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
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I went back over the Cyrus and Nebonidus Cylinders in Livis.org, and there is still no support for your claim. The closest I have found is that around 545 or 544 BC "the crown prince and his officials and his army was in Akkad." Than 6 years later "Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Cyrus) massacred the inhabitants."

It is a very huge stretch to "assume" Belshazzar was still there personally in Akkad, and that he did not escape". He, like Nebonidus, very likely ended up fleeing to the great walled city of Babylon for safety. There is no way of knowing from the ancient tablets.

I haven't gone over the Roux book again, but will do so. I was hoping you would actually have some real evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. See pp 386-87 in Roux's book. His sources are for the paragraph where Belshalzzar is killed in Opis and Nabonidus either dying in Babylon or being appointed governor by Cyrus - the following -

Josephus Contra Apionnem, 1, 21: Eusebius, Praep. Evang. IX, 41

He cited the following for the battle at Opis - Nabonidus Chronicle III, 12-19 (ABC, pp 109-10; ANET, p 306

See his Bibliography on page 491.

I've read this in other places but of course I can't always find these things when I live in 2 states. Right now I'm in Denver, so its probably in my stack of reference material in Florida.

Sometimes these things are in actual paper books and not on the webs, It may necessitate a trip to the library.

*Edit - added* see also Israel in Exile: the history and literature of the 6th century BCE by Rainer Albertz pp 69-70

 

I have studied these references thoroughly. Here is what I have discovered.

1. Roux, in his book "Ancient Iraq" p. 386-387 claims that Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. He gives reference as you listed above to Josephus and Eusebius. 

2. In his works Contra Apionnem, Josephus makes no reference to the death of Belshazzar. None.

3. In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Ch 11 however, Josephus gives an account of Belshazzar's feast much like the account in Daniel. That seems to be pretty much all Josephus has to say about Belshazzar.

4. Eusebius, in his work Praeparatio Evangelica also fails to mention Belshazzar. Here is a summary of what this says.

   a. Cyrus invades Babylon.

   b. Nebonidus (Nabonnedus) and his army is defeated by Cyrus.

   c. Nebonidus flees to Borsippus.

   d. Cyrus takes Babylon and demo's the outer walls because the city had been "very troublesome" to him. 

   e. Cyrus' army goes to Borsippus to "besiege" Nabonidus.

   f. Nebonidus gives up peaceably "without a siege", and is therefore treated kindly by Cyrus.

   g. Nebonidus is given charge of Carminia.

 Nothing here about Belshazzar either. It seems as if Roux just pulled this one out of his "Arse".

What we can get from this is that According to Eusebius and Josephus, it appears that Nebonidus was not in Babylon when it fell, but in Borsippus. And that he was treated "kindly" because he gave up peaceably.

However, if Belshazzar was in Babylon which was a royal pain to Cyrus, and it is already known that Cyrus did not like Belshazzar, his fate would likely have been much worse. This all seems to correspond very well with the account in the book of Daniel.

It is only the unsubstantiated claim by Roux that is out of line here.

There was also the mention by Rainer where he makes the same statement in regard to Belshalzzar.

 

So what difference does it make where and when Belshalzzar was killed. It is only one piece of the many issues with Daniel. Does your entire view rest upon one piece of info?

Mine certainly does not. I have mentioned many things which you discredit. The least you could do is be a little skeptical.

Roux spent far more time studying Ancient Iraq then either of us.

The disdain you show for historians is duly noted.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:
 

PJTS wrote:

Not at all.

Quote from 1 Mac 2:60 DRO - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions."

Hercules was the son of Zeus.

Enki ejaculated and made the Tigris.

All 3 are unproved statements.

Whether "Daniel being delivered out of the mouth's of lions" is proved or unproved is not the point. The point is that Mattathias saw Daniel as a real person before the time that most critical scholars date the writing of the book of Daniel. If this book were "fiction written in the 2nd century BC", it is not likely that this would be the case.

PJTS wrote:

Mattathias probably thought the Earth was flat, it was on pillars, and heaven was out amongst the stars somewhere.

So What?

A man of legend named Daniel is one thing. If the book of Daniel existed, why didn't he discuss it?? The parallels to his time would have jumped out and bit him. He could have cited or quoted Daniel verbatim in his dying words. Daniel said blah blah and in the end we will win out.

Nada. 

Which Robin Hood legends do you hold as real? And why?

