of the Jews books 12 & 13.

Daniel was written during the tumultuous times before the Maccabees War and not as prophecy in Babylon. 

This is not interpreting a prophecy but is instead history written as it happened

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
[When the badge is attached

Quote:
the badge is attached to an obvious Christian, yes it implies that you (and you alone) are lying. But I think you understand that - your conscience is just seared to it.

I'm glad you dig the joke - either you're a poe and a good one or you just dig lying for Jesus. That's Ok - the creator of your religion was good at it also.

 

........you really are screwed up aren't you? Are you so devoid of decent argument that this is the best you can do? Someone stuck the badge on, I didn't request it..........for goodness sake grow up and get over it!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

Quote:
    Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt ( Adam ) and a human rib ( Eve ) ?  If not why give credence to this equally ludicrous origin of humanity ?  
 

Quote:
yes..........list your own constituents.........you'll soon get the idea. 

 

Quote:
I did not ask what humans were constituted of  but how they were created. 

no you didn't...........you said: 

 "Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt"

to which I pointed out the obvious source of empirical evidence.

Quote:
You reject "atheistic" evolution as scientifically invalid and instead prefer  your supernatural creation scenario. 

a restatement of my position does not advance your argument.

 

Quote:
Were Adam and Eve really magically created ( as adults ) by the intervening hand of God ?

yes.

 

Quote:
And you can prove this, how ?

you could prove it for yourself

 

Quote:
I suspect that scientific evidence in support of this theory is hard to come by. 

of course you do. The presumption that empirical evidence is the only sort will not help your quest but I've already pointed you to some.

Quote:
I'm still interested in seeing scientific evidence ( link ? ) that verifies that antediluvian humans frequently lived 700, 800, or almost a thousand years before dying.

 

if you were genetically stronger and lived in a hyperbaric chamber, you'd live longer too.

I'm still interested in seeing scientific evidence that a cow turned into a whale!

 

 

 

  

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:under that rock is no

Quote:

under that rock is no position from which to be speaking of  "avoidance"!

Which rock is that?

Quote:

 the one you're hiding under

 

Quote:
Really now, we have unlikely events that are not possible to occur but can in  fantasy and Sci-Fi and it is mindless blather.

So Daniel's writing is mindless blather then is that what you claim?

ok, so you have a comprehension problem.

Quote:
  Under any other circimstance, if someone claimed:

1-They could tell you the dream you can't remember.

2-Interpret it.

3-Told a story about 3 guys walking through a blast furnace and not getting injured.

4-Told a story about a hand writing on a wall with no body attached.

5-told a story about a guy that spent a night with a bunch of hungary lions and that don't eat him.

You'd buy it as real and not fantasy or BS?

it amazes me that, after so much discussion, the actual implications of the facts are apparently only just sinking in.

 

Quote:
No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.

Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.

 

Quote:
So you have no reasoned argument then.

you've been given one. The historical facts support the view that the Book of Daniel comprises authentic foretelling.

Quote:
No, I don't know if you are tempted.

if you know the point of the debate, why did you question it?

Quote:
The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.

 

 since when has "convenience" been the issue?

Quote:
I didn't ignore it, I noted you claim it was true.

Is English not your first language?

Quote:
You do agree that Nabonidus is not in Daniel.

all sorts of historical detail is not in Daniel..........so what?

 

Quote:
Still he was not "King" Belshazzar as he did not perform the New Years ceronmony for Marduk or Bel a point you ignore. He still was but the Crown Prince and not the king.

 

do you not understand the term "co-regent"? Is English not your first language?

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian answers.net]

 

Quote:
Hebrew: “Ko'resh”

This was the name of the celebrated “King of Persia” (Elam) who was conqueror of Babylon, and issued the decree of liberation to the Jews (Ezra 1:1, 2). He was the son of Cambyses, the prince of Persia, and was born about B.C. 599. In the year B.C. 559 he became king of Persia, the kingdom of Media being added to it partly by conquest. Cyrus was a great military leader, bent on universal conquest. Babylon fell before his army (B.C. 538) on the night of Belshazzar's feast (Dan. 5:30), and then the ancient dominion of Assyria was also added to his empire (cf., “Go up, O Elam”, Isa.21:2).

Hitherto the great kings of the earth had only oppressed the Jews. Cyrus was to them as a “shepherd” (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). God employed him in doing service to his ancient people. He may possibly have gained, through contact with the Jews, some knowledge of their religion.

The “first year of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1) is not the year of his elevation to power over the Medes, nor over the Persians, nor the year of the fall of Babylon, but the year succeeding the two years during which “Darius the Mede” was viceroy in Babylon after its fall. At this time only (B.C. 536) Cyrus became actual king over Palestine, which became a part of his Babylonian empire. The edict of Cyrus for the rebuilding of Jerusalem marked a great epoch in the history of the Jewish people (2 Chr. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-4; 4:3; 5:13-17; 6:3-5).

Quote:
My problem is the Darius claim in Daniel out of sequence with Cyrus. Gramps made the claim it was a general/governor though evidence is lacking and interpretations are made.

I think my above quote clarifies the situation.

Quote:
experiments in dream science have been unable to duplicate this claim. See dream science.

It is a problem from your acceptance of fantasy.

ah! you've recognised that the claims of the Bible do not concur with naturalism...........could this be progress?!

 

Quote:
Preaching is not helpful to your cause.

what do you suppose that is?

 

Quote:
It is irrational in your opinion to think one person cannot tell you your dreams which even you can't remember.

What twisted ideas you have!

you are desperately slow to recognise the straightforward implications of the Biblical framework. For some odd reason you consider that rationality is confined to naturalism. Were this so the Bible would not be true. You won't find truth by clinging to your own irrational preconceptions.

Quote:
 I have already stated these supposed prophecies are limited in scope, which both y'all agree. The scope of the nations you mention is those that affect the nation of Israel (or people as they really never have a country again until 1947).

Quote:
your case appears to be that Biblical prophecy cannot be authentic because God wasn't incorporating the whole world in the story simultaneously. This is absurd by any measure......... now how many nations have been reborn after 2000yrs?

Quote:
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

not so. Our position was that Daniel was aimed initially the Jews. The fact that prophecy was given to Nebuchadnezzer indicates that Gentiles are in the frame. The prophecies relating to the fourth kingdom and the final kingdom are clearly worldwide. This correlates with other prophecy throughout scripture. 

Quote:
The Bible claims , , ,  and to prove it a man can walk into a furnace in another Bible claim, therefore proving the 1st claim.

I see you didn't volunteeer to try this out yourself.

oh dear..........I wasn't around. Could you retain some element of maturity to the debate?

Quote:
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

please reference where I said this.

Quote:
No relationship has been shown to exist between Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar - George Roux - Ancient Iraq.

 

I've answered this.........see the Aramaic. 

Quote:
Big surprise, you buy into magic and fantasy.

Your acceptance of fantasy is 'hot air'.

"magic" is just another atheist cliche............could do better

 

Quote:
I did, see above, you claim magic and fantasy are real.

on which rational basis do you presuppose the cosmological uniformity of cause and effect and if your presupposition is correct, why is quantum unpredictability a mystery?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

 

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

Minor issues-

1-This alleged prophecy takes place in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year, and Daniel who was recently relocated as a POW or hostage is already in a trusted position. Promotion must have been very quick in those days.

2-The writer of Daniel used Chaldeans to mean the Babylonian priestly caste, though that term didn't become used that way until well into the Persian period. It was originally the group that produced Napolassar Nebuchadnezzar's daddy. It then came to mean anyone in the Babylonian Kingdom.

3-Daniel is not mentioned in any Babylonian records (or his supposed Babylonian name). They kept great records and so far nothing.

gramster wrote:

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

That was the idea wasn't it.

gramster wrote:

Quote:
2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

gramster wrote:

Quote:
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

Quote:
You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

and this:

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.

 

gramster wrote:

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Quote:
Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

only in your delusion.

23     Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Quote:
Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

are you reading a different book? 

Quote:
So, what if you are right and Rome becomes the 4th kingdom? Then there is the problem of neglecting all the other World Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and even the US empire (that's what foreigners think of us anyway) not to mention all the others you don't want to discuss, such as the USSR, Japan, Hitler's 3rd Reich who did conquer most of the Roman Empire. If we go your way, why did the writer not discuss them? Hitler certainly had an impact on the Jews.

Russia is mentioned and the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon nations which came from it.

 

gramster wrote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Quote:
Probably.

gramster wrote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.

gramster wrote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.

the next says:

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard.

 

gramster wrote:

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

gramster wrote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

2-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

 

gramster wrote:

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

I don't know where you get this was given in the end of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom as verse 1 says it was in the 3rd year of Belshazzar's reign (a reign I don't agree happened but not pertinent to your error) 

You error with this statement.

gramster wrote:

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

Yes, it is. But only one becomes larger then the other. If the empire in the 2nd kingdom you claimed was both, why have 2 horns here symbolically showing it was separate? How can a single empire be 2 different sizes? This also fits in with the 2nd empire earlier mentioned being inferior to Babylon, smaller horn. Thus this Ram represents 2 empires separately but coming from the same geographic area.

gramster wrote:

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

The goat can be Alexander's empire as the writer does say it is a king of Greece. The 4 horns are a representation by the writer of the 4 way split of his empire.

 

gramster wrote:

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Oh, you want to wait to discuss it later.

However, I'll give you an opening for you to take a shot against.

The little horn is actually Antiochus IV. Which fits perfectly with Daniel being a prophecy written after the fact, or a history.

 

Onward to search for more of your conjecture in another one of your posts.

Have fun now.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
freeminer, here is a

freeminer, here is a detailed article describing what is currently understood to be the evolutionary history of whales, which didn't evolve form cows, of course. Cows as such weren't around at the time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

An early ancestor is thought to be a wolf-like creature, described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinonyx_jiashanensis

 

Of course I don't expect you to believe or understand this, but just making sure you can't honestly claim you haven't been shown.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. We have the head

Quote:
1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

 

Quote:
2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

 

Quote:
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

Quote:
You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

and this:

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.

 

Quote:
]

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Quote:
Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

only in your delusion.

23     Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Quote:
Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

are you reading a different book? 

Quote:
So, what if you are right and Rome becomes the 4th kingdom? Then there is the problem of neglecting all the other World Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and even the US empire (that's what foreigners think of us anyway) not to mention all the others you don't want to discuss, such as the USSR, Japan, Hitler's 3rd Reich who did conquer most of the Roman Empire. If we go your way, why did the writer not discuss them? Hitler certainly had an impact on the Jews.

Russia is mentioned and the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon nations which came from it.

 

Quote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Quote:
Probably.

Quote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.

Quote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Quote:
Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.
Greece has already been identified as the kingdom following Medo-Persia. Liberal "scholars" have their own agenda......they'll have plenty of opportunity to contemplate it.

the text says:

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

Quote:

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

Quote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Quote:
Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

but we're not discussing Jewish tradition. Scholars believe that Daniel was completed circa 530 BC. Your statement thus supports its prophetic authenticity.

Quote:
-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

there is no indication whatsoever that Daniel thought this. He was told:

14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:freeminer,

Quote:

freeminer, here is a detailed article describing what is currently understood to be the evolutionary history of whales, which didn't evolve form cows, of course. Cows as such weren't around at the time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

An early ancestor is thought to be a wolf-like creature, described here:

 

 

oh!?  is it wolves this week?...........even more bizarre!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

freeminer, here is a detailed article describing what is currently understood to be the evolutionary history of whales, which didn't evolve form cows, of course. Cows as such weren't around at the time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

An early ancestor is thought to be a wolf-like creature, described here:

oh!?  is it wolves this week?...........even more bizarre!

Thank you for so clearly displaying your ignorant fuckwittedness, I couldn't have asked for a much better demonstration....

Pearls before swine...

You wouldn't know truth and logic if it bit you on the arse...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote: the

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
the badge is attached to an obvious Christian, yes it implies that you (and you alone) are lying. But I think you understand that - your conscience is just seared to it.

I'm glad you dig the joke - either you're a poe and a good one or you just dig lying for Jesus. That's Ok - the creator of your religion was good at it also.

 

........you really are screwed up aren't you? Are you so devoid of decent argument that this is the best you can do? Someone stuck the badge on, I didn't request it..........for goodness sake grow up and get over it!

I only give as good as I get. Since your prophecy argument is " It has to be a prophecy or my argument falls flat" fell flat before it started...

As for the badge, it's a question of honesty. You Christian types like to claim that Jesus is the truth you live. Time for you to "walk your talk". Does telling the truth really scare you that much?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sci Fi and Farting Around

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

~ ripped out quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

gramster wrote:

 

As for verification of the "sci-fi" stuff, I take it you are referring to the historicity of Daniel. We discussed that and found that there were some issues that were questionable, but not impossible to resolve. My position was that the proof of the authenticity of Daniel was in the fulfillment of prophecy. So that's where we are now. So let's keep the focus and not stray back until we finish examining the prophecies.

Gramps, do you not know the difference between Sci-Fi/Fantasy and historicity?

Sci-Fi/Fantasy or magic = events that are unlikely, defy observations, have no basis in the observed world, cannot be duplicated by any individual person using the same criteria.

Oxford dictionary Definitions-

Sci-Fi (science fiction)- a fiction based on imagined future worlds, showing scientific or technological changes

fantasy - n. 1. the imagining of improbable or impossible things. 2. a fanciful product of the imagination reflecting a person's desires. 3.a type of imaginative fiction involving magic & adventure.

magic - n. 1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. 2.conjuring tricks. 3. a mysterious or wonderful quality.

adj. 1. having supernatural powers. 2. informal very good.

v. 1. move or do by or as if by magic

historicity - historical actuality

historical - adj. 1. having to do with history. 2. belonging to or set in the past. 3. (of the study of a subject0 looking at its development over a period.

actuality - n. actual reality or fact, as opposed to what was intended or expected.

So Gramps when I say I don't get the Sci-Fi of Daniel in reference to claims in regard to actions, it is the action I refer to, walking into a furnace, telling a dream to someone who can't remember it, etc.

I suggest the action is improbable, magic, or fiction. You claim this equals historical actuality. Please show how.

Gramps wrote:
 

Technically, a country that arouse out of the territories of the Roman Empire could include any part of that Empire from any decade.

One of the criteria I used in picking those particular 10 is yes, they are still with us today.

Yes, my position in Daniel 7 is that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.

Germany? The first site states strongly that Germany was one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire. The second site talks about a 1st invasion of German territories?

My bad.

Germany is shown, though they were never subdued and were dropped from it by 17 CE

So, if the Romans invaded and left as they couldn't conquer & control it you still consider that part to be part of the Empire? This might also apply to areas in the far east too.

You error in including Germany as they eventually retreat and give up after several attempts to subdue the Germans, in 17 CE they finally mark the border as the Rhine. Though, it's not essential to my criticism.

See - http://www.white-history.com/hwr15.htm

How about if  they only considered an invasion but didn't as in the case of Ireland, except of course in the TV history according to Xena & Hercules where they tried.

Gramps wrote:

Whether you use the countries that I have listed, or substitute others at this point it does not matter. The point I am making now is that Rome, and only Rome fits this prophecy. I am still waiting for your substitute.

Why do I need a substitute? If the entire episode is "farting around" or meaningless why would there be a need for one?

Gramps wrote:

In examining prophecy it is important to build a solid base methodically. One can not correctly identify a later power until the earlier ones are well established. For example Rome follows "Greece". Knowing which country Rome follows is very important. If we had no idea what Empire the Roman Empire followed it would be much harder to identify.

I call this technique "puzzle piece fitting". Attempts to jam events into your perceived requirements to achieve an end you have already determined.

Gramps wrote:

For this reason we are "hung up" on establishing the Roman Empire as you claim there are many interpretations but have not yet given me one.

I am still waiting.

I'll have to go back and review this entire thread now, to see if I said this as it not something I would normally say.

1- I said the following, which only says many people interpret Daniel in various ways. I didn't say I had a substitute interpretation. As I consider it to be Apocalyptic doom saying and opinionated preaching by a fervent religious zealot intermixed with fantasy/magic claims I don't see a need to see prophecy in it. I will shortly point out more errors and misconstrued ideas though, time permitting.

PJTS post#317 wrote:

The truth is. Daniel wrote many things which are clearly open to interpretations. In your case, you accept them as they are part of the foundation that builds Christianity. The Jews however see this in a very different perspective than you. Others, whether it be atheists or believers in other religious persuasions don't see what you claim either.

2- Then I said you were banging pieces into a puzzle -

PJTS post#420 wrote:

The problem with ancient texts is translation and understanding. What you are doing is "puzzle piece fitting", as was mentioned by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword" in regard to the "healing circle". All you are showing is you can take vague descriptions which have no names associated with them and bang them into a puzzle to build your constructed proof or interpretation.

That's all I can find that even relates.

I have never claimed I hold an interpretation for the "prophecies" of Daniel other than they are not so.

I will meticulously detail and dissect your claim they are "prophecies" but you won't get a substitute interpretation, only a critique.

 

As for all the Sci-Fi stuff you keep referring to, we all know that what we are talking about is whether or not one believes in a God that is capable of doing things that people can not do or explain.

