I am quite certain that for an atheist, a pristine verifiable source that agrees with the bible would be nothing less than time locked, date stamped photo complete with a dna sample, or an eye witness that has been around for a few thousand years and can prove it.

gramster wrote:

 

I am quite certain that for an atheist, a pristine verifiable source that agrees with the bible would be nothing less than time locked, date stamped photo complete with a dna sample, or an eye witness that has been around for a few thousand years and can prove it.

After being on this site for over 3 years, i have found that the above statement is accurate... i actually have 1 patron who actually asks me for god DNA as if it was a logical request for evidence of a metaphysical being.

 

 

Cap,

Christians like to compare the differing stories of the events in the gospels to differing eyewitness accounts of a car accident.

The problem is that the gospel accounts often differ on critical points that significantly affect the story. To use the car accident analogy: If an accident happened at 3pm on Wednesday, there may be differing accounts on who was at fault or the makes of the vehicles. However, the stories would all agree that the accident happened at 3pm on Wednesday.

In the case of the gospels, there are certain critical events where the writers can't agree on dates.

it casts doubt on something more important than what happened or how it happened. It raises doubts concerning if/whether it happened at all.

Do you consider the gospels "eye-witness accounts" as so may Christians do? If you don't, you and I are in agreement for the most part. You may consider then as having eyewitnesses as source material. I can't go that far. I believe they were made up to support Paul's theory (most of, if not all of, the gospel writers were converts of Paul's).

 

 

Than we have the suggestion that Media and Persia were meant to be two distinct successive powers. That I personally reject this mainly for four basic reasons.

1 Media was not a successive kingdom to Neb's Babylon.

2 Media is a poor fit for the symbolism of the beasts involved.

3 Media and Persia are seen as a unit in Daniel 8 by definition.

4 The uncanny likeness of the 4 headed leopard to the goat with 4 horns which seem to obviously be the same power (the goat being called "Greece" specifically in ch would have to be forced to be Persia instead.

More Later

It is good that we are no longer considering Media and Persia as separate.

The next point in question is the identity of the 4th beast. Cowles and PJTS contend that this beast is none other than Egypt and Syria. I believe The Roman Empire is a much better fit.

The reasons for this is:

1. Egypt and Syria are already represented in the leopard with 4 heads as "Greece". This could hardly represent Alexander only as "Greece" entailed the 4 divisions. Also the 4 heads of the leopard correspond so obviously with the 4 divisions of the country. Therefore we already have Egypt and Syria represented. To have them be the 4th beast, is to have powers that are successive to themselves. This is a big problem for Cowles as well as for the 2nd century BC writer theory. 

2. The description of the 4th beast do a pretty good job of portraying The Roman Empire, and a pretty poor job of representing Egypt and Syria.

"Strong as Iron",and "Crushes all Others", doesn't seem to fit the back and forth power struggle of Egypt and Syria. It does however, portray The Roman Empire very well.

The emphasis on intermarriages in failed attempts to unite would lead one to look for a power where this stands out as more prevalent than the previous kingdoms. This is clearly true of the divided remnants of The Roman Empire, but not that much of a pattern for Egypt and Syria with a few exceptions.

The original text indicates that the kingdom would be divided in the later end of this kingdom. This is also true in the Roman interpretation, and does not fit the Egyptian theory very well.

Finally, "In the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom". This is to be an everlasting kingdom that consumes "all these". This clearly does not fit Cowles theory, even though he makes an attempt to get around it.

With the 2nd century BC theory we can as usual plead ignorance on the part of the writer who may believe that the semi independence of Israel will bring on such a kingdom, and sees the Seleucid Kingdom is such a light as above.

Trying to swallow all of this, we will acknowledge that it remains for me to show the relevance of the Roman Empire and beyond to the readers of these prophecies. It also remains for me to further detail and support my views.

Next we will take a brief review of the little horn. Than we will go on to chapter 8 which should prove to be quite interesting.

jcgadfly wrote:

it casts doubt on something more important than what happened or how it happened. It raises doubts concerning if/whether it happened at all.