OK? Mattathias on his deathbed trying to give courage to those fighting for the cause said something similar to "Think of how Robin Hood successfully fought against the odds of evil, and have courage knowing you will prevail". Go out and put your life on the line taking courage from a fairytale.

If that is what you believe?? We'll leave it at that.

And you consider just the simple mention of a name to prove everything even things of myth and fairytales.

Can you go on now that you have insulted a noted historian and scholar in the person of Georges Roux?

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gramster can't help it,

Gramster can't help it, PJTS.

You and others are mowing down the field of straws so there's nothing to grasp at.

"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
No mention in the Pergamon Museum

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

I have searched the museum's online list of Babylon artifacts and this is not mentioned.

I found this mention here - http://www.kenboa.org/text_resources/unedited_transcripts?id=7179

This refers to a monument not a pottery shard. If this is what you mean you inaccurately presented the information.

Here is a link to the Pergamon Musuem. - http://www.smb.museum/smb/sammlungen/details.php?objID=23&n=0&r=0&p=0

They don't mention your claim. Exactly what monument do you think it is on?

Here is a link to CDLI or Cunnefirm Digital Library Online - http://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/

Please indicate which artifact contains your claim.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Still no inaccuracies

Just one more.

Herodotus, who lived during the time of Cyrus also seems in sync with the biblical account of the overthrow of Babylon.

In book 1, starting with 179 he gives a description of Babylon. A bit later he describes how Cyrus routed the river and marched his troops under the great wall, surprising the inhabitants of Babylon, and capturing the city.

On 1-179, he states "they did not know they had been captured; but as they chanced to be holding a festival, they went on dancing and rejoicing during this time until they learned the truth only too well".

This would also explain how Cyrus took the city without a fight. With the element of surprise, overwhelming force, and with the Babylonian leaders absent from the events having a drunken party, there likely wouldn't have been much resistance if any.

The book of Daniel also describes a big "festival" or "party" going on the night of Babylon's capture.

There are still no inaccuracies to be found in the book of Daniel. So far, his version of what took place in the 5th century BC, as far as we can tell is 100% accurate. Pretty amazing for a poorly informed 2nd century BC author.

Your only complaint remains to be that Daniel did not mention Nebonidus, who quite likely was not even in the city, and had nothing to do with the events depicted in the book.

It seems to be time to drop the false claims that the book of Daniel if "full of inaccuracies", and start to focus on the book's amazing accuracy and details.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gramster. you sure like to

Gramster. you sure like to do your version of the Gish Gallop.

Is that your strategy - to keep bouncing from point to point hoping that PJTS will forget something so you can turn around and say "Well, it seems we agree on this as you have provided no refutation"?

"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 deceive yourself

gramster wrote:

Just one more.

Herodotus, who lived during the time of Cyrus also seems in sync with the biblical account of the overthrow of Babylon.

Actually Herodotus did not live during the time of Cyrus.

Cyrus died in 530 BCE

Herodotus was born in approximately 490 BCE and died in about 430 BCE. This is clearly after Cyrus.

 

gramster wrote:

In book 1, starting with 179 he gives a description of Babylon. A bit later he describes how Cyrus routed the river and marched his troops under the great wall, surprising the inhabitants of Babylon, and capturing the city.

On 1-179, he states "they did not know they had been captured; but as they chanced to be holding a festival, they went on dancing and rejoicing during this time until they learned the truth only too well".

This would also explain how Cyrus took the city without a fight. With the element of surprise, overwhelming force, and with the Babylonian leaders absent from the events having a drunken party, there likely wouldn't have been much resistance if any.

If you read his book and compare it to others you will see that Herodotus has many errors.

First off he inaccurately describes the city of Babylon indicating he had never been there.

He incorrectly describes the walls of the city in 178.

Herodotus History Book 1 wrote:

It lies in a great plain, and in size it is such that each face measures one hundred and twenty furlongs, the shape of the whole being square; thus the furlongs of the circuit of the city amount in all to four hundred and eighty. Such is the size of the city of Babylon, and it had a magnificence greater than all other cities of which we have knowledge. First there runs round it a trench deep and broad and full of water; then a wall fifty royal cubits in thickness and two hundred cubits in height: now the royal cubit is larger by three fingers than the common cubit.

This indicates the wall was 100 meters high, 25 meters thick and over 90 Km total length,

In fact archeology and the description in the time of Alexander show the wall was about 25 meters high, 10 meters wide and 18 Km in length.