As for Germany, since it is not essential to either of our arguments I also will let this go for now.

As for discussions about prophecy being farting around, just the opposite is true. Off topic diversions and other meaningless avoidance tactics is what I refer to as farting around.

There is a big difference between analyzing identifying points and acknowledging the only power that fits, and puzzle fitting to make things fit ones own views. That is why I have made the challenge for you to come up with a substitute for Rome as the 4th power in Daniel 7. We will see if I am puzzle fitting.

I'm glad we are finally getting down to actually having something to examine.

Thank You.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

~ ripped out quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

gramster wrote:

 

As for verification of the "sci-fi" stuff, I take it you are referring to the historicity of Daniel. We discussed that and found that there were some issues that were questionable, but not impossible to resolve. My position was that the proof of the authenticity of Daniel was in the fulfillment of prophecy. So that's where we are now. So let's keep the focus and not stray back until we finish examining the prophecies.

Gramps, do you not know the difference between Sci-Fi/Fantasy and historicity?

Sci-Fi/Fantasy or magic = events that are unlikely, defy observations, have no basis in the observed world, cannot be duplicated by any individual person using the same criteria.

Oxford dictionary Definitions-

Sci-Fi (science fiction)- a fiction based on imagined future worlds, showing scientific or technological changes

fantasy - n. 1. the imagining of improbable or impossible things. 2. a fanciful product of the imagination reflecting a person's desires. 3.a type of imaginative fiction involving magic & adventure.

magic - n. 1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. 2.conjuring tricks. 3. a mysterious or wonderful quality.

adj. 1. having supernatural powers. 2. informal very good.

v. 1. move or do by or as if by magic

historicity - historical actuality

historical - adj. 1. having to do with history. 2. belonging to or set in the past. 3. (of the study of a subject0 looking at its development over a period.

actuality - n. actual reality or fact, as opposed to what was intended or expected.

So Gramps when I say I don't get the Sci-Fi of Daniel in reference to claims in regard to actions, it is the action I refer to, walking into a furnace, telling a dream to someone who can't remember it, etc.

I suggest the action is improbable, magic, or fiction. You claim this equals historical actuality. Please show how.

Gramps wrote:
 

Technically, a country that arouse out of the territories of the Roman Empire could include any part of that Empire from any decade.

One of the criteria I used in picking those particular 10 is yes, they are still with us today.

Yes, my position in Daniel 7 is that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.

Germany? The first site states strongly that Germany was one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire. The second site talks about a 1st invasion of German territories?

My bad.

Germany is shown, though they were never subdued and were dropped from it by 17 CE

So, if the Romans invaded and left as they couldn't conquer & control it you still consider that part to be part of the Empire? This might also apply to areas in the far east too.

You error in including Germany as they eventually retreat and give up after several attempts to subdue the Germans, in 17 CE they finally mark the border as the Rhine. Though, it's not essential to my criticism.

See - http://www.white-history.com/hwr15.htm

How about if  they only considered an invasion but didn't as in the case of Ireland, except of course in the TV history according to Xena & Hercules where they tried.

Gramps wrote:

Whether you use the countries that I have listed, or substitute others at this point it does not matter. The point I am making now is that Rome, and only Rome fits this prophecy. I am still waiting for your substitute.

Why do I need a substitute? If the entire episode is "farting around" or meaningless why would there be a need for one?

Gramps wrote:

In examining prophecy it is important to build a solid base methodically. One can not correctly identify a later power until the earlier ones are well established. For example Rome follows "Greece". Knowing which country Rome follows is very important. If we had no idea what Empire the Roman Empire followed it would be much harder to identify.

I call this technique "puzzle piece fitting". Attempts to jam events into your perceived requirements to achieve an end you have already determined.

Gramps wrote:

For this reason we are "hung up" on establishing the Roman Empire as you claim there are many interpretations but have not yet given me one.

I am still waiting.

I'll have to go back and review this entire thread now, to see if I said this as it not something I would normally say.

1- I said the following, which only says many people interpret Daniel in various ways. I didn't say I had a substitute interpretation. As I consider it to be Apocalyptic doom saying and opinionated preaching by a fervent religious zealot intermixed with fantasy/magic claims I don't see a need to see prophecy in it. I will shortly point out more errors and misconstrued ideas though, time permitting.

PJTS post#317 wrote:

The truth is. Daniel wrote many things which are clearly open to interpretations. In your case, you accept them as they are part of the foundation that builds Christianity. The Jews however see this in a very different perspective than you. Others, whether it be atheists or believers in other religious persuasions don't see what you claim either.

2- Then I said you were banging pieces into a puzzle -

PJTS post#420 wrote:

The problem with ancient texts is translation and understanding. What you are doing is "puzzle piece fitting", as was mentioned by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword" in regard to the "healing circle". All you are showing is you can take vague descriptions which have no names associated with them and bang them into a puzzle to build your constructed proof or interpretation.

That's all I can find that even relates.

I have never claimed I hold an interpretation for the "prophecies" of Daniel other than they are not so.

I will meticulously detail and dissect your claim they are "prophecies" but you won't get a substitute interpretation, only a critique.

 

As for all the Sci-Fi stuff you keep referring to, we all know that what we are talking about is whether or not one believes in a God that is capable of doing things that people can not do or explain.

As for Germany, since it is not essential to either of our arguments I also will let this go for now.

As for discussions about prophecy being farting around, just the opposite is true. Off topic diversions and other meaningless avoidance tactics is what I refer to as farting around.

There is a big difference between analyzing identifying points and acknowledging the only power that fits, and puzzle fitting to make things fit ones own views. That is why I have made the challenge for you to come up with a substitute for Rome as the 4th power in Daniel 7. We will see if I am puzzle fitting.

I'm glad we are finally getting down to actually having something to examine.

Thank You.

1. If "we are talking about is whether or not one believes in a God that is capable of doing things that people can not do or explain". it's already been shown that God is incapable of prophecy before we get to Daniel.

2. Then why did you bring up Germany? Were you just "farting around" as you call it?

3. Yes there is a difference. Rome is not the only power that fits - The Seleucids fit snugly as well (as has been shown to you repeatedly). Why are you asking for further repetition? More of your farting around?

4. It's always been there - glad you got around to looking at it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
You Always had something to Examine

 

Why do you need someone else's view or critique?

You always could have gone through and explained how you view the Book of Daniel. You have never needed anyone to battle.

Just because I have decided to discuss your view doesn't mean that you have gained anything more than my attention for a bit.

I wanted to see your position on the unlikely events and actions and why you accepted them before commenting on your views. I had to virtually drag that out of you.

Comment in regard to editing and format:

I realize you have problems in keeping the format easy to read, based on the problems you had earlier. It is a good idea to try to keep it clear who is saying what so that viewers can tell what one person says versus the other. It is very confusing the way you quote and post to a causal onlooker. Please take more time in formatting and editing to keep it clear.

Thanks.

 

 

 


 

gramster wrote:

 

As for verification of the "sci-fi" stuff, I take it you are referring to the historicity of Daniel. We discussed that and found that there were some issues that were questionable, but not impossible to resolve. My position was that the proof of the authenticity of Daniel was in the fulfillment of prophecy. So that's where we are now. So let's keep the focus and not stray back until we finish examining the prophecies.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gramps, do you not know the difference between Sci-Fi/Fantasy and historicity?

Sci-Fi/Fantasy or magic = events that are unlikely, defy observations, have no basis in the observed world, cannot be duplicated by any individual person using the same criteria.

Oxford dictionary Definitions-

Sci-Fi (science fiction)- a fiction based on imagined future worlds, showing scientific or technological changes

fantasy - n. 1. the imagining of improbable or impossible things. 2. a fanciful product of the imagination reflecting a person's desires. 3.a type of imaginative fiction involving magic & adventure.

magic - n. 1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. 2.conjuring tricks. 3. a mysterious or wonderful quality.

adj. 1. having supernatural powers. 2. informal very good.

v. 1. move or do by or as if by magic

historicity - historical actuality

historical - adj. 1. having to do with history. 2. belonging to or set in the past. 3. (of the study of a subject0 looking at its development over a period.

actuality - n. actual reality or fact, as opposed to what was intended or expected.

So Gramps when I say I don't get the Sci-Fi of Daniel in reference to claims in regard to actions, it is the action I refer to, walking into a furnace, telling a dream to someone who can't remember it, etc.

I suggest the action is improbable, magic, or fiction. You claim this equals historical actuality. Please show how.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gramps wrote:
 

Technically, a country that arouse out of the territories of the Roman Empire could include any part of that Empire from any decade.

One of the criteria I used in picking those particular 10 is yes, they are still with us today.

Yes, my position in Daniel 7 is that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.

Germany? The first site states strongly that Germany was one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire. The second site talks about a 1st invasion of German territories?

My bad.

Germany is shown, though they were never subdued and were dropped from it by 17 CE

So, if the Romans invaded and left as they couldn't conquer & control it you still consider that part to be part of the Empire? This might also apply to areas in the far east too.

You error in including Germany as they eventually retreat and give up after several attempts to subdue the Germans, in 17 CE they finally mark the border as the Rhine. Though, it's not essential to my criticism.

See - http://www.white-history.com/hwr15.htm

How about if  they only considered an invasion but didn't as in the case of Ireland, except of course in the TV history according to Xena & Hercules where they tried.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gramps wrote:

Whether you use the countries that I have listed, or substitute others at this point it does not matter. The point I am making now is that Rome, and only Rome fits this prophecy. I am still waiting for your substitute.

Why do I need a substitute? If the entire episode is "farting around" or meaningless why would there be a need for one?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gramps wrote:

In examining prophecy it is important to build a solid base methodically. One can not correctly identify a later power until the earlier ones are well established. For example Rome follows "Greece". Knowing which country Rome follows is very important. If we had no idea what Empire the Roman Empire followed it would be much harder to identify.

I call this technique "puzzle piece fitting". Attempts to jam events into your perceived requirements to achieve an end you have already determined.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gramps wrote:

For this reason we are "hung up" on establishing the Roman Empire as you claim there are many interpretations but have not yet given me one.

I am still waiting.

 

I'll have to go back and review this entire thread now, to see if I said this as it not something I would normally say.

1- I said the following, which only says many people interpret Daniel in various ways. I didn't say I had a substitute interpretation. As I consider it to be Apocalyptic doom saying and opinionated preaching by a fervent religious zealot intermixed with fantasy/magic claims I don't see a need to see prophecy in it. I will shortly point out more errors and misconstrued ideas though, time permitting.

PJTS post#317 wrote:

The truth is. Daniel wrote many things which are clearly open to interpretations. In your case, you accept them as they are part of the foundation that builds Christianity. The Jews however see this in a very different perspective than you. Others, whether it be atheists or believers in other religious persuasions don't see what you claim either.

2- Then I said you were banging pieces into a puzzle -

PJTS post#420 wrote:

The problem with ancient texts is translation and understanding. What you are doing is "puzzle piece fitting", as was mentioned by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword" in regard to the "healing circle". All you are showing is you can take vague descriptions which have no names associated with them and bang them into a puzzle to build your constructed proof or interpretation.

That's all I can find that even relates.

I have never claimed I hold an interpretation for the "prophecies" of Daniel other than they are not so.

I will meticulously detail and dissect your claim they are "prophecies" but you won't get a substitute interpretation, only a critique.

 

 

gramster wrote:

As for all the Sci-Fi stuff you keep referring to, we all know that what we are talking about is whether or not one believes in a God that is capable of doing things that people can not do or explain.

As for Germany, since it is not essential to either of our arguments I also will let this go for now.

As for discussions about prophecy being farting around, just the opposite is true. Off topic diversions and other meaningless avoidance tactics is what I refer to as farting around.

There is a big difference between analyzing identifying points and acknowledging the only power that fits, and puzzle fitting to make things fit ones own views. That is why I have made the challenge for you to come up with a substitute for Rome as the 4th power in Daniel 7. We will see if I am puzzle fitting.

I'm glad we are finally getting down to actually having something to examine.

Thank You.

1-Yes, the Sci-Fi refers to the unlikely events discussed by the writer which you attribute to a god. When something is claimed that is unlikely to occur and cannot be repeated by someone else using the same criteria it should be held suspect until shown to have any possibility. That's not what I see from you. I see you claiming it is the work of the god and show nothing to back it up other than interpreting the writing by the same writer. You claim this writer can see the future from his perspective in either the 6th or 2nd century BCE. Yet, you can't even determine what was really going on at the time and speculate over the text and take a position only to build up your understanding. Instead of doing that, material that is in conflict should not be used, yet you do.

2-OK, Germany is out of the discussion.

3-My perspective is what you say is "prophecy" isn't one. I look at the writing to first see if there are claimed actions that defy understanding. Then I examine those claims. You have shown you don't want to do this but want instead to go into the supposed "prophecy".

It's your thread.

4-It comes down to are you trying to achieve an end that you have predetermined, that is: Daniel predicted the messiah and the "latter days" ? Remember, this is supposed to be about the Jews as you  so adamantly have said. Keep that in mind as why would a 2nd century BCE writer discuss something that had no relevance to his people at all?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:  Quote: 

freeminer wrote:

 

 

Quote:
  Under any other circimstance, if someone claimed:

1-They could tell you the dream you can't remember.

2-Interpret it.

3-Told a story about 3 guys walking through a blast furnace and not getting injured.

4-Told a story about a hand writing on a wall with no body attached.

5-told a story about a guy that spent a night with a bunch of hungary lions and that don't eat him.

You'd buy it as real and not fantasy or BS?

it amazes me that, after so much discussion, the actual implications of the facts are apparently only just sinking in.

That you are a fanatical Christian.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.

Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.

 

Quote:
So you have no reasoned argument then.

you've been given one. The historical facts support the view that the Book of Daniel comprises authentic foretelling.

No.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.

 

 since when has "convenience" been the issue?

Seems to be your method.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You do agree that Nabonidus is not in Daniel.

all sorts of historical detail is not in Daniel..........so what?

It detracts from your claim is what.

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Still he was not "King" Belshazzar as he did not perform the New Years ceronmony for Marduk or Bel a point you ignore. He still was but the Crown Prince and not the king.

 

do you not understand the term "co-regent"? Is English not your first language?

Do you not understand he didn't perform the New Years Festival and what that means?

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian answers.net]

I know you do.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
experiments in dream science have been unable to duplicate this claim. See dream science.

It is a problem from your acceptance of fantasy.

ah! you've recognised that the claims of the Bible do not concur with naturalism...........could this be progress?!

That you see fantasy as real. I could tell that from your first post in this thread.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Preaching is not helpful to your cause.

what do you suppose that is?

 

Because you haven't finished the course on giving sermons yet . . .  is it next semester?

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
It is irrational in your opinion to think one person cannot tell you your dreams which even you can't remember.

What twisted ideas you have!

you are desperately slow to recognise the straightforward implications of the Biblical framework. For some odd reason you consider that rationality is confined to naturalism. Were this so the Bible would not be true. You won't find truth by clinging to your own irrational preconceptions.

You won't frind truth at all with a basis in a book of misconceptions.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

not so. Our position was that Daniel was aimed initially the Jews. The fact that prophecy was given to Nebuchadnezzer indicates that Gentiles are in the frame. The prophecies relating to the fourth kingdom and the final kingdom are clearly worldwide. This correlates with other prophecy throughout scripture.

Babylon was in the frame as it affects the Jews. Taking this worldwide when it was not the likely intention of the 2nd century BCE writer is pure waywardness on your part.

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

please reference where I said this.

freeminer post 490 wrote:
 

 

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

 

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

 

you appear to be arguing with yourself.

If I'm arguing with myself you must agree the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's madness was about Nabonidus. And you further agree it was the Marduk priests that spread the rumor.

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
So Much for you deferring to Gramps

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

 

Quote:
2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

 

Quote:
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

Quote:
You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

and this:

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.

 

Quote:
]

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Quote:
Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

only in your delusion.

23     Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Quote:
Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

are you reading a different book? 

Quote:
So, what if you are right and Rome becomes the 4th kingdom? Then there is the problem of neglecting all the other World Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and even the US empire (that's what foreigners think of us anyway) not to mention all the others you don't want to discuss, such as the USSR, Japan, Hitler's 3rd Reich who did conquer most of the Roman Empire. If we go your way, why did the writer not discuss them? Hitler certainly had an impact on the Jews.

Russia is mentioned and the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon nations which came from it.

 

Quote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Quote:
Probably.

Quote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.

Quote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Quote:
Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.
Greece has already been identified as the kingdom following Medo-Persia. Liberal "scholars" have their own agenda......they'll have plenty of opportunity to contemplate it.

the text says:

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

Quote:

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

Quote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Quote:
Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

but we're not discussing Jewish tradition. Scholars believe that Daniel was completed circa 530 BC. Your statement thus supports its prophetic authenticity.

Quote:
-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

there is no indication whatsoever that Daniel thought this. He was told:

14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

 

 

This post was addressed to Gramps.

Out of courtesy you said you'd let him develop his argument.

So before he can address my response to him, you jump on it.