I don't think so.  It's if anything a poor representation of reality on either account to be frank.  There are legends that have had the truths greatly exaggerated that are based off of true people and events, then there are legends that seem much more 'down to Earth' that make logical sense and yet have no grounds in any actual happenings in history.  It's a poor representation of your belief if you're using common ground in stories to base your acceptance of truth... or not...

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you consider the gospels "eye-witness accounts" as so may Christians do? If you don't, you and I are in agreement for the most part. You may consider then as having eyewitnesses as source material. I can't go that far. I believe they were made up to support Paul's theory (most of, if not all of, the gospel writers were converts of Paul's).

Not all the gospels i would say are "eye-witness accounts", but some are as researched and concluded by scholars.   There are extensive reasonings behind those conclusions.  Look up authorship of the gospel of John for example and the reasons why it would be considered an eye-witness account.  

When the books were not eye-witness accounts, in most cases, the stories were said to be written by those who were socially close to eye-witnesses.  

I'm curious on how you concluded that they're not eye-witness accounts... mistaken dates or times don't count due to reasoning I mentioned earlier... unless of course you disagree with my reasoning and if you do, how so?  Would you say it's not likely that over an extended period of time a person would mistake a particular specific date... especially if they had a lack of focused reference to exactly when it was in the first place?  

gramster wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

it casts doubt on something more important than what happened or how it happened. It raises doubts concerning if/whether it happened at all.

I don't think so.  It's if anything a poor representation of reality on either account to be frank.  There are legends that have had the truths greatly exaggerated that are based off of true people and events, then there are legends that seem much more 'down to Earth' that make logical sense and yet have no grounds in any actual happenings in history.  It's a poor representation of your belief if you're using common ground in stories to base your acceptance of truth... or not...

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you consider the gospels "eye-witness accounts" as so may Christians do? If you don't, you and I are in agreement for the most part. You may consider then as having eyewitnesses as source material. I can't go that far. I believe they were made up to support Paul's theory (most of, if not all of, the gospel writers were converts of Paul's).

Not all the gospels i would say are "eye-witness accounts", but some are as researched and concluded by scholars.   There are extensive reasonings behind those conclusions.  Look up authorship of the gospel of John for example and the reasons why it would be considered an eye-witness account.  

When the books were not eye-witness accounts, in most cases, the stories were said to be written by those who were socially close to eye-witnesses.  

I'm curious on how you concluded that they're not eye-witness accounts... mistaken dates or times don't count due to reasoning I mentioned earlier... unless of course you disagree with my reasoning and if you do, how so?  Would you say it's not likely that over an extended period of time a person would mistake a particular specific date... especially if they had a lack of focused reference to exactly when it was in the first place?  

Hi Cap,

What Gadfly is rambling on about here is a theory fabricated by an author named Maccoby. He asserts that most of the new testament was written by Paul and his followers, and that Paul "made the whole thing up".

He takes things like Paul's disagreement with Barnaby, and blows it up in to a bitter battle that seems to last a lifetime. He also does all the usual things that "liberals" like to do when they criticize the Bible. Like reading things in to the text things that are not there, suggesting that the fact that something is not mentioned means that according to that author it did not happen, etc.

We spent some time debating this book of fiction, and you may not believe this, but we never did come to the same conclusions. I found the book to be based almost exclusively on speculation. 

This seems to be a favorite topic for them.

 

Correction. I made no statement that the bible was written by the very hand of God. If I referenced God as authoring the Bible, it would be only in reference to a conversation relevant to God's knowledge and influence.

Since there seems to be some confusion on this issue, I will now make my position very clear. I believe that God inspired the writing of the bible, and at some times went as far as to actually tell the authors what to write. The book of Daniel specifically states that Daniel was shown these things by God, this would be in visions. The only part God actually wrote Himself are the 10 Commandments.

gramster wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

it casts doubt on something more important than what happened or how it happened. It raises doubts concerning if/whether it happened at all.