Sources - Liviius.org; German archaeologist Robert Kodeway and Curtius Rufus

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel also describes a big "festival" or "party" going on the night of Babylon's capture.

Whereas other accounts indicate the people were already revolting against Nabonidus and welcomed Cyrus.

Buy into whatever helps you down your road to deceiving yourself.

gramster wrote:

There are still no inaccuracies to be found in the book of Daniel. So far, his version of what took place in the 5th century BC, as far as we can tell is 100% accurate. Pretty amazing for a poorly informed 2nd century BC author.

The Book of Daniel does not discuss anything in the 5th century BCE. It supposedly discusses the 6th century BCE.

You have many times demonstrated acceptance for your desires over meticulous study. Deluding yourself into thinking Daniel is 100% accurate really indicates your failure to be skeptical and consider all possibilities. Where there is doubt as with the entire Book of Daniel there can not be 100% accuracy or certainty.

gramster wrote:

Your only complaint remains to be that Daniel did not mention Nebonidus, who quite likely was not even in the city, and had nothing to do with the events depicted in the book.

Not hardly, go back and reread this entire thread. You once more overlook reality in order to delude yourself into finding validation and correlation where there is none to be found.

gramster wrote:

It seems to be time to drop the false claims that the book of Daniel if "full of inaccuracies", and start to focus on the book's amazing accuracy and details.

 

Don't hold your breath.

Feel free to present your "Doomsday Scenario" now.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Historical Inaccuracies

 

[quote-gramster]

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I went back over the Cyrus and Nebonidus Cylinders in Livis.org, and there is still no support for your claim. The closest I have found is that around 545 or 544 BC "the crown prince and his officials and his army was in Akkad." Than 6 years later "Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Cyrus) massacred the inhabitants."

It is a very huge stretch to "assume" Belshazzar was still there personally in Akkad, and that he did not escape". He, like Nebonidus, very likely ended up fleeing to the great walled city of Babylon for safety. There is no way of knowing from the ancient tablets.

I haven't gone over the Roux book again, but will do so. I was hoping you would actually have some real evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. See pp 386-87 in Roux's book. His sources are for the paragraph where Belshalzzar is killed in Opis and Nabonidus either dying in Babylon or being appointed governor by Cyrus - the following -

Josephus Contra Apionnem, 1, 21: Eusebius, Praep. Evang. IX, 41

He cited the following for the battle at Opis - Nabonidus Chronicle III, 12-19 (ABC, pp 109-10; ANET, p 306

See his Bibliography on page 491.

I've read this in other places but of course I can't always find these things when I live in 2 states. Right now I'm in Denver, so its probably in my stack of reference material in Florida.

Sometimes these things are in actual paper books and not on the webs, It may necessitate a trip to the library.

*Edit - added* see also Israel in Exile: the history and literature of the 6th century BCE by Rainer Albertz pp 69-70

 

I have studied these references thoroughly. Here is what I have discovered.

1. Roux, in his book "Ancient Iraq" p. 386-387 claims that Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. He gives reference as you listed above to Josephus and Eusebius. 

2. In his works Contra Apionnem, Josephus makes no reference to the death of Belshazzar. None.

3. In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Ch 11 however, Josephus gives an account of Belshazzar's feast much like the account in Daniel. That seems to be pretty much all Josephus has to say about Belshazzar.

4. Eusebius, in his work Praeparatio Evangelica also fails to mention Belshazzar. Here is a summary of what this says.

   a. Cyrus invades Babylon.

   b. Nebonidus (Nabonnedus) and his army is defeated by Cyrus.

   c. Nebonidus flees to Borsippus.

   d. Cyrus takes Babylon and demo's the outer walls because the city had been "very troublesome" to him. 

   e. Cyrus' army goes to Borsippus to "besiege" Nabonidus.

   f. Nebonidus gives up peaceably "without a siege", and is therefore treated kindly by Cyrus.

   g. Nebonidus is given charge of Carminia.

 Nothing here about Belshazzar either. It seems as if Roux just pulled this one out of his "Arse".

What we can get from this is that According to Eusebius and Josephus, it appears that Nebonidus was not in Babylon when it fell, but in Borsippus. And that he was treated "kindly" because he gave up peaceably.