I'll wait until he responds  before I come back to address your comments.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: the text

freeminer wrote:

the text says:

 

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

I have been attempting to follow along this disussion.  It hasn't been easy.  But I have to ask - where is the word "Greece" in the above excerpt?  You assume it is Greece, I get that.  But how does leopard mean Greece? 

 

wikipedia wrote:

Leopards have been known to humans since prehistory and have featured in the art, mythology and folklore of many countries where they have historically occurred, such as ancient Greece, Persia and Rome, as well as some where they have not existed for several millennia, such as England

 

So why can't your excerpt refer to Persia or Rome?

Miner and Gramps have been going on about how they "believe" it means this or that.  So where is the evidence you have for your interpretation?  Why do you believe?  Because otherwise it means the bible is bull?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
cj,Apparently the leopard

cj,

Apparently the leopard connects to Greece through Dionysus. He had a chariot drawn by leopards and they were sacred to him (as were the donkey, the lion, the serpent and the wild bull).

That's most likely how the connection was originally forged. One myth supporting another?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:cj,Apparently

jcgadfly wrote:

cj,

Apparently the leopard connects to Greece through Dionysus. He had a chariot drawn by leopards and they were sacred to him (as were the donkey, the lion, the serpent and the wild bull).

That's most likely how the connection was originally forged. One myth supporting another?

 

Yeah, I saw that reference.  So why isn't it Persia or Rome if they also had mythical references to said leopard?  Or one of the African nations that have even stronger leonine mythology?  And yes, the people of the bible knew about Africans.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the text says: 17

Quote:

the text says:

 

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

Quote:
I have been attempting to follow along this disussion.  It hasn't been easy.  But I have to ask - where is the word "Greece" in the above excerpt?  You assume it is Greece, I get that.  But how does leopard mean Greece? 

hi!....... because Daniel 8 identifies kingdoms 2 and 3 in order:

 

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

It is also explicit that the "four kingdoms" emerge from Greece. There is thus no doubt as to their identity either.

wikipedia wrote:

Leopards have been known to humans since prehistory and have featured in the art, mythology and folklore of many countries where they have historically occurred, such as ancient Greece, Persia and Rome, as well as some where they have not existed for several millennia, such as England

 

Quote:
So why can't your excerpt refer to Persia or Rome?

because this:

 5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

clearly identifies the goat of Greece following on directly from the ram of Medo-Persia. ie as the third kingdom. And this:

 

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

 

identifies the leopard as the third kingdom.

 

Quote:
Miner and Gramps have been going on about how they "believe" it means this or that.  So where is the evidence you have for your interpretation?  Why do you believe?  Because otherwise it means the bible is bull?

I don't recall having used the word "believe" at any point. I regard the issue as simply one of rational exegesis. Daniel is not discussing eight or three earthly kingdoms but four!  On the one hand Paul has asserted that scripture is "fantasy" [ie he has dismissed its claim to rationality] and on the other hand refuses to apply rationality to scripture himself.

With regard to evidence - we have posted historical evidence authenticating the veracity of scriptural prophecy.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This post was

Quote:
This post was addressed to Gramps.

Out of courtesy you said you'd let him develop his argument.

So before he can address my response to him, you jump on it.

I'll wait until he responds  before I come back to address your comments.

 

it's odd how people get particular about the issue of replying to posts not addressed to one at very specific points. This is an open forum - get over it. What I said was that I would stay clear of an exposition of end times prophecy.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:  Under any other

 

Quote:
  Under any other circimstance, if someone claimed:

1-They could tell you the dream you can't remember.

2-Interpret it.

3-Told a story about 3 guys walking through a blast furnace and not getting injured.

4-Told a story about a hand writing on a wall with no body attached.

5-told a story about a guy that spent a night with a bunch of hungary lions and that don't eat him.

You'd buy it as real and not fantasy or BS?

it amazes me that, after so much discussion, the actual implications of the facts are apparently only just sinking in.

Quote:
That you are a fanatical Christian.

people have said worse!

Quote:
No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.

Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.

 

Quote:
So you have no reasoned argument then.

Quote:
you've been given one. The historical facts support the view that the Book of Daniel comprises authentic foretelling.

Quote:
No.

you avoid putting up a paradigm of your own.......your beginnings of an attempt at this conspicuously fail the rationality test. You now attempt to excuse yourself totally, though goodness knows on what grounds! You may care to ponder the absurdity of critiquing the Biblical position while totally unable to replace it.

 

Quote:
The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.

 

 since when has "convenience" been the issue?

Quote:
Seems to be your method.

my "method" is to analyse the text on the basis of rationality and coherence. Who knows what yours is.

Quote:
You do agree that Nabonidus is not in Daniel.

Quote:
all sorts of historical detail is not in Daniel..........so what?

Quote:
It detracts from your claim is what.

how so? Here's a statement:

"Paulthesceptic posted on RRS in 2010."

Does the fact that I don't know any number of things about you, detract from the truth of this statement?

The Bible claims to make true statements not exhaustive ones.

Quote:
Still he was not "King" Belshazzar as he did not perform the New Years ceronmony for Marduk or Bel a point you ignore. He still was but the Crown Prince and not the king.

Quote:
do you not understand the term "co-regent"? Is English not your first language?

Quote:
Do you not understand he didn't perform the New Years Festival and what that means?

post your evidence.

 

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian answers.net]

Quote:
I know you do.

 avoidance

Quote:
experiments in dream science have been unable to duplicate this claim. See dream science.

It is a problem from your acceptance of fantasy.

Quote:
ah! you've recognised that the claims of the Bible do not concur with naturalism...........could this be progress?!

Quote:
That you see fantasy as real. I could tell that from your first post in this thread.

put up your evidence for the uniformity of naturalism.

Quote:
Preaching is not helpful to your cause.

what do you suppose that is?

Quote:
Because you haven't finished the course on giving sermons yet . . .  is it next semester?

hot air will not make your case.

Quote:
It is irrational in your opinion to think one person cannot tell you your dreams which even you can't remember.

What twisted ideas you have!

Quote:
you are desperately slow to recognise the straightforward implications of the Biblical framework. For some odd reason you consider that rationality is confined to naturalism. Were this so the Bible would not be true. You won't find truth by clinging to your own irrational preconceptions.

Quote:
You won't frind truth at all with a basis in a book of misconceptions.

whether or not it is a book of misconceptions is the issue under examination..........so far you're flailing around.

Quote:
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

not so. Our position was that Daniel was aimed initially the Jews. The fact that prophecy was given to Nebuchadnezzer indicates that Gentiles are in the frame. The prophecies relating to the fourth kingdom and the final kingdom are clearly worldwide. This correlates with other prophecy throughout scripture.

Quote:
Babylon was in the frame as it affects the Jews. Taking this worldwide when it was not the likely intention of the 2nd century BCE writer is pure waywardness on your part.

thank you.........very perceptive of you. The very fact that a worldwide view would not have been Daniel's natural concern, of itself supports the Biblical claim to authentic, divinely inspired foretelling.

 

Quote:
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

please reference where I said this.

 

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

 

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

 

Quote:
you appear to be arguing with yourself.

Quote:
If I'm arguing with myself you must agree the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's madness was about Nabonidus. And you further agree it was the Marduk priests that spread the rumor.

non sequiter.  My comment merely indicates that I regard your assertion as spurious. Whether or not Nabonidus was mad or merely said to be, bears no relationship to the Biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar's  affliction. The issue is simply a desperate red herring of your making.

 

 

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:This

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
This post was addressed to Gramps.

Out of courtesy you said you'd let him develop his argument.

So before he can address my response to him, you jump on it.

I'll wait until he responds  before I come back to address your comments.

 

it's odd how people get particular about the issue of replying to posts not addressed to one at very specific points. This is an open forum - get over it. What I said was that I would stay clear of an exposition of end times prophecy.

 

What you said was:

Freeminer Post #369 wrote:
. . . .  We now have four ongoing conversations packed into this thread and at least two are off-topic. This seems unfair to gramps who initiated it. I guess it might just about sustain ours as it is at least directly related but I will avoid getting into 'last days' prophecy

What Gramps is doing is using his  Daniel interpretations to go into the end days prophecy. His whole point in the Daniel discussion is it is prophetic verification. His thread has gone hither & thither thanks to both of us. It is only fair that he should continue with his development first and respond.

Don't worry, I'll come back for you.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: you avoid

freeminer wrote:

 

you avoid putting up a paradigm of your own.......your beginnings of an attempt at this conspicuously fail the rationality test. You now attempt to excuse yourself totally, though goodness knows on what grounds! You may care to ponder the absurdity of critiquing the Biblical position while totally unable to replace it.

As the Bibilical position is no more than written claims it has as much validity as the"Mission Earth" series by L Ron.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.

 

freeminer wrote:

 since when has "convenience" been the issue?

Quote:
Seems to be your method.

my "method" is to analyse the text on the basis of rationality and coherence. Who knows what yours is.

If you analyze L Ron's Sci-Fi you can also see rationality & coherence, but it was intended as fiction and as satire.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You do agree that Nabonidus is not in Daniel.

Quote:
all sorts of historical detail is not in Daniel..........so what?

Quote:
It detracts from your claim is what.

how so? Here's a statement:

"Paulthesceptic posted on RRS in 2010."

Does the fact that I don't know any number of things about you, detract from the truth of this statement?

The Bible claims to make true statements not exhaustive ones.

Quote:
Still he was not "King" Belshazzar as he did not perform the New Years ceronmony for Marduk or Bel a point you ignore. He still was but the Crown Prince and not the king.

Quote:
do you not understand the term "co-regent"? Is English not your first language?

Quote:
Do you not understand he didn't perform the New Years Festival and what that means?

post your evidence.

I have several times. See the Nabonidus Chronicles

"Seventh year (549/548): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the [New Year's] ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; the image of the god Nabû did not come to Babylon, the image of the god Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida were given according to the complete ritual; the urigallu-priest made the libation and asperged the temple."

And when he returned - "Seventeenth year (539/538): Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he made a libation of wine. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]."

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian answers.net]

Quote:
I know you do.

 avoidance

On your part.

Previously with Gramps I detailed the differences in the Cyrus Cylinder,

"he searched everywhere and then he took a righteous king, his favorite, by the hand, he called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anšan; he pronounced his name to be king all over the world."

"He ordered him to go to his city Babylon. He set him on the road to Babylon and like a companion and a friend, he went at his side. His vast army, whose number, like water of the river, cannot be known, marched at his side fully armed. He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands. "

"I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, the son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anšan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anšan, of an eternal line of kingship, whose rule Bêl and Nabu love, whose kingship they desire fot their hearts' pleasure. When I entered Babylon in a peaceful manner,"

"The people of Babylon blessed my kingship, and I settled all the lands in peaceful abodes."

 

The Behistun inscriptions,

"I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid."

Darius became king after the usurper Gaumata claiming to be Cambyses brother Smerdis was killed.

 

and the Nabonidus Chronicles, see above.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Preaching is not helpful to your cause.

what do you suppose that is?

Quote:
Because you haven't finished the course on giving sermons yet . . .  is it next semester?

hot air will not make your case.

Neither will praying to a human construct.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
It is irrational in your opinion to think one person cannot tell you your dreams which even you can't remember.

What twisted ideas you have!

Quote:
you are desperately slow to recognise the straightforward implications of the Biblical framework. For some odd reason you consider that rationality is confined to naturalism. Were this so the Bible would not be true. You won't find truth by clinging to your own irrational preconceptions.

Quote:
You won't frind truth at all with a basis in a book of misconceptions.

whether or not it is a book of misconceptions is the issue under examination..........so far you're flailing around.

You are welcome to your opinions and delusions.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

not so. Our position was that Daniel was aimed initially the Jews. The fact that prophecy was given to Nebuchadnezzer indicates that Gentiles are in the frame. The prophecies relating to the fourth kingdom and the final kingdom are clearly worldwide. This correlates with other prophecy throughout scripture.

Quote:
Babylon was in the frame as it affects the Jews. Taking this worldwide when it was not the likely intention of the 2nd century BCE writer is pure waywardness on your part.

thank you.........very perceptive of you. The very fact that a worldwide view would not have been Daniel's natural concern, of itself supports the Biblical claim to authentic, divinely inspired foretelling.

 

Quote:
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

please reference where I said this.

 

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

 

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

 

Quote:
you appear to be arguing with yourself.

Quote:
If I'm arguing with myself you must agree the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's madness was about Nabonidus. And you further agree it was the Marduk priests that spread the rumor.

non sequiter.  My comment merely indicates that I regard your assertion as spurious. Whether or not Nabonidus was mad or merely said to be, bears no relationship to the Biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar's  affliction. The issue is simply a desperate red herring of your making.

  

Since you respond with snarky comments that don't address what is asked what do you expect. How can one tell for sure what you position actually meant from your comment.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The Seleucid Empire and Antichus IV

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Now we will take a closer look at the little horn of Daniel 7. This power will help to verify the powers above. It will also help us to understand the other prophecies going forward that take us down to the "times of the end" as promised in the book of Daniel.

Since you have a magnet next to your compass you are sailing the wrong direction.

gramster wrote:

There are 8 identifying marks for this power. We will examine them all.

1. It rose up out of the 4th beast, 8:24.

2. It appeared after the 10 other horns, 8:24.

3. It started small and became big, 8:20.

4. Three of the 10 horns would be "plucked up by the roots" to allow it's rise, 8:24.

5. It would have "eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and speak "words against the most high", 8:25.

6. It would "wear out the saints of the most high", 8:25.

7. It would "think to change times and laws".

8. It would be allotted special power for "a time, two times, and half a time", 8:25.

So you quote the verses and don't discuss them. What's with that?

Plus, shouldn't these verses be from Daniel 7 not 8? You have 8:24 and it should be 7:24, 8:20 and it should be 7:20 .....

Instead how about:

1- It rose up out of the 4th beast - Yeah, the guy I'm thinking about was a Seleucid.

2-Yeah, he appeared after the 10 I mentioned.

3-He was the brother of the king and not directly in line for secession, but a little murder and intrigue was all it took.

4-Seleucus IV is poisoned by Heliodorus who had designs on the throne. He is killed by intrigue of Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV. The next heir would have been Demetrius but he is held hostage in Rome. The infant son of Seleucus was too young to rule and is killed in 170 BCE.

5-Antiochus IV was pretty much the "devil in disguise" as far as the Jews were concerned. He tried to Hellenize them. He set up an altar to Zeus in the Temple. He banned their religion.

6-Antiochus persecuted the Jews, he burned the Torah scrolls, sometimes with the offending Jew. He killed infants that had been circumcised along with their mothers, hanging the dead infant around the mothers neck. He killed priests including Onias which is what is described in Daniel 8:10-11, and in some verses in chap 9 as well as in chap 11.

7-Antiochus banned the practice of the Jewish religion, circumcision, banned the Torah scrolls, burning them and anyone found with them.

8-He was successful for a time.

gramster wrote:

The mighty Roman Empire wasn't conquered by another rising empire like the kingdoms before it. It deteriorated slowly and broke apart into many divisions. Many of these became familiar nations that we have with us yet today. Yet Daniel 7 speaks of a "little horn" power that was to arise from all of this and become great.

As pagan Rome was in the process of decline, the holy Roman Empire was just coming on the scene. It started small, and with time became quite powerful. We have 8 points of identification for this little horn. These 8 points of identification can only refer to this power. No other power on earth fits these 8 points. We will examine each of these 8 points in detail to see how well they fit. 

You need to move that magnet away from your compass. Remove the pieces you jammed into the puzzle and remember Daniel was writing about the Jews and what influenced them, specifically in the 2nd century BCE.

I did try to steer you another direction by criticizing the "limited scope of Daniel" when applied as prophecy, but as a history it fits.

Please read the Books of 1& 2 Maccabees and Jospheus- book 1 The Jewish Wars and his history of the Jews books 12 & 13.

Daniel was written during the tumultuous times before the Maccabees War and not as prophecy in Babylon. 

This is not interpreting a prophecy but is instead history written as it happened

 

It seems most logical to me that if one is seeking to avoid "puzzle fitting" it would make more sense to first examine the book as it claims to be "prophecy" rather than try to make it something else "history as it happened".

The book of Daniel makes it sufficiently clear that this book contains prophecies of "future events", and the "last days" or "time of the end". It does not even hint that it is about current events at the time of writing.

I will have to overlook these obvious errors and the absurd idea that a 2nd century writer authored this book, documenting current events in a manner that claims to be prophetic, and in doing so was not being deceptive.

That being said we will take a look at your kingdoms.

First, you believe the Seleucid Empire was the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7.

Second, you believe that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the little horn.

I will agree that Antiochus IV was a "nasty little bugger", and did a lot of horrible things to the Jews. I will also agree, assuming that the Seleucid Empire was the 4th kingdom that the first six points of identification can be made to fit.

The last two points I do not see how they fit. That would be that he "will seek to change the times and the law", and that the saints would be "given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time".

As for the time factor, Antiochus IV ruled over the Jews from about 175 to 163 BC. As you pointed out in 169 BC he plundered the temple, and in 168 BC he set up the pagan god Zeus Olympius in the temple. you also pointed out that in December 165 BC The alter of the temple was rededicated.

A time, two times, and half a time translates to 2 1/2 literal years, or 1260 prophetic years (using a day for a year).