I don't think so.  It's if anything a poor representation of reality on either account to be frank.  There are legends that have had the truths greatly exaggerated that are based off of true people and events, then there are legends that seem much more 'down to Earth' that make logical sense and yet have no grounds in any actual happenings in history.  It's a poor representation of your belief if you're using common ground in stories to base your acceptance of truth... or not...

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you consider the gospels "eye-witness accounts" as so may Christians do? If you don't, you and I are in agreement for the most part. You may consider then as having eyewitnesses as source material. I can't go that far. I believe they were made up to support Paul's theory (most of, if not all of, the gospel writers were converts of Paul's).

Not all the gospels i would say are "eye-witness accounts", but some are as researched and concluded by scholars.   There are extensive reasonings behind those conclusions.  Look up authorship of the gospel of John for example and the reasons why it would be considered an eye-witness account.  

When the books were not eye-witness accounts, in most cases, the stories were said to be written by those who were socially close to eye-witnesses.  

I'm curious on how you concluded that they're not eye-witness accounts... mistaken dates or times don't count due to reasoning I mentioned earlier... unless of course you disagree with my reasoning and if you do, how so?  Would you say it's not likely that over an extended period of time a person would mistake a particular specific date... especially if they had a lack of focused reference to exactly when it was in the first place?  

 

All we have on the Gospels are handed down documents without attribution in them to who actually wrote them. As I mentioned in a thread in regard to "Former Catholics", the writer does not give credit to his sources in the text at all. The details in regard to John the Baptist and the early life of Jesus would have to come from Mary and/or  her cousin Elizabeth. There is nothing in either Luke or Matthew which says, I Luke received all of this knowledge from Mary the mother of Jesus. Mark and Luke are not "eye-witnesses" to anything in their books at all as their information came 2nd hand at best. Matthew and John were both written even later, casting doubts on their writers as well. Since I don't subscribe to anyone being inspired by a God or even a Muse I consider their writing to be based in legends. The text of the Gospels show this is true with the 100s of differences between them. Normally the argument is this is due to the writer's perspective, which if the information is based in legends is somewhat actually what likely occurred. Different stories in regard to a desert prophet were floating around, told in one area and migrating to other parts of the country. Eventually details of the stories contain slight to major differences. Thus you end up with both a 5000 and a 4000 person feeding. You get 2 versions of the centurions servant being healed. You get a multiple choice account of the "passion week". What if any of this was based in reality becomes quite impossible to discern.

While the stories of the desert prophet are floating around, one character named Saul/Paul becomes a Jesus believer. Whether his change in beliefs was from a visitation, epilepsy, or a physiological disorder is not possible to determine without examination of Saul-Paul who is not amongst the living. Examination of his claims as compared to what Jesus in the writing teaches has many differences. Maccoby does point this out in his book. Again I discussed this subject in the Catholic thread I mentioned.

See - http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

         http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm

         http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

for a start on some of the differences. 

gramster wrote:

Hi Cap,

What Gadfly is rambling on about here is a theory fabricated by an author named Maccoby. He asserts that most of the new testament was written by Paul and his followers, and that Paul "made the whole thing up".

He takes things like Paul's disagreement with Barnaby, and blows it up in to a bitter battle that seems to last a lifetime. He also does all the usual things that "liberals" like to do when they criticize the Bible. Like reading things in to the text things that are not there, suggesting that the fact that something is not mentioned means that according to that author it did not happen, etc.

We spent some time debating this book of fiction, and you may not believe this, but we never did come to the same conclusions. I found the book to be based almost exclusively on speculation. 

This seems to be a favorite topic for them.

Paul it would seem was an actual real person, but he lacks a lot of understanding of the Jesus in the later written Gospels. There an interesting aspects to his life that are very questionable. If a pharisee, why was he employed by the opposing enemy the Herodian priests? Paul's writing does not correspond to the Pharisee way of thinking as in his use of logic, where he takes his arguments beyond the premises. Paul uses the Septuagint not the Hebrew text in his scripture references, a pharisee would not. Who actually was it in Damascus that tried to seize him, Aretas soldiers or the Jews. Acts seems to show differences between James & Paul, why? Paul is seized by the Romans and it is later claimed that the Roman commander did so to save Paul as he knew him to be a Roman. Though the writer just a few verses earlier mentioned torturing Paul, which contradicts the Romans knowing he had Roman citizenship. After Paul is in protective custody of the Romans and it becomes known he is a Roman, no contact is discussed between James and the other Jesus believers.