However, if Belshazzar was in Babylon which was a royal pain to Cyrus, and it is already known that Cyrus did not like Belshazzar, his fate would likely have been much worse. This all seems to correspond very well with the account in the book of Daniel.

It is only the unsubstantiated claim by Roux that is out of line here.

There was also the mention by Rainer where he makes the same statement in regard to Belshalzzar.

PJTS wrote:
 

So what difference does it make where and when Belshalzzar was killed. It is only one piece of the many issues with Daniel. Does your entire view rest upon one piece of info?

Mine certainly does not. I have mentioned many things which you discredit. The least you could do is be a little skeptical.

Roux spent far more time studying Ancient Iraq then either of us.

The disdain you show for historians is duly noted.

My whole view does not rest on where Belshazzar was killed. Your view however does seem to be based largely on "apparent historical inaccuracies" in the book of Daniel. You have trumpeted about these alleged inaccuracies many times, but have failed to provide any solid evidence for a single one. On the contrary, all you have is baseless assertions.

The only things that I have discredited, is those things which have no evidence or proof of support.

Yes, Roux spent much time studying Ancient Iraq. I am not showing disdain for historians. I do however, hold them to the same standard as everyone else. A "great historian" like Roux should know better than to make a statement, and back it up with a reference that does not support that statement. If he had a credible source for his claim one would think he would have posted that one in his bibliography.

It seems like a good time to discontinue the false assertions that the book of Daniel contains many historical inaccuracies since none have been shown to have any credible basis.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:
 

PJTS wrote:

Not at all.

Quote from 1 Mac 2:60 DRO - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions."

Hercules was the son of Zeus.

Enki ejaculated and made the Tigris.

All 3 are unproved statements.

Whether "Daniel being delivered out of the mouth's of lions" is proved or unproved is not the point. The point is that Mattathias saw Daniel as a real person before the time that most critical scholars date the writing of the book of Daniel. If this book were "fiction written in the 2nd century BC", it is not likely that this would be the case.

PJTS wrote:

Mattathias probably thought the Earth was flat, it was on pillars, and heaven was out amongst the stars somewhere.

So What?

A man of legend named Daniel is one thing. If the book of Daniel existed, why didn't he discuss it?? The parallels to his time would have jumped out and bit him. He could have cited or quoted Daniel verbatim in his dying words. Daniel said blah blah and in the end we will win out.

Nada. 

Which Robin Hood legends do you hold as real? And why?

OK? Mattathias on his deathbed trying to give courage to those fighting for the cause said something similar to "Think of how Robin Hood successfully fought against the odds of evil, and have courage knowing you will prevail". Go out and put your life on the line taking courage from a fairytale.

If that is what you believe?? We'll leave it at that.

And you consider just the simple mention of a name to prove everything even things of myth and fairytales.

Can you go on now that you have insulted a noted historian and scholar in the person of Georges Roux?

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Retraction

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

I have searched the museum's online list of Babylon artifacts and this is not mentioned.

I found this mention here - http://www.kenboa.org/text_resources/unedited_transcripts?id=7179

This refers to a monument not a pottery shard. If this is what you mean you inaccurately presented the information.

Here is a link to the Pergamon Musuem. - http://www.smb.museum/smb/sammlungen/details.php?objID=23&n=0&r=0&p=0

They don't mention your claim. Exactly what monument do you think it is on?

Here is a link to CDLI or Cunnefirm Digital Library Online - http://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/

Please indicate which artifact contains your claim.

 

I have dug deeper into this issue as you also have. I have not found the evidence that this statement holds up. It seems as if the information given was exaggerated. Like with the death of Belshazzar, this one was also found to be unsupportable. I will therefore abandon this one example. What seems to be the case is that the office of the master of eunuch's was confirmed to have existed, but the name Asphanez was not found. 

I will be more careful about tracing down sources and references given in the future.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Historical Accuracy

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Just one more.

Herodotus, who lived during the time of Cyrus also seems in sync with the biblical account of the overthrow of Babylon.

Actually Herodotus did not live during the time of Cyrus.

Cyrus died in 530 BCE

Herodotus was born in approximately 490 BCE and died in about 430 BCE. This is clearly after Cyrus.

 

gramster wrote:

In book 1, starting with 179 he gives a description of Babylon. A bit later he describes how Cyrus routed the river and marched his troops under the great wall, surprising the inhabitants of Babylon, and capturing the city.