175 to 163 BC comes out to about 12 literal years. This is nowhere close to fitting the time element.

169 BC or 168 BC to 165 BC both come out to at least 3 years since the 165 BC date is in December. That also doesn't work.

Thus Antiochus seems to be a square peg that is attempting to be driven into a round hole.

This, along with the fact that your interpretation has nothing to do with the later days makes this kind of hard to swallow.

I will now make my case about the identity of the little horn.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The little horn of Daniel 7.

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

Since in this prophecy, the little horn is found to be persecuting the "saints of the most high", and the Jews have rejected their Messiah, it seems reasonable that these prophecies could be referring to "those who have faith in Jesus", or Christians.

I believe that this little horn is referring to what is sometimes referred to as Papal Rome, or the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This power fits all of the identifying points in Daniel 7, and this interpretation also takes us down into modern times and extend to the time of the end.

Furthermore this prophecy fits into the claims made by the book that it is prophetic, and about events at that time future. It does not try to "force" a whole different and conflicting interpretation.

We will continue by examining point by point to see if my interpretation is a proper fit.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:the

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

the text says:

 

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

Quote:
I have been attempting to follow along this disussion.  It hasn't been easy.  But I have to ask - where is the word "Greece" in the above excerpt?  You assume it is Greece, I get that.  But how does leopard mean Greece? 

hi!....... because Daniel 8 identifies kingdoms 2 and 3 in order:

 

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

It is also explicit that the "four kingdoms" emerge from Greece. There is thus no doubt as to their identity either.

wikipedia wrote:

Leopards have been known to humans since prehistory and have featured in the art, mythology and folklore of many countries where they have historically occurred, such as ancient Greece, Persia and Rome, as well as some where they have not existed for several millennia, such as England

 

Quote:
So why can't your excerpt refer to Persia or Rome?

because this:

 5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

clearly identifies the goat of Greece following on directly from the ram of Medo-Persia. ie as the third kingdom. And this:

 

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, 'Get up and eat your fill of flesh!'

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

 

identifies the leopard as the third kingdom.

 

Quote:
Miner and Gramps have been going on about how they "believe" it means this or that.  So where is the evidence you have for your interpretation?  Why do you believe?  Because otherwise it means the bible is bull?

I don't recall having used the word "believe" at any point. I regard the issue as simply one of rational exegesis. Daniel is not discussing eight or three earthly kingdoms but four!  On the one hand Paul has asserted that scripture is "fantasy" [ie he has dismissed its claim to rationality] and on the other hand refuses to apply rationality to scripture himself.

With regard to evidence - we have posted historical evidence authenticating the veracity of scriptural prophecy.

 

The first bible quote - verses 20-22 - say Greece is the goat.

The second quote does not mention Greece, but talks about a ram and a goat.

The third quote does not mention Greece, but talks about a bear and a winged leopard. 

So how did you get from goat to leopard?  And why should I take your interpretation as <ahem> gospel truth?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Now we will take a closer look at the little horn of Daniel 7. This power will help to verify the powers above. It will also help us to understand the other prophecies going forward that take us down to the "times of the end" as promised in the book of Daniel.

Since you have a magnet next to your compass you are sailing the wrong direction.

gramster wrote:

There are 8 identifying marks for this power. We will examine them all.

1. It rose up out of the 4th beast, 8:24.

2. It appeared after the 10 other horns, 8:24.

3. It started small and became big, 8:20.

4. Three of the 10 horns would be "plucked up by the roots" to allow it's rise, 8:24.

5. It would have "eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and speak "words against the most high", 8:25.

6. It would "wear out the saints of the most high", 8:25.

7. It would "think to change times and laws".

8. It would be allotted special power for "a time, two times, and half a time", 8:25.

So you quote the verses and don't discuss them. What's with that?

Plus, shouldn't these verses be from Daniel 7 not 8? You have 8:24 and it should be 7:24, 8:20 and it should be 7:20 .....

Instead how about:

1- It rose up out of the 4th beast - Yeah, the guy I'm thinking about was a Seleucid.

2-Yeah, he appeared after the 10 I mentioned.

3-He was the brother of the king and not directly in line for secession, but a little murder and intrigue was all it took.

4-Seleucus IV is poisoned by Heliodorus who had designs on the throne. He is killed by intrigue of Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV. The next heir would have been Demetrius but he is held hostage in Rome. The infant son of Seleucus was too young to rule and is killed in 170 BCE.

5-Antiochus IV was pretty much the "devil in disguise" as far as the Jews were concerned. He tried to Hellenize them. He set up an altar to Zeus in the Temple. He banned their religion.

6-Antiochus persecuted the Jews, he burned the Torah scrolls, sometimes with the offending Jew. He killed infants that had been circumcised along with their mothers, hanging the dead infant around the mothers neck. He killed priests including Onias which is what is described in Daniel 8:10-11, and in some verses in chap 9 as well as in chap 11.

7-Antiochus banned the practice of the Jewish religion, circumcision, banned the Torah scrolls, burning them and anyone found with them.

8-He was successful for a time.

gramster wrote:

The mighty Roman Empire wasn't conquered by another rising empire like the kingdoms before it. It deteriorated slowly and broke apart into many divisions. Many of these became familiar nations that we have with us yet today. Yet Daniel 7 speaks of a "little horn" power that was to arise from all of this and become great.

As pagan Rome was in the process of decline, the holy Roman Empire was just coming on the scene. It started small, and with time became quite powerful. We have 8 points of identification for this little horn. These 8 points of identification can only refer to this power. No other power on earth fits these 8 points. We will examine each of these 8 points in detail to see how well they fit. 

You need to move that magnet away from your compass. Remove the pieces you jammed into the puzzle and remember Daniel was writing about the Jews and what influenced them, specifically in the 2nd century BCE.

I did try to steer you another direction by criticizing the "limited scope of Daniel" when applied as prophecy, but as a history it fits.

Please read the Books of 1& 2 Maccabees and Jospheus- book 1 The Jewish Wars and his history of the Jews books 12 & 13.

Daniel was written during the tumultuous times before the Maccabees War and not as prophecy in Babylon. 

This is not interpreting a prophecy but is instead history written as it happened

 

It seems most logical to me that if one is seeking to avoid "puzzle fitting" it would make more sense to first examine the book as it claims to be "prophecy" rather than try to make it something else "history as it happened".

The book of Daniel makes it sufficiently clear that this book contains prophecies of "future events", and the "last days" or "time of the end". It does not even hint that it is about current events at the time of writing.

I will have to overlook these obvious errors and the absurd idea that a 2nd century writer authored this book, documenting current events in a manner that claims to be prophetic, and in doing so was not being deceptive.

Since you don't appear to be a catholic I imagine you have not read 1 & 2 Maccabees. You should though as they pertain to the subject under discussion. Next you should read the work of Josephus I mentioned earlier. See - http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm Read at least the Jewish Wars Book 1 and the Antiquties of the Jews books 11 & 12.

Since Jeshua ben Sira  does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes in his work some suspicion Daniel was not wriiten by that point is in order. See Sirach 44:1-50:29 which was written before 175 BCE.

See Sirach KJV version - http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvSira.html or PDF version with notes - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/30-sirach-nets.pdf

 

1-Was Daniel so unimportant that ben Sira failed to mention him?

2-Or did the Book of Daniel not yet exist.

Next, Daniel was written in Primarily Aramaic, which was NOT the language used in the 6th century by the Jews but was in the 2nd century BCE.

I read a book about 25 years ago when I attended a Jesuit University for my graduate degree called Ezekiel & Daniel with Notes by the Rev Henry Cowles, 1867. You might find it interesting.

At this point, I will refer you to  pp 371 to 391 where the pastor discredits your Papal Rome view and goes into great detail suggesting it was Antiochus IV.

You may want to read all of his notes on Daniel 7 & 8, pp 339 to 391. 

I found 2 online versions for you - google books - Henry Cowles - Ezekiel & Daniel or Archives.org - http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich - which you can either download the PDF or view online. See the left side of the page to do either. The second link's version is easier to view or download, Both are free.

gramster wrote:

That being said we will take a look at your kingdoms.

First, you believe the Seleucid Empire was the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7.

Second, you believe that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the little horn.

I will agree that Antiochus IV was a "nasty little bugger", and did a lot of horrible things to the Jews. I will also agree, assuming that the Seleucid Empire was the 4th kingdom that the first six points of identification can be made to fit.

Good start.

gramster wrote:

The last two points I do not see how they fit. That would be that he "will seek to change the times and the law", and that the saints would be "given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time".

I refer you to the Rev Henry Cowles above, who does a very good job of showing what  I told you.

Also this site - http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/antioc1.html the author considers Antiochus to be the little horn and prophesied by Daniel but claims it was foretold, a point I don't share. I think it was history.

 

7-He clearly sought to change the times & the law for the Jews - Read Josephus and 1 & 2 Maccabees.

8-If 1 week is 7 years, Antiochus IV made a deal with the high ranking Jews and then broke it after 3-1/2 years ( a half a time) 

And - "9 [25] The reference is to the persecutions of Antiochus IV and his attempt to force the Jews to give up their customs and to adopt Hellenistic ways (1 Macc 1:33-34). A year, two years, and a half-year: an indefinite, evil period of time. As seven is the Jewish "perfect" number, half of it signifies great imperfection. Actually, this corresponds fairly accurately to the duration of Antiochus' persecution." - from - http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/is_the_catholic_church_the_little_horn_of_daniel_7.htm

gramster wrote:

As for the time factor, Antiochus IV ruled over the Jews from about 175 to 163 BC. As you pointed out in 169 BC he plundered the temple, and in 168 BC he set up the pagan god Zeus Olympius in the temple. you also pointed out that in December 165 BC The alter of the temple was rededicated.

So far Antiochus fits just fine.

gramster wrote:

A time, two times, and half a time translates to 2 1/2 literal years, or 1260 prophetic years (using a day for a year).

175 to 163 BC comes out to about 12 literal years. This is nowhere close to fitting the time element.

169 BC or 168 BC to 165 BC both come out to at least 3 years since the 165 BC date is in December. That also doesn't work.

Thus Antiochus seems to be a square peg that is attempting to be driven into a round hole.

This, along with the fact that your interpretation has nothing to do with the later days makes this kind of hard to swallow.

I will now make my case about the identity of the little horn. 

The problem is you misunderstand what was meant by a time - 7 years and thereby error throuhout. See the links I gave you and read 1 & 2 Maccabees at least.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:As I

gramster wrote:

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

Since in this prophecy, the little horn is found to be persecuting the "saints of the most high", and the Jews have rejected their Messiah, it seems reasonable that these prophecies could be referring to "those who have faith in Jesus", or Christians.

I believe that this little horn is referring to what is sometimes referred to as Papal Rome, or the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This power fits all of the identifying points in Daniel 7, and this interpretation also takes us down into modern times and extend to the time of the end.

Furthermore this prophecy fits into the claims made by the book that it is prophetic, and about events at that time future. It does not try to "force" a whole different and conflicting interpretation.

We will continue by examining point by point to see if my interpretation is a proper fit.

As you saw in my last post not all Christians agree with this view that it foretells Papal Rome as the little horn. They saw it generally as foretelling the Jewish persecution by Antiochus instead. I look forward to your explanation of how it fits and why the evil monster Antiochus IV isn't the scum discussed instead it's the evil church incarnate of Catholicism. 

Clearly I still adhere to my view it was written in the 2nd century and await your next installment.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:1. We

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

 

Quote:
2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!

The problem is then you use 2 different methods to understand what is said in regards to the goat and ram. 

If you see the 2 horned ram as 1 empire not that it was once the Medes and then the Persians.

Then you look at the goat as one country (great king) that breaks into 4 kingdoms. If the same method you used for the ram is used then it is only 1 empire and does not split so it doesn't fit with what was written.

Pick the same method and use it for both, don't use 2 different techniques.

freeminer wrote:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

 

Quote:
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

Quote:
You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

and this:

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.

Which is why you have to see the Medes and Persians the same way and use the same means to see 2 empires, not a single Mede-Persian Empire that never existed.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

gramstar post #351 wrote:
Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

only in your delusion.

Your sloppy quoting attributed Gramps quote to me.

So you think he is deluded? Perhaps your inattentive reading is why you see things in this writing that isn't there.

freeminer wrote:

23     Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Quote:
Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

are you reading a different book?

No, but you seem to be.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
So, what if you are right and Rome becomes the 4th kingdom? Then there is the problem of neglecting all the other World Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and even the US empire (that's what foreigners think of us anyway) not to mention all the others you don't want to discuss, such as the USSR, Japan, Hitler's 3rd Reich who did conquer most of the Roman Empire. If we go your way, why did the writer not discuss them? Hitler certainly had an impact on the Jews.

Russia is mentioned and the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon nations which came from it.

Really, which chapter and verse do you think refer to Russia and the British Empire?

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Quote:
Probably.

Quote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.

See above, you're the one that is doing that.

You want 2 methods to look at the goat and ram.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Quote:
Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.
Greece has already been identified as the kingdom following Medo-Persia. Liberal "scholars" have their own agenda......they'll have plenty of opportunity to contemplate it.

the text says:

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

See above.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

Quote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Quote:
Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

but we're not discussing Jewish tradition. Scholars believe that Daniel was completed circa 530 BC. Your statement thus supports its prophetic authenticity.

Quote:
-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

there is no indication whatsoever that Daniel thought this. He was told:

14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

 

Sure, why would he as it was written in Aramaic in the 2nd century. Aramaic being the main language then but not in the 6th century. Then angels have names in the 2nd. century BCE but not back in the 6th.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
       Quote:The

     

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian answers.net]

Quote:
I know you do.

 

Quote:
avoidance

Quote:
On your part.
then howcome in everything below you've avoided stating what your problem actually is?

Quote:
Previously with Gramps I detailed the differences in the Cyrus Cylinder,

"he searched everywhere and then he took a righteous king, his favorite, by the hand, he called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anšan; he pronounced his name to be king all over the world."

"He ordered him to go to his city Babylon. He set him on the road to Babylon and like a companion and a friend, he went at his side. His vast army, whose number, like water of the river, cannot be known, marched at his side fully armed. He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands. "

"I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, the son of Cambyses, great king, king of Anšan, grandson of Cyrus, great king, king of Anšan, descendant of Teispes, great king, king of Anšan, of an eternal line of kingship, whose rule Bêl and Nabu love, whose kingship they desire fot their hearts' pleasure. When I entered Babylon in a peaceful manner,"

"The people of Babylon blessed my kingship, and I settled all the lands in peaceful abodes."

 

The Behistun inscriptions,

"I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid."

Darius became king after the usurper Gaumata claiming to be Cambyses brother Smerdis was killed.

 

and the Nabonidus Chronicles, see above.

 we know Cyrus existed and we know his reign.

Cyrus ruled the Persian empire from 559-530 B.C. He is best known for his capture of Babylon in 539 B.C. Already in the 8th century B.C. Isaiah predicted this defeat (Isaiah 45:1-3), and went on to say that Cyrus would "set my exiles free' (Isaiah 45:13). That Cyrus released the Jewish exiles from Babylon is not only documented in the Bible (2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:2-4), but also implied in the contemporary Cyrus Cylinder. This ancient record states, "I (Cyrus) gathered all their former inhabitants and returned to them their habitations."

Tomb of Cyrus. Photo copyrighted. All rights reserved.

Cyrus was buried in a simple gabled stone tomb outside his capital of Pasargadae in modern Iran. According to the historian Strabo, this inscription once graced the structure, "Oh man, I am Cyrus, the son of Cambyses, who founded the empire of Persia, and was king of Asia. Grudge me not therefore this monument" (Geography xv.3.7).    

We also know Darius existed and his dates.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Darius I was king of the Persian empire from 522-486 B.C. He gave permission to renew the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 6:1-12), which had been discontinued for some 10 years.

His is the first of three monumental tombs cut into a cliff near the Persian capital of Persepolis, Iran. The inscription on his tomb reads,

King Darius states: King, whoever you are, who may arise after me, protect yourself well from lies. Do not trust the man who lies. … Believe what I did and tell the truth to the people. Do not conceal (it). If you do not conceal these matters, but you do tell the people, may Ahura Mayda protect you. …

 There are three other tombs at the site, thought to be those of the Persian kings Xerxes (485-465 B.C.), Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.), and Darius II (423-405 B.C.). There are no accompanying inscriptions, however, to be certain of these identifications. Xerxes is the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther, the king whom Esther married. Ezra was a scribe (Ezra 7:6) and Nehemiah a cupbearer (Nehemiah 2:1) under Artaxerxes I. He authorized both Ezra and Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem, Ezra to carry out religious and judicial duties (Ezra 7:12-26), and Nehemiah to rebuild the city walls (Nehemiah 2:1-9). Darius II may be the Darius mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22, but this is not certain.

I haven't followed your debate with Gramps word for word but I fail to see your problem. Ezra mentions both and distinguishes between them.

Quote:
Neither will praying to a human construct.
a while ago you were asking for neutrality!

Quote:
whether or not it is a book of misconceptions is the issue under examination..........so far you're flailing around.