All of this can be discussed after you finish your interpretations of Daniel if you like as it is a major side track from the thrust of the current topic.

 

There are a couple of examples of "mingling" in the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria at the time of the Seleucid Kings, but nothing really on a notable scale.

 

Really? Just one more poor fit.

 

This was your assignment, not mine to compare the intermarriages and relationships. Instead you just claim there were very few examples of intermingling on the part of the Greeks  and drop it.

The following shows much of that which occurred in the Greek intermarriages from Alexander on. Since you are avoiding detailing the Greek -Hellenistic relationships I will post some of it for you to show you why there is no reason to ignore it when it comes to Daniel. I don't know if you are just too lazy to research it or you suspect it discredits your interpretation.

gramster wrote:

 

There are a couple of examples of "mingling" in the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria at the time of the Seleucid Kings, but nothing really on a notable scale.

 

Really? Just one more poor fit.

 

Greek -Seleucid - Ptolemy marriages & relationships.

 

Alexander married Roxana, a Bactrian princess (part of today's Turkmenistan) - the child was Alexander IV of Macedonia

 Ptolemy Lagi - married two wives, Eurydice, the daughter of Antipater, whom he divorced, and Berenice, her companion. 

                       Antipater was a Macedonian  general and supporter of Phillip II and Alexander of Macedon, and was the regent over the empire after Alexander's death.

                       -sons - Ptolemy Ceraunus and Philadelphus

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_i_soter.htm#Early

Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) - married  his 1st wife Arsinoe I the daughter of Lysimachus, king of Thrace, Asia Minor and Macedon.

                                        - his 2nd wife was his full blood sister, Arsinoe II. She was previously married to King Lysimachus to whom she bore three sons, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Philip. After the kings death she fled to Cassandrea  and married her half-brother Ptolemy Keraunos, son of Ptolemy I by Eurydice. Both of them claimed the throne of Macedonia. Through intrigue she plotted against Keraunos and 2 of hers sons are killed. She fled to Egypt and married her brother at that point. Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II rules Egypt during the 1st Syrian War.

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_ii_philadelphus.html

Ptolemy III ( Euergetes ), the eldest son of Philadelphus by his first wife - married Berenice, daughter and heiress of Magas, adding Cyrenaica. 

                                        - children - Ptolemy IV, Aridonoe III, unnamed son.

During his reign the 3rd Syrian war occurs.

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_iii_euergetes.html

 

Ptolemy IV - married his sister Arsinoe III. Had a mistress named Agathoclea.

                   - son Ptolemy V

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_iv_philopator.html

Ptolemy V - married the daughter of Seleucid king Antiochus III - Cleopatra I as part of peace treaty after the war ended in 193 BCE. They had 3 children, Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VII, and Cleopatra II.

                     - children Cleopatra II, Ptolemy VI & Ptolemy VIII

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_v_epiphanes.html

Ptolemy VI - married his sister Cleopatra II, she is the daughter of Cleo I and granddaughter of Antiochus III is deposed by Antiochus IV but is supported by Rome and is reinstated, ruling jointly.

                      - children - Ptolemy Eupator, Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator, Cleopatra Thea

               2nd wife - unknown name

                  - child - Ptolemy Memphites

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_vi_philometor.html

Ptolemy VII  (sometimes the numbers of these 2 are reversed)- Neos Philopator - probable son of Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II. Most likely murdered by his father.

 

Ptolemy VIII - (sometimes the numbers of these 2 are reversed) - Physcon -  also married his sister Cleopatra II. Is put on the throne by Antiochus IV. Married his wife's daughter Cleopatra III as well. In 131 BCE the people of Alexandria rioted which causes a civil war between Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VII & her daughter Cleopatra III.  Cleopatra II offers the throne of Egypt to Demetrius II of Syria, but he can't get his army far enough. Ptolemy sent his daughter Cleopatra Tryphaena to marry Antiochus VI. He dies in 116 BCE.