On 1-179, he states "they did not know they had been captured; but as they chanced to be holding a festival, they went on dancing and rejoicing during this time until they learned the truth only too well".

This would also explain how Cyrus took the city without a fight. With the element of surprise, overwhelming force, and with the Babylonian leaders absent from the events having a drunken party, there likely wouldn't have been much resistance if any.

If you read his book and compare it to others you will see that Herodotus has many errors.

First off he inaccurately describes the city of Babylon indicating he had never been there.

He incorrectly describes the walls of the city in 178.

Herodotus History Book 1 wrote:

It lies in a great plain, and in size it is such that each face measures one hundred and twenty furlongs, the shape of the whole being square; thus the furlongs of the circuit of the city amount in all to four hundred and eighty. Such is the size of the city of Babylon, and it had a magnificence greater than all other cities of which we have knowledge. First there runs round it a trench deep and broad and full of water; then a wall fifty royal cubits in thickness and two hundred cubits in height: now the royal cubit is larger by three fingers than the common cubit.

This indicates the wall was 100 meters high, 25 meters thick and over 90 Km total length,

In fact archeology and the description in the time of Alexander show the wall was about 25 meters high, 10 meters wide and 18 Km in length.

Sources - Liviius.org; German archaeologist Robert Kodeway and Curtius Rufus

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel also describes a big "festival" or "party" going on the night of Babylon's capture.

Whereas other accounts indicate the people were already revolting against Nabonidus and welcomed Cyrus.

Buy into whatever helps you down your road to deceiving yourself.

gramster wrote:

There are still no inaccuracies to be found in the book of Daniel. So far, his version of what took place in the 5th century BC, as far as we can tell is 100% accurate. Pretty amazing for a poorly informed 2nd century BC author.

The Book of Daniel does not discuss anything in the 5th century BCE. It supposedly discusses the 6th century BCE.

You have many times demonstrated acceptance for your desires over meticulous study. Deluding yourself into thinking Daniel is 100% accurate really indicates your failure to be skeptical and consider all possibilities. Where there is doubt as with the entire Book of Daniel there can not be 100% accuracy or certainty.

gramster wrote:

Your only complaint remains to be that Daniel did not mention Nebonidus, who quite likely was not even in the city, and had nothing to do with the events depicted in the book.

Not hardly, go back and reread this entire thread. You once more overlook reality in order to delude yourself into finding validation and correlation where there is none to be found.

gramster wrote:

It seems to be time to drop the false claims that the book of Daniel if "full of inaccuracies", and start to focus on the book's amazing accuracy and details.

 

Don't hold your breath.

Feel free to present your "Doomsday Scenario" now.

What seems to be apparent is that none of the secular sources of information about this time period seem to agree 100%. Not even the clay tablets are in complete agreement. It is absurd to claim that the book of Daniel is historically flawed based on conflicting historical information.

The most that one can claim for certain is that there "may" be some historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. That is a far cry from making the bold statement that this book is full of historical errors, or that the author of Daniel had a poor knowledge of 5th century BC history.    

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Or you simply believe that

Or you simply believe that scholarly works that may be only 80-90% accurate and the book of Daniel which is vaguely written enough as to be maybe 40% accurate are equivalent.

"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
gramster wrote:PJTS

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:
 

So what difference does it make where and when Belshalzzar was killed. It is only one piece of the many issues with Daniel. Does your entire view rest upon one piece of info?

Mine certainly does not. I have mentioned many things which you discredit. The least you could do is be a little skeptical.

Roux spent far more time studying Ancient Iraq then either of us.

The disdain you show for historians is duly noted.

My whole view does not rest on where Belshazzar was killed. Your view however does seem to be based largely on "apparent historical inaccuracies" in the book of Daniel. You have trumpeted about these alleged inaccuracies many times, but have failed to provide any solid evidence for a single one. On the contrary, all you have is baseless assertions.

The only things that I have discredited, is those things which have no evidence or proof of support.

Yes, Roux spent much time studying Ancient Iraq. I am not showing disdain for historians. I do however, hold them to the same standard as everyone else. A "great historian" like Roux should know better than to make a statement, and back it up with a reference that does not support that statement. If he had a credible source for his claim one would think he would have posted that one in his bibliography.

It seems like a good time to discontinue the false assertions that the book of Daniel contains many historical inaccuracies since none have been shown to have any credible basis.