Quote:
You are welcome to your opinions and delusions.
as are you..........the sign of delusion is irrationality.

 

Quote:
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

Quote:
thank you.........very perceptive of you. The very fact that a worldwide view would not have been Daniel's natural concern, of itself supports the Biblical claim to authentic, divinely inspired foretelling.

 no answer then.

Quote:
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

please reference where I said this.

 

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

 

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

 later on you accuse me of "sloppy quoting" I asked you to put up my statement as evidence of your assertion and you quote yourself!!!

 

 

Quote:
Since you respond with snarky comments that don't address what is asked what do you expect. How can one tell for sure what you position actually meant from your comment.

I clearly stated that your assertion that the alleged madness of Nabonidus [which you appear to have dredged up from somewhere] somehow threw doubt upon the Biblical madness of Nebuchadnezzar was a red-herring. I don't see how it could be plainer. Regarding the kingship of Belshazzar:

 

I repeat the CA quote in full below.  The Biblical assertion, that Belshazzar offered to make Daniel third highest in the kingdom, as CA states, "accurately reflects the political situation". Furthermore it clearly did so before secular scholarship was in a position to know it! You may like to supply an answer for how this could be. Was Belshazzar 'acting king' ? - yes. Would Daniel have addressed him as king? - yes 

 The name of the Babylonian king Belshazzar (Daniel 5) appeared for the first time in a text found in a foundation deposit of the temple. Scholars once said the Bible was wrong in naming Belshazzar as king when the Persians conquered Babylon, since the known records indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon.

What the foundation deposit tablet, along with other subsequently found texts, revealed was that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and coregent with his father. While Nabonidus was away campaigning, which he loved to do, Belshazzar was left to run the country from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of “third highest ruler in the kingdom” if he would decipher the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:16). This was the highest available office in the kingdom, since Nabonidus was number one and his son Belshazzar was number two. Instead of being in error, the Bible precisely reflected the political situation that existed in ancient Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This is a really dumb

Quote:
This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!

Quote:
The problem is then you use 2 different methods to understand what is said in regards to the goat and ram. 

Quote:
If you see the 2 horned ram as 1 empire not that it was once the Medes and then the Persians.

but the Bible gives you the interpretation!!!!! It is not a case of us applying an exegetical method.

20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia

Quote:
Then you look at the goat as one country (great king) that breaks into 4 kingdoms. If the same method you used for the ram is used then it is only 1 empire and does not split so it doesn't fit with what was written.
again:

The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

Quote:
Pick the same method and use it for both, don't use 2 different techniques.

Prophecy is intended to be read together. No prophecy will contradict another. In all the prophecies pertaining to the four kingdoms there is a clear sequence. In the case above, we don't need to interpret, it's given.

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

 

Quote:
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

Quote:
You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

and this:

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.

Quote:
Which is why you have to see the Medes and Persians the same way and use the same means to see 2 empires, not a single Mede-Persian Empire that never existed.

of all the objections you've attempted to put forward, this rates among the most ludicrous. The writer saw it as a single empire and scripture itself gives you the interpretation! An attempt to invite us to deny scripture in order to affirm it is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel!

 

Quote:
So you think he is deluded? Perhaps your inattentive reading is why you see things in this writing that isn't there.

if you paid attention I wouldn't be having to repeat things.

 

Quote:
23     Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Quote:
Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

Quote:
are you reading a different book?

Quote:
No, but you seem to be.

so why are you still wittering on about which kingdom is which when scripture spells it out?

Quote:
So, what if you are right and Rome becomes the 4th kingdom? Then there is the problem of neglecting all the other World Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and even the US empire (that's what foreigners think of us anyway) not to mention all the others you don't want to discuss, such as the USSR, Japan, Hitler's 3rd Reich who did conquer most of the Roman Empire. If we go your way, why did the writer not discuss them? Hitler certainly had an impact on the Jews.

Quote:
Really, which chapter and verse do you think refer to Russia and the British Empire?

gramps will deal with 'last days' in due course.

Quote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Quote:
Probably.

Quote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

Quote:
a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.

Quote:
See above, you're the one that is doing that.

You want 2 methods to look at the goat and ram.

this is the point at which you sink into your own absurd world. It is one thing to question an interpretation of a text but to argue that a text doesn't give an interpretation which it clearly does is just bizarre!!!! You appear to wish to take issue with Gabriel over what he meant!

 

Quote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Quote:
Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.
Greece has already been identified as the kingdom following Medo-Persia. Liberal "scholars" have their own agenda......they'll have plenty of opportunity to contemplate it.

the text says:

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

Quote:
See above.

see above.

Quote:
Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

but we're not discussing Jewish tradition. Scholars believe that Daniel was completed circa 530 BC. Your statement thus supports its prophetic authenticity.

Quote:
-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

there is no indication whatsoever that Daniel thought this. He was told:

14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

 

 

Quote:
Sure, why would he as it was written in Aramaic in the 2nd century.

Aramaic being the main language then but not in the 6th century.

as I pointed out; linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls which have supplied authentic samples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the second century BC, demonstrates that the Hebrew and Aramaic chapters of Daniel must have been composed centuries earlier. Furthermore the translators of the LXX had the text and its known dates are against you. Perhaps  you would care to give us the benefit of your knowledge of what Jews were using in 6th century BC if not Hebrew and Aramaic.

Quote:
Then angels have names in the 2nd. century BCE but not back in the 6th.

 

Daniel did not name Gabriel!................ 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh for fuck's sake

gramster wrote:

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

 

At least now we know who the term 'little horn' is referring to.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

Since in this prophecy, the little horn is found to be persecuting the "saints of the most high", and the Jews have rejected their Messiah, it seems reasonable that these prophecies could be referring to "those who have faith in Jesus", or Christians.

I believe that this little horn is referring to what is sometimes referred to as Papal Rome, or the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This power fits all of the identifying points in Daniel 7, and this interpretation also takes us down into modern times and extend to the time of the end.

Furthermore this prophecy fits into the claims made by the book that it is prophetic, and about events at that time future. It does not try to "force" a whole different and conflicting interpretation.

We will continue by examining point by point to see if my interpretation is a proper fit.

, As you saw in my last post not all Christians agree with this view that it foretells Papal Rome as the little horn. They saw it generally as foretelling the Jewish persecution by Antiochus instead. I look forward to your explanation of how it fits and why the evil monster Antiochus IV isn't the scum discussed instead it's the evil church incarnate of Catholicism. 

Clearly I still adhere to my view it was written in the 2nd century and await your next installment.

setting aside your self-delusion regarding the dating of Daniel, Antiochus is a 'type' of the Antichrist. For example, from v36 to the end of chapter 11 does not concur with what is known of Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel clearly has the end times in view. Gramps' view is consistent with Revelation and the prophecies of Jesus.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Clarification Please

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

Since in this prophecy, the little horn is found to be persecuting the "saints of the most high", and the Jews have rejected their Messiah, it seems reasonable that these prophecies could be referring to "those who have faith in Jesus", or Christians.

I believe that this little horn is referring to what is sometimes referred to as Papal Rome, or the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This power fits all of the identifying points in Daniel 7, and this interpretation also takes us down into modern times and extend to the time of the end.

Furthermore this prophecy fits into the claims made by the book that it is prophetic, and about events at that time future. It does not try to "force" a whole different and conflicting interpretation.

We will continue by examining point by point to see if my interpretation is a proper fit.

As you saw in my last post not all Christians agree with this view that it foretells Papal Rome as the little horn. They saw it generally as foretelling the Jewish persecution by Antiochus instead. I look forward to your explanation of how it fits and why the evil monster Antiochus IV isn't the scum discussed instead it's the evil church incarnate of Catholicism. 

Clearly I still adhere to my view it was written in the 2nd century and await your next installment.

I am still not quite clear on your  position. On one hand you say that Media and Persia are not considered as one power, but two. That would make the second kingdom Media, the Third Persia, and the Fourth "Greece".

On the other hand you say that the third kingdom is "Greece", and the fourth kingdom is the Seleucid Empire, making Antiochus IV the little horn. I have problems with both views. For me to continue this analysis I need some clarification.

Can we get this settled once and for all? I would like to address this.

Thank You in advance.

I will be waiting for your reply.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Per your Request

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

Since in this prophecy, the little horn is found to be persecuting the "saints of the most high", and the Jews have rejected their Messiah, it seems reasonable that these prophecies could be referring to "those who have faith in Jesus", or Christians.

I believe that this little horn is referring to what is sometimes referred to as Papal Rome, or the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This power fits all of the identifying points in Daniel 7, and this interpretation also takes us down into modern times and extend to the time of the end.

Furthermore this prophecy fits into the claims made by the book that it is prophetic, and about events at that time future. It does not try to "force" a whole different and conflicting interpretation.

We will continue by examining point by point to see if my interpretation is a proper fit.

As you saw in my last post not all Christians agree with this view that it foretells Papal Rome as the little horn. They saw it generally as foretelling the Jewish persecution by Antiochus instead. I look forward to your explanation of how it fits and why the evil monster Antiochus IV isn't the scum discussed instead it's the evil church incarnate of Catholicism. 

Clearly I still adhere to my view it was written in the 2nd century and await your next installment.

I am still not quite clear on your  position. On one hand you say that Media and Persia are not considered as one power, but two. That would make the second kingdom Media, the Third Persia, and the Fourth "Greece".

On the other hand you say that the third kingdom is "Greece", and the fourth kingdom is the Seleucid Empire, making Antiochus IV the little horn. I have problems with both views. For me to continue this analysis I need some clarification.

Can we get this settled once and for all? I would like to address this.

Thank You in advance.

I will be waiting for your reply.

I can see why you might get confused, what with the wild misinterpretations of Miner, your reading of Daniel, your desire to fit the "little horn" on the papal dictators, that are clearly self serving "power brokers" and a 2nd century BCE writer trying to get a message out amidst severe persecution.

I'm very clear on what I said, the "word twisting" of miner is what causes you to be confused. Since you asked nicely, I'll show you once again:

What I said:

PJTS post #499 wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

That was the idea wasn't it.

gramster wrote:

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

gramster wrote:

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

gramster wrote:

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

Is this clear for you on the response to Daniel 2?

1-Babylon 2- Medes 3-Persia 4- Alexander (you call it Greece really it is Macedonia)

PJTS post #499 part 2 wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Probably.

gramster wrote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

gramster wrote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.

gramster wrote:

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

This is the respnse to your Daniel 7 view. 1-Babylon 2-Medes 3-Persia 4-Alexander (Macedonia which you call Greece)

PJTS post #499 part 3 wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

2-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

 

gramster wrote:

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

I don't know where you get this was given in the end of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom as verse 1 says it was in the 3rd year of Belshazzar's reign (a reign I don't agree happened but not pertinent to your error) 

You error with this statement.

gramster wrote:

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

Yes, it is. But only one becomes larger then the other. If the empire in the 2nd kingdom you claimed was both, why have 2 horns here symbolically showing it was separate? How can a single empire be 2 different sizes? This also fits in with the 2nd empire earlier mentioned being inferior to Babylon, smaller horn. Thus this Ram represents 2 empires separately but coming from the same geographic area.

gramster wrote:

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

The goat can be Alexander's empire as the writer does say it is a king of Greece. The 4 horns are a representation by the writer of the 4 way split of his empire.

 

gramster wrote:

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Oh, you want to wait to discuss it later.

However, I'll give you an opening for you to take a shot against.

The little horn is actually Antiochus IV. Which fits perfectly with Daniel being a prophecy written after the fact, or a history.

As you said, the 1st kingdom wasn't mentioned. You messed up what you said and wrongly said this prophecy was near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. He was already dead! Nabonidus was king and his son is called King Belshazzar (which I say isn't true, he was but the crown prince doing what daddy asked) and this vision was supposedly in the 3rd year of his reign. Daniel 8:1.

So, nothing changed the 1st kingdom despite your errors, its still 1-Babylon

Next, the Ram is said to represent the Medes with a small horn and the Persians large horn. Thus, 2-Medes 3- Persia

One animal equals 2 empires.

Next is the goat which is saide to represent Grecia and the great horn between the eyes is the great king. This is said to be the Macendonian Empire and the king is said to be Alexander. You say this is Greece and Alexander.

4-Greece or Macedonia

The goat has 4 horns which are claimed to be 4 kingdoms coming out of the Macedonian Empire of Alexander. Daniel 8:8 and Daniel 8:22. These kingdoms we both agree are:

1-Antigonid Empire (Dynasty) - Macedonia & Greece

2-Ptolemaic Empire

3-Attalid Empire

4-Seleucid Empire

Then we have your strange interpretations coming up with European kingdoms and tribes that have nothing to do at all with the Jews, including tribes that disappear versus the 10 kings of the Seleucid Empire.

Is this clear?

 In my attempt to get through to Miner I mentioned that the goat and ram were being analyzed using 2 different methods by y'all.

Method 1 - You see the ram as only 1 empire comprised of the Medes & the Persians.

Method 2 - You see the goat as 1 empire that splits 4 ways.

What I suggested also supported by history was 1 method.

The ram was 1 empire in a geographic area, the Medes, that origianlly was smaller and less significant than Babylon. (Which is what Daniel also claimed)

The empire of the Medes is conquered and made far greater by the Persians with conquests that exceed the Medes. This is reflected in the small horn of the Medes and the large horn of the Persians.

This is 1 animal and 2 empires.

The goat is 1 animal that is 1 empire that becomes 4 empires.

This is the same technique for both.

Are we clear here?

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 freeminer

 

freeminer wrote:

 

  

 

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I'm tired of being repetative for you. Go back and read it for yourself

freeminer wrote:

I haven't followed your debate with Gramps word for word but I fail to see your problem. Ezra mentions both and distinguishes between them.

We aren't talking about Ezra right now in this thread. We can if you'd like after Gramps finishes up.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Neither will praying to a human construct.
a while ago you were asking for neutrality!

You and I are not neutral in our views in regards to gods and religion. I suggested we should view the text from a position of neutrality. Clearly this has not occured.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
whether or not it is a book of misconceptions is the issue under examination..........so far you're flailing around.

Quote:
You are welcome to your opinions and delusions.
as are you..........the sign of delusion is irrationality.

This is accomplishing a whole lot isn't it.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

Quote:
thank you.........very perceptive of you. The very fact that a worldwide view would not have been Daniel's natural concern, of itself supports the Biblical claim to authentic, divinely inspired foretelling.

 no answer then.

This is getting a bit like Faux News. Spin, double spin, twist, turn. 

Pointless exercise.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

please reference where I said this.

 

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

 

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

 later on you accuse me of "sloppy quoting" I asked you to put up my statement as evidence of your assertion and you quote yourself!!!

Is it time for an eye exam?

What you said in post #507 - 

Freeminer from post #507 wrote:

 

Quote:
Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

 

only in your delusion.

This was Gramps in post # 351

 

Entire Post # 351 follows - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20506?page=7

 

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

As for the Jews, for now, we will go with "I don't place much stock on what they believe". You are free to place whatever value you wish. There is some merit in the study of ancient Jewish beliefs as it can help us gain some perspective. But that's about it.

As for freeminer as an ally, he has his own views. I am sure they differ some from mine. From time to time I will probably refer to his blags just as I do yours.

As to making "the jump" from the prophecies referring to just one small region of the planet to the whole earth, you are getting ahead of yourself. I have as of yet made any such claims. If and/or when I do, I will at that point give my reasons for doing so.

As for Medo-Persia being inferior referring to culture rather than length of reign and power that is the way I see it. You see it differently. That is a matter of personal interpretation. Either view could be correct.

Yes, Greek culture is full of paganism and pagan values. It does not agree with Christianity.

As we continue, I will focus on the kingdoms I believe are being referred to and why. As we go forward I believe the other kingdoms will drop out along the way. That is what we will be looking at.aka

Interesting.

Are you saying you don't place much stock in the Bible? A bunch of Jews did write it (except for the heretics that wrote the parts you like aka the replacement religion).

Greek culture doesn't agree with Christianity? True enough. Christianity is a Roman construct whose texts were written in Greek. Why else would the religion be so friendly with the conquerors?

I look forward to your attempts at moving from Alexander and Antiochus to the EU vs. Israel and the US, for example. You might even go as far as including bin Laden. Or how when Daniel mentions "days" it really means "years"

 

For now I will ignore your quips about Christianity and get down to business. As for Antiochus, the later days, and a day for a year, you are again getting ahead of yourself.

When we study Daniel's prophecies about the kingdoms we find a pattern of "repeat and enlarge". Each vision given Daniel became progressively detailed. We see the same kingdoms but get more specifics. I will give a brief overview.

 

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

 

 

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

 

 

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Daniel 8 gives further details.

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Some points of interest.

The first kingdom in Daniel 7 being described as a loin with eagles wings fits nicely as a symbol for Babylon. The lion-shaped bas-reliefs on Babylons baked-brick walls, and the large stone lion that still crouches over a fallen stone woman in Babylon help attest to this. The British Museum's finding of lions with eagles wings in Babylon also add weight to this. I'll not get to deep into the archeology in this brief overview.