                       - 1st wife Cleopatra II - no children

                      - 2nd wife Cleopatra III

                          - children - Ptolemy IX, Ptolemy X, Cleopatra IV, Cleopatra V, Tryphaena-married to Antiochus VIII

                    -3rd wife Irene

                         - child - Ptolemy Apion

see - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_viii_physcon.html

                          

Syrian - Seleucid

Seleucus I Nicator - married Apama. daughter of Spitamenes, a Persian leader who fought against Alexander.

                            - Sons Antiochus I and Achaeus

                            -  also married Stratonice I - with several marriages of influence - http://www.livius.org/so-st/stratonice/stratonice_i.html

                               - children - daughter Phila II marries Antigonus II Gonatas King of Macedonia

See also - http://www.livius.org/se-sg/seleucids/seleucus_i_nicator.html

Antiochus I Soter - marries his stepmother Stratonice I

                             - children - Seleucus, Laodice, Apame II - married Magas of Cyrene, Stratonice II - married Demetrius II of Macedonia, and Antiochus II.

see - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_i_soter.html

 

Antiochus II Theos - 1st wife -  Laodice I

                                   - children - Selecus II, Antiochus Hierax, Apame, Stratonice III-married to Ariarathes III of Cappodocia, Laodice-married to Mithrates II of Pontus

                               -2nd wife - Berenice Phernephorus the daughter of Ptolemy II

                                       - child - son Antiochus

see - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_ii_theos.html

Seleucus II Callinicus - wife Laodice II

                                   - children - Antiochis(daughter) - married to Xerxes of Armenia, Alexander (aka Seleucus III Ceraunus), LU, Antiochus III

see - http://www.livius.org/se-sg/seleucids/seleucus_ii_callinicus.html

 

Seleucus III Ceraunus - no children or wife mentioned.

Antiochus III the Great - 1st wife Laodice III (daughter of Mithrates II of Pontus)

                                              - children - Antiochus (died), Selecus IV, Ardys, a daughter (name not clear)  - engaged to Demetrius of Bactria, Laodice IV, Cleopatra Syra-married to Ptolemy V, Antiochis (daughter)-married to Ariarathes IV of Cappodocia, Antiochus IV

                                    - 2nd wife - Euboea of Chalcis - no children

see - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iii.html

Seleucus IV Philopator - wife, probably his sister Laodice IV

                                         - children - Antiochus, murdered, Demetrius I Soter, Laodice V-married to Perseus of Macedonia

see - http://www.livius.org/se-sg/seleucids/seleucus_iv_philopator.html

Antiochus IV Epiphanes - wife Laodice IV, his sister the widow of his brother

                                         - children - Antiochus V, Laodice VI-married to Mithrates V of Pontus, Alexander Balas

see - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iv_epiphanes.html

Antiochus V Eupator - no wife or children mentioned.

 

Sometime in this vicinity the 2nd century BCE origin ended, possibly around Antiochus V or before. The intermarriages continue however. As my opinion is the Book of Daniel was written and finished in this time period, continuing on with the marriages are really not needed. I will go as far as Demetrius II, which is past the point I consider the writer of Daniel wrote.

Demetrius I Soter - wife - Laodice V 

                                   - child - Demetrius II

see - http://www.livius.org/de-dh/demetrius/demetrius_i_soter.html

Alexander I Balas - wife - Cleopatra Thea the daughter of Ptolemy VI

                                       - children - Antiochus VI, maybe Alexander II Zabinas

see - http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander01/alexander_i_balas.html

Demetrius II Nicator - 1st wife - Cleopatra Thea (ex-wife of Alexander Balas

                                                -children - Seleucus V, Antiochus VIII, and an unnamed daughter married to Phraates II son of Mithradires of Parthia

                                 - 2nd wife - Rhodogyne - daughter of Mithraties I of Parthia - no children

see - http://www.livius.org/de-dh/demetrius/demetrius_ii_nicator.html

I did not research every single child of the Ptolmeies and the Seleucids, nor did I detail all the relationships with Macedonia and Greece proper. If I did, there would be more. There is more than enough here to justify it as the period when a 2nd century origin is considered.