What I have shown is there is substantial doubt as to the accuracy of Daniel. Some of the issues mentioned follow, there are a few more previously mentioned. As I would really like you to finish with Daniel before I collect Social Security suffice it to say that we both disagree on these points.

1- The people and especially the priests were unhappy with the way Nabonidus was running the country. Especially his snubbing of the major gods for the Moon god Sin.

2 - Nabonidus' failure to attend the New Years Festival year after year added to the dissatisfaction of Babylon.

3 - Cyrus is seen as one that will honor the gods.

4- Daniel completely ignored the cause of the dissatisfaction of Babylon with Nabonidus and only mentioned his son, the acting regent. This is like ignoring Saddam when discussing the Iraq War and only discussing his sons Uday and Qusay.

5-The madness attributed to Nebuchadnezzar was unsubstantiated, while the  smear called verse account of Nabonidus indicated that the priests of Bel thought he was mad. A likely confusion by the 2nd century BCE writer.

6- Issues with who invaded, when, etc create doubts of accuracy. Daniel has issues that other accounts indicate occurred.

7- Daniel as the 3rd person in charge is not shown in the secular writing. A Jew with power in the powerful kingdom after all of the issues that both Assyria and Babylon had for years is extremely unlikely. Why do you think the rebellious Jews were hauled away into captivity in the 1st place?

8- Then of course there are the magic claims. Extraordinary  claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?

____________________________________________________________
"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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

I have searched the museum's online list of Babylon artifacts and this is not mentioned.

I found this mention here - http://www.kenboa.org/text_resources/unedited_transcripts?id=7179

This refers to a monument not a pottery shard. If this is what you mean you inaccurately presented the information.

Here is a link to the Pergamon Musuem. - http://www.smb.museum/smb/sammlungen/details.php?objID=23&n=0&r=0&p=0

They don't mention your claim. Exactly what monument do you think it is on?

Here is a link to CDLI or Cunnefirm Digital Library Online - http://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/

Please indicate which artifact contains your claim.

 

I have dug deeper into this issue as you also have. I have not found the evidence that this statement holds up. It seems as if the information given was exaggerated. Like with the death of Belshazzar, this one was also found to be unsupportable. I will therefore abandon this one example. What seems to be the case is that the office of the master of eunuch's was confirmed to have existed, but the name Asphanez was not found. 

I will be more careful about tracing down sources and references given in the future.

OK.

I understand your enthusism for thinking some scrap of history supported the accounts of Daniel and posting it before you went to the musuem's website to actually view the supposed artifact.

As to the ultimate fate of the regent son Bel-shar-usur it seems most accounts take the position that his fate was unknown. Several including Roux, who by the way is a Christian, indicated he died at Opis. As to what exact research gave them this impression is not obvious. Perhaps we might need to contact them or the publisher to have the issue clarified. Roux's accuracy throughout his books is extremely high and generally correlates with others.

Another book I found on Google Book Search on this subject is - Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives by Jane McIntosh. See p 112 - 116. She gives a lot of references.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Just one more.

Herodotus, who lived during the time of Cyrus also seems in sync with the biblical account of the overthrow of Babylon.

Actually Herodotus did not live during the time of Cyrus.

Cyrus died in 530 BCE

Herodotus was born in approximately 490 BCE and died in about 430 BCE. This is clearly after Cyrus.

 

gramster wrote:

In book 1, starting with 179 he gives a description of Babylon. A bit later he describes how Cyrus routed the river and marched his troops under the great wall, surprising the inhabitants of Babylon, and capturing the city.

On 1-179, he states "they did not know they had been captured; but as they chanced to be holding a festival, they went on dancing and rejoicing during this time until they learned the truth only too well".

This would also explain how Cyrus took the city without a fight. With the element of surprise, overwhelming force, and with the Babylonian leaders absent from the events having a drunken party, there likely wouldn't have been much resistance if any.

If you read his book and compare it to others you will see that Herodotus has many errors.

First off he inaccurately describes the city of Babylon indicating he had never been there.

He incorrectly describes the walls of the city in 178.

Herodotus History Book 1 wrote:

It lies in a great plain, and in size it is such that each face measures one hundred and twenty furlongs, the shape of the whole being square; thus the furlongs of the circuit of the city amount in all to four hundred and eighty. Such is the size of the city of Babylon, and it had a magnificence greater than all other cities of which we have knowledge. First there runs round it a trench deep and broad and full of water; then a wall fifty royal cubits in thickness and two hundred cubits in height: now the royal cubit is larger by three fingers than the common cubit.