The second kingdom in Daniel 7 being a bear raised up on one side - coincides with the Ram in Daniel 8 which is identified as Medo-Persia that had one horn larger than the other. (Symbols of Persia's being the greater). The three ribs in the bears mouth coincide with the nations of Egypt, Babylon and Lydia, which were overthrown by Medo-Persia.

The third kingdom in Daniel 7 being a leopard having four wings - symbolizes the speed in which Alexander the Great conquered the then known world. This coincides with the goat that came "not touching the ground", or flying. The four heads represent the four generals of Alexander and coincide with Daniel 8's four horns which are identified for us as four kingdoms.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 will be addressed separately as they are much too involved to go into in this brief overview.

To me the identification of these kingdoms is obvious. You probably disagree. As we move forward I will strengthen these assumptions. Right now I am just asserting that this interpretation fits quite nicely. If you can see any reason why it does not work let me know. If you concede this is a possibility (not necessarily the only one) than I will proceed deeper into the fourth beast and the little horn. 

This will get a lot more detailed and other options will drop out one by one along the way.

More later.

Gramps

 

The point is Gramps said this "Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities."

 And your sloppy quoting attributed it to me.

All you have to do is say you screwed up. You have blue dye on your hands.

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Since you respond with snarky comments that don't address what is asked what do you expect. How can one tell for sure what your position actually meant from your comment.

 

I clearly stated that your assertion that the alleged madness of Nabonidus [which you appear to have dredged up from somewhere] somehow threw doubt upon the Biblical madness of Nebuchadnezzar was a red-herring. I don't see how it could be plainer. Regarding the kingship of Belshazzar:

 

I repeat the CA quote in full below.  The Biblical assertion, that Belshazzar offered to make Daniel third highest in the kingdom, as CA states, "accurately reflects the political situation". Furthermore it clearly did so before secular scholarship was in a position to know it! You may like to supply an answer for how this could be. Was Belshazzar 'acting king' ? - yes. Would Daniel have addressed him as king? - yes 

 The name of the Babylonian king Belshazzar (Daniel 5) appeared for the first time in a text found in a foundation deposit of the temple. Scholars once said the Bible was wrong in naming Belshazzar as king when thePersians conquered Babylon, since the known records indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon.

What the foundation deposit tablet, along with other subsequently found texts, revealed was that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and coregent with his father. While Nabonidus was away campaigning, which he loved to do, Belshazzar was left to run the country from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of “third highest ruler in the kingdom” if he would decipher the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:16). This was the highest available office in the kingdom, since Nabonidus was number one and his son Belshazzar was number two. Instead of being in error, the Bible precisely reflected the political situation that existed in ancient Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians.

 

 

Thanks for stating your position so clearly now after the fact and not being snarky.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:This

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!

Quote:
The problem is then you use 2 different methods to understand what is said in regards to the goat and ram. 

Quote:
If you see the 2 horned ram as 1 empire not that it was once the Medes and then the Persians.

but the Bible gives you the interpretation!!!!! It is not a case of us applying an exegetical method.

20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia

Quote:
Then you look at the goat as one country (great king) that breaks into 4 kingdoms. If the same method you used for the ram is used then it is only 1 empire and does not split so it doesn't fit with what was written.
again:

The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

Quote:
Pick the same method and use it for both, don't use 2 different techniques.

Prophecy is intended to be read together. No prophecy will contradict another. In all the prophecies pertaining to the four kingdoms there is a clear sequence. In the case above, we don't need to interpret, it's given.

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.

 

Quote:
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

Quote:
You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:

 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

and this:

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.

Quote:
Which is why you have to see the Medes and Persians the same way and use the same means to see 2 empires, not a single Mede-Persian Empire that never existed.

of all the objections you've attempted to put forward, this rates among the most ludicrous. The writer saw it as a single empire and scripture itself gives you the interpretation! An attempt to invite us to deny scripture in order to affirm it is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel!

 

I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

Freeminer wrote:

Quote:
So you think he is deluded? Perhaps your inattentive reading is why you see things in this writing that isn't there.

if you paid attention I wouldn't be having to repeat things.

Now I'm responsible for you making mistakes.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
23     Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

Quote:
Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

Quote:
are you reading a different book?

Quote:
No, but you seem to be.

so why are you still wittering on about which kingdom is which when scripture spells it out?

 

I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Really, which chapter and verse do you think refer to Russia and the British Empire?

gramps will deal with 'last days' in due course.

Ok.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Quote:
Probably.

Quote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Quote:
Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

Quote:
a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.

Quote:
See above, you're the one that is doing that.

You want 2 methods to look at the goat and ram.

this is the point at which you sink into your own absurd world. It is one thing to question an interpretation of a text but to argue that a text doesn't give an interpretation which it clearly does is just bizarre!!!! You appear to wish to take issue with Gabriel over what he meant!

 

I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Quote:
Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.
Greece has already been identified as the kingdom following Medo-Persia. Liberal "scholars" have their own agenda......they'll have plenty of opportunity to contemplate it.

the text says:

17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.

4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.

5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.

 6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.

thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.

 

Quote:
See above.

see above.

 

I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

but we're not discussing Jewish tradition. Scholars believe that Daniel was completed circa 530 BC. Your statement thus supports its prophetic authenticity.

Quote:
-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

there is no indication whatsoever that Daniel thought this. He was told:

14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

 

I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

The simplest way is wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
Sure, why would he as it was written in Aramaic in the 2nd century.

Aramaic being the main language then but not in the 6th century.

as I pointed out; linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls which have supplied authentic samples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the second century BC, demonstrates that the Hebrew and Aramaic chapters of Daniel must have been composed centuries earlier. Furthermore the translators of the LXX had the text and its known dates are against you. Perhaps  you would care to give us the benefit of your knowledge of what Jews were using in 6th century BC if not Hebrew and Aramaic.

As I mentioned earlier - the use of Chaldean to indicate magicians, soothsayers, etc was sometime after the Persian period. During the 6th century it was applied to the Babylonians in general. Dan 2:2; 4:7; 5:7-11 etc. Archeology of the Assyrians also indicates Chaldeans were an ethnic name not a profession of magicians. 

Aramaic use by the Jews - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1707&letter=A

The view here is Aramaic gained in use sometime around or slightly before Nehemiah as he complains that Jews no longer are speaking the language of their ancestors. Their view is by 300 BCE it was well on the way to displacing Hebrew.

The DSS is another area where we can argue in regards to dating. Dates have been proposed from the 1st to 2nd century BCE which generally is what carbon dating indicates. 

Some documents date to the 1st century CE.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Then angels have names in the 2nd. century BCE but not back in the 6th.

 

Daniel did not name Gabriel!................ 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."

daniel 8:15-16 NIV wrote:
 15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision."

 17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

Whatever!

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:  setting

freeminer wrote:

 

 setting aside your self-delusion regarding the dating of Daniel, Antiochus is a 'type' of the Antichrist. For example, from v36 to the end of chapter 11 does not concur with what is known of Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel clearly has the end times in view. Gramps' view is consistent with Revelation and the prophecies of Jesus.

See for starters:

Henry Cowles Notes on Ezekiel & Daniel pp 432-446 - http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

v36-NIV - "The king will do as he pleases" - Antiochus IV most certainly did as he pleased.

      - He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. - yes once more. He pushed Hellenization, banned all gods except the greek gods banning even worship of gods that were of his own ancestors of Syria. He set up an altar to Zeus in the Temple. 

see 1 Mac 1:24 - 25 - [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

see 2 Mac 9 - http://www.drbo.org/chapter/46009.htm

 

v37-NIV- "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all." Yes- Antiochus did all of this.

1 Mac 1:46-60 - http://www.drbo.org/chapter/45001.htm

Cowles pp432-433

v38 - NIV- "Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts." - Yes he did this as well.

1 Mac 1 and 2 Mac 4-6, 2 Mac 9 see also Cowles p433

v39 - NIV - "He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price."

This he also did.

Invasion of Egypt & Cyprus, well documented.

v40 - 45-NIV - "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him."

Some view this as a recap of Antiochus see Cowles pp 433-446.

Some view this as Daniel writing an actual prophecy that didn't happen as Antiochus IV died from an illness before he could do it.

In some ways this seems to have occured though when you consider the wars with Parthia in the East and Egypt. In 168 BCE Rome pressured him to leave Egypt. Antiochus in disregard to the treaty of Apamea built a fleet of ships and powerful navy invading Cyprus. 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:In my attempt to get

 

Quote:
In my attempt to get through to Miner I mentioned that the goat and ram were being analyzed using 2 different methods by y'all.

Method 1 - You see the ram as only 1 empire comprised of the Medes & the Persians.

Method 2 - You see the goat as 1 empire that splits 4 ways.

What I suggested also supported by history was 1 method.

The ram was 1 empire in a geographic area, the Medes, that origianlly was smaller and less significant than Babylon. (Which is what Daniel also claimed)

The empire of the Medes is conquered and made far greater by the Persians with conquests that exceed the Medes. This is reflected in the small horn of the Medes and the large horn of the Persians.

This is 1 animal and 2 empires.

The goat is 1 animal that is 1 empire that becomes 4 empires.

This is the same technique for both.

Are we clear here?

Having made the point perfectly clearly that the above is not a matter of exegetical methodology but is straightforwardly explained by the text, have you put up a rebuttal?........no. All you have managed to do is blithley ignore a point which would be obvious to a five year old. You do yourself no credit in this. It must be clear to you, as obviously someone of reasonable intelligence, that this makes it appear that you are scrabbling around to make a case and are either unable to or not prepared to apply rationality.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Apologetics Press :: Reason

Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation            www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30 
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

Printer version | Email this article

Bible believers often are confronted with the charge that the Bible is filled with mistakes. These alleged mistakes can be placed into two major categories: (1) apparent internal inconsistencies among revealed data; and (2) scribal mistakes in the underlying manuscripts themselves. The former category involves those situations in which there are apparent discrepancies between biblical texts regarding a specific event, person, place, etc. [For a treatment of such difficulties see Archer, 1982; Geisler and Brooks, 1989, pp. 163-178]. The latter category involves a much more fundamental concern—the integrity of the underlying documents of our English translations. Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers. However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.

 

DATE OF THE MATERIALS

When the scrolls first were discovered in 1947, scholars disputed their dates of composition. Scholars now generally agree that although some materials are earlier, the Qumran materials date primarily to the Hasmonean (152-63 B.C.) and early Roman periods (63 B.C.-A.D. 68). Several strands of evidence corroborate these conclusions. First, archaeological evidence from the ruins of the Qumran community supports these dates. After six major seasons of excavations, archaeologists have identified three specific phases of occupation at the ancient center of Qumran. Coinage discovered in the first stratum dates from the reign of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.). Such artifacts also indicate that the architecture associated with the second occupational phase dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.). Also reflected in the material remains of the site is the destruction of its buildings in the earthquake reported by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2). Apparently, this natural disaster occurred around 31 B.C. a position that prompted the occupants to abandon the site for an indeterminate time. Upon reoccupation of the area—the third phase—the buildings were repaired and rebuilt precisely on the previous plan of the old communal complex. The community flourished until the Romans, under the military direction of Vespasian, occupied the site by force (see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22). Such evidence is consistent with the second century B.C. to first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls.

The second strand of evidence is that the generally accepted dates for the scrolls are corroborated by palaeographical considerations. Palaeography is the study of ancient writing and, more specifically, the shape and style of letters. Characteristic of ancient languages, the manner in which Hebrew and Aramaic letters were written changed over a period of time. The trained eye can determine, within certain boundaries, the time frame of a document based upon the shape of its letters. This is the method by which scholars determine the date of a text on palaeographical grounds. According to this technique, the scripts at Qumran belong to three periods of palaeographical development: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style reflects the period between about 250-150 B.C.; (2) a large cache of manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, that is consistent with a writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.); and (3) a similarly large number of texts that evinces a writing style characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70). This linguistic information also is consistent with the commonly accepted dates of the Qumran materials.

Finally, as an aside, the carbon-14 tests done on both the cloth in which certain scrolls were wrapped, and the scrolls themselves, generally correspond to the palaeographic dates. There are, however, some considerable differences. Due to the inexact nature of carbon-14 dating techniques (see Major, 1993), and the possibility of chemical contamination, scholars place greater confidence in the historically corroborated palaeographic dates (see Shanks, 1991, 17[6]:72). At any rate, the archaeological and linguistic data provide scholars with reasonable confidence that the scrolls date from 250 B.C. to A.D. 70.

 

While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as possible. Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only copies (apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew canon, except Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the materials at Qumran (Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided textual critics with ancient manuscripts against which they can compare the accepted text for accuracy of content.

 

This second point is of particular importance since, prior to the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from about A.D. 980. The MT is the result of editorial work performed by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. The scribes’ designation was derived from the Hebrew word masora, which refers collectively to the notes entered on the top, bottom, and side margins of the MT manuscripts to safeguard traditional transmission. Hence, the Masoretes, as their name suggests, were the scribal preservers of the masora (Roberts, 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth century A.D., the Masoretes labored to introduce both these marginal notes and vowel points to the consonantal text—primarily to conserve correct pronunciation and spelling (see Seow, 1987, pp. 8-9).

Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.

Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.

The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea Scrolls have increased our confidence that faithful scribal transcription substantially has preserved the original content of Isaiah.

TABLE 1. QUMRAN VS. THE MASORETES
______________________________________
Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).

10 letters = spelling differences

4 letters = stylistic changes

3 letters = added word for “light” (vs. 11)
______________________________________
17 letters = no affect on biblical teaching

 

CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS

The Qumran materials similarly have substantiated the textual integrity and authenticity of Daniel. Critical scholarship, as in the case of most all books of the Old Testament, has attempted to dismantle the authenticity of the book of Daniel. The message of the book claims to have originated during the Babylonian exile, from the first deportation of the Jews into captivity (606 B.C.; Daniel 1:1-2) to the ascension of the Persian Empire to world dominance (c. 536 B.C.; Daniel 10:1). This date, however, has been questioned and generally dismissed by critical scholars who date the final composition of the book to the second century B.C. Specifically, it is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6 as they appear in their present form can be no earlier than the Hellenistic age (c. 332 B.C.). Also, the four-kingdom outline, explicitly stated in chapter 2, allegedly requires a date after the rise of the Grecian Empire. Further, these scholars argue that since there is no explicit reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 B.C.), a Seleucid king clearly under prophetic consideration in chapter 11, a date in the late third or early second century B.C. is most likely (see Collins, 1992a, 2:31; Whitehorne, 1992, 1:270).

The apparent reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the predictive nature of the book of Daniel. It speaks precisely of events that transpired several hundred years removed from the period in which it claims to have been composed. Since the guiding principles of the historical-critical method preclude a transcendent God’s intervening in human affairs (see Brantley, 1994), the idea of inspired predictive prophecy is dismissed a priori from the realm of possibility. Accordingly, Daniel could not have spoken with such precision about events so remote from his day. Therefore, critical scholars conclude that the book was written actually as a historical record of events during the Maccabean period, but couched in apocalyptic or prophetic language. Such conclusions clearly deny that this book was the authentic composition of a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C., that the Bible affirms.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due to the amount of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran, it appears that this prophetic book was one of the most treasured by that community. Perhaps the popularity of Daniel was due to the fact that the people of Qumran lived during the anxious period in which many of these prophecies actually were being fulfilled. For whatever reason, Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12. However, one manuscript (4QDanc; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Danc = one of the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated “c” for clarification), published in November 1989, has been dated to the late second century B.C. (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDanb, 4QDana) have been published since 1987, and contribute to scholarly analysis of Daniel. These recently released fragments have direct bearing on the integrity and authenticity of the book of Daniel.

 

INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT

As in the case of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no extant manuscripts of Daniel that dated earlier than the late tenth century A.D. Accordingly, scholars cast suspicion on the integrity of Daniel’s text. Also, as with Isaiah, this skepticism about the credibility of Daniel’s contents prompted scholars to take great freedom in adjusting the Hebrew text. One reason for this suspicion is the seemingly arbitrary appearance of Aramaic sections within the book. Some scholars had assumed from this linguistic shift that Daniel was written initially in Aramaic, and then some portions were translated into Hebrew. Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.

Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.

 

The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of this book.

The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).

The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).

Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written when the Bible says it was written.

A final contribution from Qumran to the biblically claimed date for Daniel’s composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as we mentioned earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections in Daniel indicate a second-century B.C. date of composition, the Qumran materials suggest otherwise. In fact, a comparison of the documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that the Aramaic in Daniel is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C. Such a comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a region different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon found in Cave 1 is a second-century B.C. document written in Aramaic—the same period during which critical scholars argue that Daniel was composed. If the critical date for Daniel’s composition were correct, it should reflect the same linguistic characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon. Yet, the Aramaic of these two books is markedly dissimilar.

The Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the beginning of the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a later position in the clause. Due to such considerations, linguists suggest that Daniel reflects an Eastern type Aramaic, which is more flexible with word order, and exhibits scarcely any Western characteristics at all. In each significant category of linguistic comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the Genesis Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second century B.C.) reflects a much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980, 136:143; cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the Hebrew of Daniel is compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran sectarian documents (i.e., those texts composed by the Qumran community reflecting their peculiar societal laws and religious customs). From such linguistic considerations provided by Qumran, Daniel hardly could have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea during the early second-century B.C., as the critics charge.