Therefore I take a very dim view of you dismissing this period which has relevance to the Jews in Palestine as you have in favor of very unrelated relationships in kingdoms that come 100s and if not 2000 years later.

 

 

 

Hi Cap,

What Gadfly is rambling on about here is a theory fabricated by an author named Maccoby. He asserts that most of the new testament was written by Paul and his followers, and that Paul "made the whole thing up".

He takes things like Paul's disagreement with Barnaby, and blows it up in to a bitter battle that seems to last a lifetime. He also does all the usual things that "liberals" like to do when they criticize the Bible. Like reading things in to the text things that are not there, suggesting that the fact that something is not mentioned means that according to that author it did not happen, etc.

We spent some time debating this book of fiction, and you may not believe this, but we never did come to the same conclusions. I found the book to be based almost exclusively on speculation. 

This seems to be a favorite topic for them.

 

Yes, indeed we did discuss "the Paul thing". I will leave it up to Cap to go back and look into this if he wants. I will for now, continue my focus on Daniel.

With that, I think it is time for us to jump into chapter 8. We have already covered beasts, kings, kingdoms, successive territories, chasms, mingling, saints, and the kog. Chapter 8 will afford more opportunity and gives more details.

 

gramster wrote:

With that, I think it is time for us to jump into chapter 8. We have already covered beasts, kings, kingdoms, successive territories, chasms, mingling, saints, and the kog. Chapter 8 will afford more opportunity and gives more details.

 

Chapter jumps right in starting with the Ram with 2 horns.

Daniel 8:3,4 "Than I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no beast, could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became very great."

I would like to point out once again the uncanny likeness of this Ram in chapter to the Bear in chapter 7.

1. The Ram had 2 horns, one higher - The Bear was raised up with one side higher

2. The Ram was pushing 3 directions - The Bear had 3 ribs between it's teeth

We already know from Daniel 8:20 that the Ram is identified by the author as the kings of Media and Persia.

The kingdom of "Medo-Persia" or Archaemeid Empire came out of the east and conquered 3 main territories. Babylon to the west, Lydia to the northwest, and Egypt to the southwest.

It is still being suggested that in Daniel 2 and 7 the kingdoms of Media and Persia are represented as separate, successive kingdoms. I cannot find any basis for accepting this.

Cyaxares, listed as the first king of Media joined an alliance with Nabopolassar of Babylonia.

Astyages, listed as the second and last king of Media ruled in alliance with old king Neb.

The "Median Empire" never included Babylon even based on the Herodotean view.

Media did not exist as a separate kingdom following the fall of Babylon.

I have searched history and cannot find any basis for Media being represented as a separate, successive kingdom.

Thus I have no alternative to believe that the chest of arms of silver in chapter 2, and the bear in chapter 7, as well as the ram in chapter all refer to the same power. The kings of Media and Persia.

 

 

Daniel 8

2 Animals are shown. There is nothing representing Babylon in this chapter.

1-Ram which has 2 horns identified as the Medes and Persians in the verse.

   1-Medes are the small horn

   2-Persians which are the much larger horn

2-Goat has 4 horns and a very large horn in the center - identified as Greece and the great king (Alexander)

      The 4 horns are:

      1-Antigonid Empire (Dynasty)

      2-Ptolemaic Empire

      3-Attalid Empire

      4-Seleucid Empire

 

If the leopard represents Alexander, and the 4 heads represent the 4 divisions of his kingdom, than as I previously pointed out, the Seleucid kingdom is already represented. The great and terrible beast would have to be a power that followed those 4 divisions.

The next great power on the scene that controlled Palestine and the areas most affecting the Jews was "Rome". You need not make a power successive to itself to solve this one.

Daniel 8:9 "And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land."

AE IV does not match this description very well. He did not grow exceedingly great in this way. I know that in the eyes of a 2nd century Jew he may have been seen as very great, so I will leave this one alone for now.

 

⁸ The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

 ⁹ Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land.