This indicates the wall was 100 meters high, 25 meters thick and over 90 Km total length,

In fact archeology and the description in the time of Alexander show the wall was about 25 meters high, 10 meters wide and 18 Km in length.

Sources - Liviius.org; German archaeologist Robert Kodeway and Curtius Rufus

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel also describes a big "festival" or "party" going on the night of Babylon's capture.

Whereas other accounts indicate the people were already revolting against Nabonidus and welcomed Cyrus.

Buy into whatever helps you down your road to deceiving yourself.

gramster wrote:

There are still no inaccuracies to be found in the book of Daniel. So far, his version of what took place in the 5th century BC, as far as we can tell is 100% accurate. Pretty amazing for a poorly informed 2nd century BC author.

The Book of Daniel does not discuss anything in the 5th century BCE. It supposedly discusses the 6th century BCE.

You have many times demonstrated acceptance for your desires over meticulous study. Deluding yourself into thinking Daniel is 100% accurate really indicates your failure to be skeptical and consider all possibilities. Where there is doubt as with the entire Book of Daniel there can not be 100% accuracy or certainty.

gramster wrote:

Your only complaint remains to be that Daniel did not mention Nebonidus, who quite likely was not even in the city, and had nothing to do with the events depicted in the book.

Not hardly, go back and reread this entire thread. You once more overlook reality in order to delude yourself into finding validation and correlation where there is none to be found.

gramster wrote:

It seems to be time to drop the false claims that the book of Daniel if "full of inaccuracies", and start to focus on the book's amazing accuracy and details.

 

Don't hold your breath.

Feel free to present your "Doomsday Scenario" now.

What seems to be apparent is that none of the secular sources of information about this time period seem to agree 100%. Not even the clay tablets are in complete agreement. It is absurd to claim that the book of Daniel is historically flawed based on conflicting historical information.

The most that one can claim for certain is that there "may" be some historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. That is a far cry from making the bold statement that this book is full of historical errors, or that the author of Daniel had a poor knowledge of 5th century BC history.    

 

That there may be innaccuracies is far too soft of a position. There are inaccuracies. Previously I have detailed this over and over.

I get it that you disagree.

Get on with it already.

We will never agree.

Got it?

And please keep straight that the events described were supposed to be in the 6th Century BCE not the 5th Century BCE. You repeatedly error with this.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Back to Business - Daniel 9 interpretation

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

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

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

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

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A'. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C'. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the prince of peace that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed. 

  

OK, now that we have failed to find any proven inaccuracies in the book of Daniel but claim never the less that they are there, we will go on and finish this chapter.

There are only a very limited few dates that one can make any case at all for being the starting date for this prophecy.

You have chosen the date of Jeremiah's prophecy made in 586 BC as the start date. I believe the Artarxeres decree on 457 BC more fully fits this prophecy. We will never agree on this. 

I will use the above structure to reference my view.

A' (Jerusalem construction) The command by Artaxeres in late 457 BC begins the clock ticking.

B' (Anointed One) Unto an anointed one there will be 7 weeks and three score and two weeks. This is a poetic way of saying sixty nine weeks. Nothing more. 69 weeks = 483 days, or as all are agreed 483 prophetic years.

Taking 483 years from 457 BC and adjusting for not having a zero year brings us down to 27 AD exactly.

This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

C' (Jerusalem Construction) The temple shall be built again. No time reference is given here.

D (Anointed One) "After the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off and have nothing". This is  following the 69 weeks.

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

This is reference to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Through the death Jesus, the sacrificial offerings ceased to have any relevance or meaning. This system had met it's ultimate fulfillment. Yes, the "ritual" did continue for some time after the death of Christ, but it no longer meant anything.

A. (Jerusalem Destruction) "And upon the wing of abomination comes one who makes desolate;..."

Again talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that would follow.

this interpretation does not have dates that are somewhere between 15 and 50 years off target like the AE IV's best attempt. It also does not violate the rules of poetic literary structure in order to puzzle fit ones preferred view.

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So you believe Jesus had a

So you believe Jesus had a six year ministry? Or is every scholar but you and those you steal from three years off?