 

CONCLUSION

There are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence, continue to argue against the authenticity of Daniel and other biblical books. Yet, the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people God intends us to be.

 

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1980), “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 136:129-147, April-June.

Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Brantley, Garry K. (1994), “Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.

Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scriptures (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Collins, John J. (1992a), “Daniel, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:29-37.

Collins, John J. (1992b), “Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:85-101.

Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Historical Context of the Scrolls,” Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Hershel Shanks (New York: Random House).

Geisler, Norman and Ronald Brooks (1989), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).

Geisler, Norman and William Nix (1986), A General Intorduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Hasel, Gerhard (1992), “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5[2]:45-53, Spring.

Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews,” The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, (Chicago, IL: John C. Winston; translated by William Whiston).

Major, Trevor (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating,” Reason and Revelation, 13:73-77, October.

Roberts, B.J. (1962), “Masora,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), 3:295.

Seow, C.L. (1987), A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).

Shanks, Hershel (1991), “Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[6]:72, November/December.

Whitehorne, John (1992), “Antiochus,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 1:269-272.

Yamauchi, Edwin (1972), The Stones and the Scriptures: An Evangelical Perspective (New York: Lippincott).

Yamauchi, Edwin (1980), “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 137:3-16, January-March.

 

DATE OF THE BOOK

 

THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCROLLS

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Some view this as

Quote:
Some view this as Daniel writing an actual prophecy that didn't happen as Antiochus IV died from an illness before he could do it.

we know how he died........he obviously should have been in bed, not trying to loot that temple!......Daniel is writing a prophecy which hasn't happened........yet!

Quote:
In some ways this seems to have occured though when you consider the wars with Parthia in the East and Egypt. In 168 BCE Rome pressured him to leave Egypt. Antiochus in disregard to the treaty of Apamea built a fleet of ships and powerful navy invading Cyprus. 

 Cyprus is not Egypt.  Furthermore Egypt attacked him! Your eye for detail suddenly becomes  hazy! In fact, as I pointed out, his initial alliance with Ptolemy preceded a later attack on Egypt which was actually frustrated by Rome. He actually decided that it was not a good time to invade .......so you are indulging in revisionism here. As I said, the death of Antiochus is dealt with before v36. Here is the text of v36 et seq:

  36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e]

 40 "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?

2] In your scenario, who is 'the one desired of women'?

3] In your scenario, what does, 'the time of the end' refer to?

4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?

5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?

6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?

8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.

9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?

9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'? 

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've repeatedly

Quote:
I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

you appear to have acquired some form of repetitive syndrome. The repetition of bland, unevidenced assertions may convince any gullible who have not followed the debate but no-one else........I detect squirming.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: Quote:In

freeminer wrote:

 

Quote:
In my attempt to get through to Miner I mentioned that the goat and ram were being analyzed using 2 different methods by y'all.

Method 1 - You see the ram as only 1 empire comprised of the Medes & the Persians.

Method 2 - You see the goat as 1 empire that splits 4 ways.

What I suggested also supported by history was 1 method.

The ram was 1 empire in a geographic area, the Medes, that origianlly was smaller and less significant than Babylon. (Which is what Daniel also claimed)

The empire of the Medes is conquered and made far greater by the Persians with conquests that exceed the Medes. This is reflected in the small horn of the Medes and the large horn of the Persians.

This is 1 animal and 2 empires.

The goat is 1 animal that is 1 empire that becomes 4 empires.

This is the same technique for both.

Are we clear here?

Having made the point perfectly clearly that the above is not a matter of exegetical methodology but is straightforwardly explained by the text, have you put up a rebuttal?........no. All you have managed to do is blithley ignore a point which would be obvious to a five year old. You do yourself no credit in this. It must be clear to you, as obviously someone of reasonable intelligence, that this makes it appear that you are scrabbling around to make a case and are either unable to or not prepared to apply rationality.

I clearly explained your error repeatedly. There's no point in trying to explain it further to you.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I wondered when you do this.

I wondered when you do this. I so love copy/paste of walls of text.
 
This somehow gives you more respectability is that what you think?
 
Or you just Don't know how to embed links yet, there are instructions for that if you look.
 
 
 

freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
   
Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation            www.apologeticspress.org/articles/266
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30     
   
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.


 
 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
Bible believers often are confronted with the charge that the Bible is filled with mistakes. These alleged mistakes can be placed into two major categories: (1) apparent internal inconsistencies among revealed data; and (2) scribal mistakes in the underlying manuscripts themselves. The former category involves those situations in which there are apparent discrepancies between biblical texts regarding a specific event, person, place, etc. [For a treatment of such difficulties see Archer, 1982; Geisler and Brooks, 1989, pp. 163-178]. The latter category involves a much more fundamental concern—the integrity of the underlying documents of our English translations. Some charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have altered significantly the information presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers. However, the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.


 
I don't think we were arguing in this regard.

 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
 
 
DATE OF THE MATERIALS
When the scrolls first were discovered in 1947, scholars disputed their dates of composition. Scholars now generally agree that although some materials are earlier, the Qumran materials date primarily to the Hasmonean


 
How does a period after Antiochus help out.

 
 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
(152-63 B.C.)


 
I mentioned that the writing was carbon dated to this period.

Quote:
The DSS is another area where we can argue in regards to dating. Dates have been proposed from the 1st to 2nd century BCE which generally is what carbon dating indicates.
 
Some documents date to the 1st century CE.
 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls
 


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
and early Roman periods
 
(63 B.C.-A.D. 68).


 
And this one too.

 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
Several strands of evidence corroborate these conclusions. First, archaeological evidence from the ruins of the Qumran community supports these dates. After six major seasons of excavations, archaeologists have identified three specific phases of occupation at the ancient center of Qumran. Coinage discovered


 
See Robert Eisenman's comments on coinage in "The Dead Sea Scrolls & the First Christians" pp97-110.
Coinage only indicates that a coin of a specific period was dropped or lost and only indicates it had to be after it was minted.
A coin minted in 138 BCE could have been lost any time thereafter, even in say 100 or 200 CE.
 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
in the first stratum dates from the reign of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.). Such artifacts also indicate that the architecture associated with the second occupational phase dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.). Also reflected in the material remains of the site is the destruction of its buildings in the earthquake reported by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2). Apparently, this natural disaster occurred around 31 B.C. a position that prompted the occupants to abandon the site for an indeterminate time. Upon reoccupation of the area—the third phase—the buildings were repaired and rebuilt precisely on the previous plan of the old communal complex. The community flourished until the Romans, under the military direction of Vespasian, occupied the site by force (see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22).
 
Such evidence is consistent with the second century B.C. to first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls.


 
Which is exactly what I mentioned isn't it.

 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
The second strand of evidence is that the generally accepted dates for the scrolls are corroborated by palaeographical considerations. Palaeography is the study of ancient writing and, more specifically, the shape and style of letters. Characteristic of ancient languages, the manner in which Hebrew and Aramaic letters were written changed over a period of time. The trained eye can determine, within certain boundaries, the time frame of a document based upon the shape of its letters. This is the method by which scholars determine the date of a text on palaeographical grounds. According to this technique, the scripts at Qumran belong to three periods of palaeographical development: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style reflects the period between about 250-150 B.C.; (2) a large cache of manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, that is consistent with a
 
writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.);


 
I know, that's what I mentioned. This helps you exactly how?

 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
 
 
and (3) a similarly large number of texts that evinces a writing style characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70).

 
This is even far later, years after even the Maccabean Wars. Not very helpful to you.
 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
This linguistic information also is consistent with the commonly accepted dates of the Qumran materials.
 
Finally, as an aside, the carbon-14 tests done on both the cloth in which certain scrolls were wrapped, and the scrolls themselves, generally correspond to the palaeographic dates. There are, however, some considerable differences. Due to the inexact nature of carbon-14 dating techniques (see Major, 1993), and the possibility of chemical contamination, scholars place greater confidence in the historically corroborated palaeographic dates (see Shanks, 1991, 17[6]:72). At any rate, the archaeological and linguistic data provide scholars with reasonable confidence that the scrolls date from
 
250 B.C. to A.D. 70.


 
I mentioned this and gave a link. Also don't forget this is a 2 sigma error rating of generally +/- 25 to 70 years. see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

 
 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as possible. Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only copies (apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew canon, except Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the materials at Qumran (Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided textual critics with ancient manuscripts against which they can compare the accepted text for accuracy of content.
 
 
 
This second point is of particular importance since, prior to the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from about A.D. 980. The MT is the result of editorial work performed by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. The scribes’ designation was derived from the Hebrew word masora, which refers collectively to the notes entered on the top, bottom, and side margins of the MT manuscripts to safeguard traditional transmission. Hence, the Masoretes, as their name suggests, were the scribal preservers of the masora (Roberts, 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth century A.D., the Masoretes labored to introduce both these marginal notes and vowel points to the consonantal text—primarily to conserve correct pronunciation and spelling (see Seow, 1987, pp. 8-9).
 
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often “corrected” the text with considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
 
Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.
 
The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea Scrolls have increased our confidence that faithful scribal transcription substantially has preserved the original content of Isaiah.
 
TABLE 1. QUMRAN VS. THE MASORETES
______________________________________
Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).
 
10 letters = spelling differences
 
4 letters = stylistic changes
 
3 letters = added word for “light” (vs. 11)
______________________________________
17 letters = no affect on biblical teaching
 



So You should only use the MT text or the Hebrew bible which in English is the JPS.

But wait, you use the NIV and/or NAB.


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
The Qumran materials similarly have substantiated the textual integrity and authenticity of Daniel. Critical scholarship, as in the case of most all books of the Old Testament, has attempted to dismantle the authenticity of the book of Daniel. The message of the book claims to have originated during the Babylonian exile, from the first deportation of the Jews into captivity (606 B.C.; Daniel 1:1-2) to the ascension of the Persian Empire to world dominance (c. 536 B.C.; Daniel 10:1). This date, however, has been questioned and generally dismissed by critical scholars who date the final composition of the book to the second century B.C. Specifically, it is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6 as they appear in their present form can be no earlier than the Hellenistic age (c. 332 B.C.). Also, the four-kingdom outline, explicitly stated in chapter 2, allegedly requires a date after the rise of the Grecian Empire. Further, these scholars argue that since there is no explicit reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 B.C.), a Seleucid king clearly under prophetic consideration in chapter 11, a date in the late third or early second century B.C. is most likely (see Collins, 1992a, 2:31; Whitehorne, 1992, 1:270).



So this section is discussion and the last sentence is assertion with reference to Collins


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

The apparent reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the predictive nature of the book of Daniel. It speaks precisely of events that transpired several hundred years removed from the period in which it claims to have been composed. Since the guiding principles of the historical-critical method preclude a transcendent God’s intervening in human affairs (see Brantley, 1994), the idea of inspired predictive prophecy is dismissed a priori from the realm of possibility. Accordingly, Daniel could not have spoken with such precision about events so remote from his day. Therefore, critical scholars conclude that the book was written actually as a historical record of events during the Maccabean period, but couched in apocalyptic or prophetic language. Such conclusions clearly deny that this book was the authentic composition of a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C., that the Bible affirms.



Fair explanation and discussion, no evidence though for a Daniel in the 6th century BCE.

 
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
The Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due to the amount of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran, it appears that this prophetic book was one of the most treasured by that community. Perhaps the popularity of Daniel was due to the fact that the people of Qumran lived during the anxious period in which many of these prophecies actually were being fulfilled. For whatever reason, Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12. However, one manuscript (4QDanc; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Danc = one of the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated “c” for clarification), published in November 1989, has been dated to the late second century B.C. (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDanb, 4QDana) have been published since 1987, and contribute to scholarly analysis of Daniel. These recently released fragments have direct bearing on the integrity and authenticity of the book of Daniel.



The reasons presented in my references for this popularity was Antiochus IV and the violence he inflicted on the Jews seems to fit. Whether it was a form of propaganda and resistance or it was events predicted somehow by Daniel in the 6th in regards to the actions of Antiochus IV in the 2nd, it doesn't support your view it pertains to Jesus, Rome, the evil incarnate RCC, and your interpreted "end times".

freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
 
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
As in the case of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no extant manuscripts of Daniel that dated earlier than the late tenth century A.D. Accordingly, scholars cast suspicion on the integrity of Daniel’s text. Also, as with Isaiah, this skepticism about the credibility of Daniel’s contents prompted scholars to take great freedom in adjusting the Hebrew text. One reason for this suspicion is the seemingly arbitrary appearance of Aramaic sections within the book. Some scholars had assumed from this linguistic shift that Daniel was written initially in Aramaic, and then some portions were translated into Hebrew. Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.



And................

freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.



All this means is the text more or less conforms to what has been handed down, it certainly doesn't speak to the origins or attribute it to any "truth" handed down by a god.
I grew up in the Southwest US and there are many bi-lingual people that go back and forth between English and Spanish. This is likely the case with Daniel as well. The Aramaic language over several centuries replaced Hebrew  and it would only make sense that later documents were in both.


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of this book.



What compelling evidence?
That it existed after it was written in 167 BCE?
We already knew that. Nothing has been shown that Daniel copies in the DSS are older than that.


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).



More assertion here. One can't know who or why this phrase was written in the margins of a scroll. One of my Bibles has many hand written comments in it as well. Such as, "No Way", "No Joke Intended", "Already Destroyed before this" , SFW", "WTF"and such. If my Bible is the only one found in 2,000 years can you imagine the effect it will have on Biblical critics in the future?
freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).



The Mormons had little trouble in doing so in far less than 50 years. More assertion and conjecture. The author has no support for the length of time a book attains popularity and authorative status. Further on, Christians wish to view the Gospels as authoritative status in even less time than is suggested by critics of Daniel. Y'all again want it both ways.


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written when the Bible says it was written.



The Book of Mormon was popular in the early to mid 19th century as well, so this indicates with this line of reasoning it is all true as well. Come on, open your eyes.

The author construes it was canonical because it was there. So 1 Enoch also found in far larger quantities also should be canon, though it hasn't been held that way has it.

Number of fragments/ books of 1 Enoch in DSS = 25

Number of fragments/books of Daniel in DSS = 8

see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

A final contribution from Qumran to the biblically claimed date for Daniel’s composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as we mentioned earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections in Daniel indicate a second-century B.C. date of composition, the Qumran materials suggest otherwise. In fact, a comparison of the documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that the Aramaic in Daniel is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C. Such a comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a region different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon found in Cave 1 is a second-century B.C. document written in Aramaic—the same period during which critical scholars argue that Daniel was composed. If the critical date for Daniel’s composition were correct, it should reflect the same linguistic characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon. Yet, the Aramaic of these two books is markedly dissimilar.


More assertion and conclusion without substantiation.
All this indicates is the style of some of the fragments were possibly earlier.
Though, the scribe in question may have used that method only because it is what he learned.
See Eisenman I referred you to in regards to the coinage, he also discusses this.


freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
The Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the beginning of the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a later position in the clause. Due to such considerations, linguists suggest that Daniel reflects an Eastern type Aramaic, which is more flexible with word order, and exhibits scarcely any Western characteristics at all. In each significant category of linguistic comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the Genesis Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second century B.C.) reflects a much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980, 136:143; cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the Hebrew of Daniel is compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran sectarian documents (i.e., those texts composed by the Qumran community reflecting their peculiar societal laws and religious customs). From such linguistic considerations provided by Qumran, Daniel hardly could have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea during the early second-century B.C., as the critics charge.


As I just mentioned, this only indicates the style of the scribe and little conclusion can be made just from that.
As carbon dating has these copies after 160 BCE more would be needed to claim this. See Eisenman.

freeminer’s wall of text wrote:

 
 
 
CONCLUSION
There are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence, continue to argue against the authenticity of Daniel and other biblical books. Yet, the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people God intends us to be.

 
 
Knock yourselves out.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:Some


freeminer wrote:


Quote:
Some view this as Daniel writing an actual prophecy that didn't happen as Antiochus IV died from an illness before he could do it.


we know how he died........he obviously should have been in bed, not trying to loot that temple!......Daniel is writing a prophecy which hasn't happened........yet!


I'd thought you'd like a Faux News Style statement. Some people say . . .

There are many interpretations of Daniel, not just your Bible thumpers version.

 Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.

1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

7-Belshalzzar killed when the Persians bloodlessly take the City of Babylon under Cyrus, not Darius. - The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

So feel free to ignore them. That's your choice.

Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.




freeminer wrote:


Quote:
In some ways this seems to have occurred though when you consider the wars with Parthia in the East and Egypt. In 168 BCE Rome pressured him to leave Egypt. Antiochus in disregard to the treaty of Apamea built a fleet of ships and powerful navy invading Cyprus.


 Cyprus is not Egypt.  Furthermore Egypt attacked him! Your eye for detail suddenly becomes  hazy! In fact, as I pointed out, his initial alliance with Ptolemy preceded a later attack on Egypt which was actually frustrated by Rome. He actually decided that it was not a good time to invade .......so you are indulging in revisionism here. As I said, the death of Antiochus is dealt with before v36. Here is the text of v36 et seq:


Do you work at Faux?