2. The Goat has 4 horns that arise after the large one - The leopard has 4 heads (both symbolizing the four divisions of "Greece" following Alexanders death)

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.

Rome however does match this description quite well. Egypt (South) fell to Rome in 30 BC, Syria (East) fell to Rome in 65 BC, and Palestine fell to Rome in 63 BC. Rome did grow "exceedingly" in all of those directions.

 

"Out of one of them came another horn which grew exceedingly great"

It is very common to error in interpretation of texts due to information lost through translation. This is the case here.

In Hebrew words often have gender. The author of Daniel made it very clear to Hebrew readers that he was definitely not saying that the other horn came out of one of the four horns. What he is saying is that the other horn came out of one of the four winds of heaven.

How do we know this for sure. We go back to the original language. In Hebrew the word for them (mehem) is masculine. The word for horn (qeren) is feminine. And the word for winds (ruchout) is gender neutral.

A Hebrew writer would never use a masculine pronoun to refer to a feminine noun. Therefore the Hebrew reader would readily understand that the author was referring to the gender neutral noun.

To the Hebrew reader this would be just as plain as if the writer had said "out of one of the four winds". But in English this is lost.

If a 2nd century writer was referring to AE IV, he most certainly would have used a feminine gendered pronoun to indicate that he was referring to the four horns.  AE IV definitely came out of one of the four horns. By referring to the winds instead of the horns he pretty much precludes AE IV.

Therefore it makes sense to look for another power that this horn represents.

 

caposkia wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Yes, indeed we did discuss "the Paul thing". I will leave it up to Cap to go back and look into this if he wants. I will for now, continue my focus on Daniel.

I might leave it for now.  See if I can jump in at some point on Daniel discussion.  

I'm still trying to figure out the base for the conversation.  What are your ultimate intentions for the any of these conversations?  Are you trying to convince each other of certain points or are we just having a friendly debate about details?

i only ask because some of the focus and reasoning from what I can see won't have a clear conclusion due to lack of information on the focus on both sides.   I'm all for a friendly debate with no purpose, but I'd tend to sit and watch those rather than getting involved.  I tend to lean toward either agreeing on a side, or agreeing that we can't logically conclude on the point due to lack of information and move on.  

gramster wrote:

caposkia wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

Yes, indeed we did discuss "the Paul thing". I will leave it up to Cap to go back and look into this if he wants. I will for now, continue my focus on Daniel.

I might leave it for now.  See if I can jump in at some point on Daniel discussion.  

I'm still trying to figure out the base for the conversation.  What are your ultimate intentions for the any of these conversations?  Are you trying to convince each other of certain points or are we just having a friendly debate about details?

i only ask because some of the focus and reasoning from what I can see won't have a clear conclusion due to lack of information on the focus on both sides.   I'm all for a friendly debate with no purpose, but I'd tend to sit and watch those rather than getting involved.  I tend to lean toward either agreeing on a side, or agreeing that we can't logically conclude on the point due to lack of information and move on.  

My contention is that the book of Daniel is prophecy that was written as it claims well before the events prophesied took place. If this can be shown to be true, it is evidence of the existence of God.

JPTS and the atheists claim that Daniel was written by an unknown author in the 2nd century BC, making it nothing more than history as it happened.

The claim was also made that the prophecies in Daniel can be made to fit pretty much any interpretation that one wants them to. Thus if they "happen" to match powers at a later time this would not be the "hand of God". No God needed.

JPTS recommended Cowles predominantly Catholic view that the 4th beast represents Egypt and Syria following the death of Alexander the Great, and not The Roman Empire.

My contention is that only one interpretation will hold up to close investigation to the end. That being the one originally intended by the books ultimate author.

Untangling all the twists and turns put forward in the process of this is of course no quick and easy process.

I like to evaluate things from a simple common sense of view. If it does not make sense, than I am compelled to reject it.

I am going chapter by chapter and discussing each relevant passage, considering the three main view points, Cowles theory, the 2nd century BC writer theory, and the Roman Theory.

I don't know if that helps. Feel free to join in.

Gramps