1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.

There supposedly was a plan by Egypt to invade and that is the basis for his invasion in 170 BCE. This is  covered in Dan 11:25-27.

Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI



freeminer wrote:


  36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e]

 

 40 "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.




I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely. I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

freeminer wrote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19

Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.



freeminer wrote:


2] In your scenario, who is 'the one desired of women'?


Tammuz, Astarte or Asherah ie. fertility goddesses of Syria

freeminer wrote:


3] In your scenario, what does, 'the time of the end' refer to?


The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

freeminer wrote:


4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .


freeminer wrote:


5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

freeminer wrote:


6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!


Dan 11:40 does not say that.

Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood."

 

The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurrs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.

freeminer wrote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


Where in Daniel 11?



freeminer wrote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.


More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land) going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.

freeminer wrote:


9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.

freeminer wrote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

freeminer wrote:


10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job?

*edit*

I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Edited reply to Freeminer

 


freeminer wrote:


Quote:
Some view this as Daniel writing an actual prophecy that didn't happen as Antiochus IV died from an illness before he could do it.


we know how he died........he obviously should have been in bed, not trying to loot that temple!......Daniel is writing a prophecy which hasn't happened........yet!


I'd thought you'd like a Faux News Style statement. Some people say . . .

There are many interpretations of Daniel, not just your Bible thumpers version.

 Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.

1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

7-Belshalzzar killed when the Persians bloodlessly take the City of Babylon under Cyrus, not Darius. - The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

So feel free to ignore them. That's your choice.

Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.




freeminer wrote:


Quote:
In some ways this seems to have occurred though when you consider the wars with Parthia in the East and Egypt. In 168 BCE Rome pressured him to leave Egypt. Antiochus in disregard to the treaty of Apamea built a fleet of ships and powerful navy invading Cyprus.


 Cyprus is not Egypt.  Furthermore Egypt attacked him! Your eye for detail suddenly becomes  hazy! In fact, as I pointed out, his initial alliance with Ptolemy preceded a later attack on Egypt which was actually frustrated by Rome. He actually decided that it was not a good time to invade .......so you are indulging in revisionism here. As I said, the death of Antiochus is dealt with before v36. Here is the text of v36 et seq:


Do you work at Faux?

1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.

There supposedly was a plan by Egypt to invade and that is the basis for his invasion in 170 BCE. This is  covered in Dan 11:25-27.

Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI



freeminer wrote:


  36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e]

 

 40 "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.




I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely. I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

freeminer wrote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19

Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.



freeminer wrote:


2] In your scenario, who is 'the one desired of women'?


Tammuz, Astarte or Asherah ie. fertility goddesses of Syria

freeminer wrote:


3] In your scenario, what does, 'the time of the end' refer to?


The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

freeminer wrote:


4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .


freeminer wrote:


5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

freeminer wrote:


6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!


Dan 11:40 does not say that.

Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood."

 

The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurrs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.

freeminer wrote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*

Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV



freeminer wrote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.


More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land) going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.

freeminer wrote:


9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.

freeminer wrote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

freeminer wrote:


10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*

Translations once again disagree.

NIV-11:39 - "He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price." 

 

JPS- 11:39 - "And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price."

DRO-11:39 - "And he shall do this to fortify Maozim with a strange god, whom he hath acknowledged, and he shall increase glory and shall give them power over many, and shall divide the land gratis."

DRO is not supportive of this, saying instead he will give away the land for free.

*edit*

I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:I've

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

you appear to have acquired some form of repetitive syndrome. The repetition of bland, unevidenced assertions may convince any gullible who have not followed the debate but no-one else........I detect squirming.

What you detact is my recognition that you exist in a world of your own where your perceptions are altered by your erronous beliefs in that which is not.

You are welcome to follow the path of self deception and fantasy that you have chosen.

You somehow think that you can infect others with this same affliction by trickery, misconstued interpretation, blatant assertions, and distortion. 

You are not in the employ of the Grand Inquisitor Conrad of Marburg in the Middle Ages.

Perhaps you think you are in some way using a metaphorical rack that you can tighten to inflict pain or acceptance of your misconceived interpretations of ancient writing. You're not.

Those that think you are in someway presenting a realistic interpretation are welcome to join you.

I do not require your acceptance of my position where I reject the fantasy, misconceptions,  poor interpretations, and trickery you spin nor that of those who wish to be swayed by you. 

I do realize that this entire discussion will not have any effect on you or that which you believe. That was never my point. I am not trying to save you from yourself. You can believe and accept whatever it is that works for you, which I have said to you more than once.

We can continue to play out our roles in this thread for as long as you like. You can call me names, claim whatever you wish if it unburdens your mind to do so. 

I leave you with these quotes from Eleanor Roosevelt:

"In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility."

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've repeatedly

Quote:
I've repeatedly explained to you the error you are making.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

you appear to have acquired some form of repetitive syndrome. The repetition of bland, unevidenced assertions may convince any gullible who have not followed the debate but no-one else........I detect squirming.

Quote:

[What you detact is my recognition that you exist in a world of your own where your perceptions are altered by your erronous beliefs in that which is not.

"my world" is shared by sufficient numbers to provide sufficient assurance that my logic is not peculiar to me.

Quote:
You are welcome to follow the path of self deception and fantasy that you have chosen.

you rightly imply here that what is ultimately at stake in this discussion is the issue of which party is departing from rationality. Well let's take a look at this:

1] We are examining a text which is available to all parties. So far you have engaged in a mind-numbing debate regarding the identity of the four earthly kingdoms dealt with by Daniel. You have maintained this in total disregard for the fact that the text itself makes their identity clear. In order to do this, you have to treat the three main prophecies given to Daniel as entirely unrelated. You do this despite the fact that the text itself makes their inter-relatedness clear.

So, while claiming the irrationality of scripture, you simultaneously refuse to accord it a presumption of rationality yourself!!!! 

2] Without any rational basis, you arbitrarily declare that there is no onus upon you to put forward your own alternative rational paradigm. You apparently fail to notice that without one, any critque of scripture by yourself has no basis whatsoever, the exercise sinks into the realms of absurdity. 

3] You insist on a re-writing of history in the face of the facts.

4] You then resort to blaming your debating opponents and attributing to them characteristics which you are entirely unable to verify.......as here:

Quote:
You somehow think that you can infect others with this same affliction by trickery, misconstued interpretation, blatant assertions, and distortion.

supplemented with wild, irrational statements of the  most bizarre kind as here:

Quote:
You are not in the employ of the Grand Inquisitor Conrad of Marburg in the Middle Ages.

Perhaps you think you are in some way using a metaphorical rack that you can tighten to inflict pain or acceptance of your misconceived interpretations of ancient writing. You're not.

Those that think you are in someway presenting a realistic interpretation are welcome to join you.

I do not require your acceptance of my position where I reject the fantasy, misconceptions,  poor interpretations, and trickery you spin nor that of those who wish to be swayed by you. 

I would add that whether others "join me" is dependent upon whether they are prepared to seek the truth regardless of the implications for their own autonomy. That is what evinces the mindset of a person. If a man fears the implications of truth, his natural reaction is to collude with his own deception. That is why I have no great hopes for your eternal future.

Quote:
I do realize that this entire discussion will not have any effect on you or that which you believe. That was never my point. I am not trying to save you from yourself. You can believe and accept whatever it is that works for you, which I have said to you more than once.

I think, as products of a liberal upbringing, we have this much in common. I assumed it from the outset. God gives you the right to co-operate in your own eternal destruction. There is no inherent reason for me to care about you more than any other stranger in the street. Neither my world-view nor my ego hang upon the perception of having 'won' some debate soon to be lost in cyber-space. Unfortunately I've been given a task, which is to ensure that you know the facts.......it simply seems to be a reasonable addendum to try to ensure that, where you depart from rationality in your apprehension of them, this is clearly pointed out to you. I am in fact doing you a dis-service........the man who lives in ignorance is less guilty.

Quote:
We can continue to play out our roles in this thread for as long as you like. You can call me names, claim whatever you wish if it unburdens your mind to do so. 

I am not aware of having launched a personal attack on you. I have made clear the points at which I regard you as having departed from rationality for the reason given above. The propensity of the atheist to indulge in self-delusion will always be a source of wonderment to a theist. One of the symptoms is that from time to time it presents as a lesser intelligence than one knows him to possess.

Quote:
I leave you with these quotes from Eleanor Roosevelt:

"In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility."

well, even the religionist thinks this. He believes that his righteousness is entirely in his own hands..........Jesus said he didn't come for them. The man who believes he has the answer needs help from no-one. She was right about one thing, which is that God holds everyone ultimately responsible. That responsibility includes responsibility to use the rationality he has given us and to resist the temptation to dispense with it when we feel our autonomy threatened.

 

Quote:
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

 

so don't give it. God doesn't require you to. No-one has anything they weren't given.  Being made in his image is the ultimate claim.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I clearly explained

Quote:
I clearly explained your error repeatedly. There's no point in trying to explain it further to you.

 

I've seen what you've written..........how does this 'explain' anything? The text explains itself........this removes the need for interpretation. You may not like it but that ain't the point!     

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Kingdoms

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

As I promised, when the time came, I would make my case as to who these later prophecies apply and why.

As a Christian, I like millions of other people believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. The bible points out that the Jews as a nation rejected their Messiah, and that the gospel went to the gentiles. Those who have faith in Jesus are now referred to as Abraham's seed. And Christians are in a sense "spiritual Israel". They are at least referred to numerous times as "Gods people", or the "saints of the most high".

Since in this prophecy, the little horn is found to be persecuting the "saints of the most high", and the Jews have rejected their Messiah, it seems reasonable that these prophecies could be referring to "those who have faith in Jesus", or Christians.

I believe that this little horn is referring to what is sometimes referred to as Papal Rome, or the apostate Roman Catholic Church. This power fits all of the identifying points in Daniel 7, and this interpretation also takes us down into modern times and extend to the time of the end.

Furthermore this prophecy fits into the claims made by the book that it is prophetic, and about events at that time future. It does not try to "force" a whole different and conflicting interpretation.

We will continue by examining point by point to see if my interpretation is a proper fit.

As you saw in my last post not all Christians agree with this view that it foretells Papal Rome as the little horn. They saw it generally as foretelling the Jewish persecution by Antiochus instead. I look forward to your explanation of how it fits and why the evil monster Antiochus IV isn't the scum discussed instead it's the evil church incarnate of Catholicism. 

Clearly I still adhere to my view it was written in the 2nd century and await your next installment.

I am still not quite clear on your  position. On one hand you say that Media and Persia are not considered as one power, but two. That would make the second kingdom Media, the Third Persia, and the Fourth "Greece".

On the other hand you say that the third kingdom is "Greece", and the fourth kingdom is the Seleucid Empire, making Antiochus IV the little horn. I have problems with both views. For me to continue this analysis I need some clarification.

Can we get this settled once and for all? I would like to address this.

Thank You in advance.

I will be waiting for your reply.

I can see why you might get confused, what with the wild misinterpretations of Miner, your reading of Daniel, your desire to fit the "little horn" on the papal dictators, that are clearly self serving "power brokers" and a 2nd century BCE writer trying to get a message out amidst severe persecution.

I'm very clear on what I said, the "word twisting" of miner is what causes you to be confused. Since you asked nicely, I'll show you once again:

What I said:

PJTS post #499 wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

That was the idea wasn't it.

gramster wrote:

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

gramster wrote:

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

gramster wrote:

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways.

Is this clear for you on the response to Daniel 2?

1-Babylon 2- Medes 3-Persia 4- Alexander (you call it Greece really it is Macedonia)

PJTS post #499 part 2 wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Probably.

gramster wrote:

2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

gramster wrote:

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.

gramster wrote:

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

This is the respnse to your Daniel 7 view. 1-Babylon 2-Medes 3-Persia 4-Alexander (Macedonia which you call Greece)

PJTS post #499 part 3 wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

2-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

 

gramster wrote:

1. The first kingdom is not mentioned here. This prophecy was given toward the end of Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian kingdom.

I don't know where you get this was given in the end of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom as verse 1 says it was in the 3rd year of Belshazzar's reign (a reign I don't agree happened but not pertinent to your error) 

You error with this statement.

gramster wrote:

2. We have a Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - It is identified for us as the "kings of Media and Persia".

Yes, it is. But only one becomes larger then the other. If the empire in the 2nd kingdom you claimed was both, why have 2 horns here symbolically showing it was separate? How can a single empire be 2 different sizes? This also fits in with the 2nd empire earlier mentioned being inferior to Babylon, smaller horn. Thus this Ram represents 2 empires separately but coming from the same geographic area.

gramster wrote:

3. We have a Goat which "came...not touching the ground". We would call this really flying. The goat is identified for us as Greece. It had four horns which are identified as "four kingdoms (that) shall arise out of that nation.

The goat can be Alexander's empire as the writer does say it is a king of Greece. The 4 horns are a representation by the writer of the 4 way split of his empire.

 

gramster wrote:

4. We have a little horn which will require much more detailed investigation to positively identify. I will do this later separately.

Oh, you want to wait to discuss it later.

However, I'll give you an opening for you to take a shot against.

The little horn is actually Antiochus IV. Which fits perfectly with Daniel being a prophecy written after the fact, or a history.

As you said, the 1st kingdom wasn't mentioned. You messed up what you said and wrongly said this prophecy was near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. He was already dead! Nabonidus was king and his son is called King Belshazzar (which I say isn't true, he was but the crown prince doing what daddy asked) and this vision was supposedly in the 3rd year of his reign. Daniel 8:1.

So, nothing changed the 1st kingdom despite your errors, its still 1-Babylon

Next, the Ram is said to represent the Medes with a small horn and the Persians large horn. Thus, 2-Medes 3- Persia

One animal equals 2 empires.

Next is the goat which is saide to represent Grecia and the great horn between the eyes is the great king. This is said to be the Macendonian Empire and the king is said to be Alexander. You say this is Greece and Alexander.

4-Greece or Macedonia

The goat has 4 horns which are claimed to be 4 kingdoms coming out of the Macedonian Empire of Alexander. Daniel 8:8 and Daniel 8:22. These kingdoms we both agree are:

1-Antigonid Empire (Dynasty) - Macedonia & Greece

2-Ptolemaic Empire

3-Attalid Empire

4-Seleucid Empire

Then we have your strange interpretations coming up with European kingdoms and tribes that have nothing to do at all with the Jews, including tribes that disappear versus the 10 kings of the Seleucid Empire.

Is this clear?

 In my attempt to get through to Miner I mentioned that the goat and ram were being analyzed using 2 different methods by y'all.

Method 1 - You see the ram as only 1 empire comprised of the Medes & the Persians.

Method 2 - You see the goat as 1 empire that splits 4 ways.

What I suggested also supported by history was 1 method.

The ram was 1 empire in a geographic area, the Medes, that originally was smaller and less significant than Babylon. (Which is what Daniel also claimed)

The empire of the Medes is conquered and made far greater by the Persians with conquests that exceed the Medes. This is reflected in the small horn of the Medes and the large horn of the Persians.

This is 1 animal and 2 empires.

The goat is 1 animal that is 1 empire that becomes 4 empires.

This is the same technique for both.

Are we clear here?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, yes, now we are clear. Sorry for the delay on this.

You are right when you say that Media and Persia were actually separate kingdoms and should be viewed as such. Separate kingdoms that were represented together by individual beasts. I have looked into your interpretations carefully, and still have some pretty significant problems.

First, since we are separating out Media from Persia, Media never did follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Babylon was "conquered" by Cyrus. Now technically, Cyrus was the king of Persia and Media. When he rebelled against his grandfather Astyages and gained victory in 550 BC he became the king of Media. This made him the king of Media and Persia.

Under Persian rule the Mede's who were close kin to the Persians retained a prominent position in the kingdom. At the beginning the Geek historians were still calling it a Median Empire. History still considers Persia to be a successor state to Media.

Thus, it would not be correct to use two beasts or sections of a statue to represent Media and Persia. One would have to either represent Persia alone, or considering the Median role "Medo-Persia". The writer of Daniel chose to acknowledge the Median connection by including them in these beasts.

That being said, we have the bear raised up on one side that corresponds nicely with the Ram with one horn larger than the other. Both symbols representing a greater Persia with a Median connection.

Second, we have the leopard with four wings and four heads. This is a very poor symbol for Persia. Yes, Persia did have more than four kings, but was never viewed as having four distinct power centers. Heads being greater than horns would more than likely represent something more than individual kings in succession.

Greece now is a perfect fit. The four wings represent the swiftness with which Alexander conquered all of the vast areas of Persia. The four heads represent the four major divisions that came out of Alexanders kingdom. Now here's a perfect fit.

Than we have the little horn in Daniel 7 who's appearance was greater than his fellows. Antiochus VI was definitely not greater than his predecessors. Yes, he was a "nasty little bugger", but not great in the scheme of things.

If one just takes the book as what is claims (prophecy from God), and does not try to make something else out of it, everything works out just fine.

If one bends the needle of the compass 180 degrees to try to avoid acknowledging God, there are always problems.

Once again, we have a storyline "made up" that just does not work.