"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
gramster wrote:B' (Anointed

gramster wrote:

B' (Anointed One) Unto an anointed one there will be 7 weeks and three score and two weeks. This is a poetic way of saying sixty nine weeks. Nothing more. 69 weeks = 483 days, or as all are agreed 483 prophetic years.

Taking 483 years from 457 BC and adjusting for not having a zero year brings us down to 27 AD exactly.

This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

gramster wrote:

D (Anointed One) "After the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off and have nothing". This is  following the 69 weeks.

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

This is reference to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Through the death Jesus, the sacrificial offerings ceased to have any relevance or meaning. This system had met it's ultimate fulfillment. Yes, the "ritual" did continue for some time after the death of Christ, but it no longer meant anything.

A. (Jerusalem Destruction) "And upon the wing of abomination comes one who makes desolate;..."

Again talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that would follow.

this interpretation does not have dates that are somewhere between 15 and 50 years off target like the AE IV's best attempt. It also does not violate the rules of poetic literary structure in order to puzzle fit ones preferred view.

 

So how is it not "puzzle fitting" for the first section to have days=years and in the second section for days=days?

There is noting in the text to justify this interpretation that I can see.

I still haven't got over how Greece is explicitly a goat in one verse and implicitly a leopard a few verses later. 

Not only have you not convinced me, I am even more certain that bible "prophecies" are all bs.

 

-- 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 wrote:OK, now that

gramster wrote:

OK, now that we have failed to find any proven inaccuracies in the book of Daniel but claim never the less that they are there, we will go on and finish this chapter.

Yeah right! Keep telling yourself that.

gramster wrote:

There are only a very limited few dates that one can make any case at all for being the starting date for this prophecy.

You have chosen the date of Jeremiah's prophecy made in 586 BC as the start date. I believe the Artarxeres decree on 457 BC more fully fits this prophecy. We will never agree on this.

 

No we will never agree on this.

gramster wrote:

I will use the above structure to reference my view.

A' (Jerusalem construction) The command by Artaxeres in late 457 BC begins the clock ticking.

Apparently the re-dedication and the resumption of sacrifices mentioned earlier even by Ezra (Chapter 6) has no meaning to you, perhaps because it invalidates your scenario.

gramster wrote:

B' (Anointed One) Unto an anointed one there will be 7 weeks and three score and two weeks. This is a poetic way of saying sixty nine weeks. Nothing more. 69 weeks = 483 days, or as all are agreed 483 prophetic years.

Since the originators of the god belief in Yahweh see it as two anointed ones not one, you are doing more of that "puzzle piece fitting" here.

gramster wrote:

Taking 483 years from 457 BC and adjusting for not having a zero year brings us down to 27 AD exactly.

Of Course! Your creativity has been duly noted.

gramster wrote:

 

This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

Was it? How do you know this? Oh, you get it from the heretical books of the NT that developed a new religion from the Jews that don't see things your way.

Are you sure Jesus was not mythical? Can you show he actually lived? There are several threads on the mythical Jesus, perhaps you should read them.

gramster wrote:

C' (Jerusalem Construction) The temple shall be built again. No time reference is given here.

Seemingly Jerusalem was occupied after Cyrus allowed the Jews to go home. The Temple was also put back in use. People were in fact living there. Do you think the women would continue to live in tents? The only thing that was blocked was the construction of WALLS weren't allowed.

gramster wrote:

D (Anointed One) "After the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off and have nothing". This is  following the 69 weeks.

And if you don't play games and ignore what was very clearly given,you find yourself in the 2nd century BCE. Actually you have an error of 130 years and end up in the 2nd century BCE not in the 1st century CE.

I give you a C for creativity on this.

gramster wrote:

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

You think the analogy here to the Prince of Peace is the Romans? You're kidding right?

gramster wrote:

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

So in your view the Jesus did 7 years of ministry? Not according to your legendary book of Gospels.

And the Jesus personally caused the Jewish sacrifices to cease when he died? Not according to the Jews, they supposedly continued until 70 CE.

gramster wrote:

This is reference to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Through the death Jesus, the sacrificial offerings ceased to have any relevance or meaning. This system had met it's ultimate fulfillment. Yes, the "ritual" did continue for some time after the death of Christ, but it no longer meant anything.

These are unsupported assertions on your part.

You will have to prove that these sacrifices meant nothing after Jesus.

But first, you have to prove they meant anything in the first place other than ancient rituals by believers in one of countless gods due to their ignorance and lack of understanding of the actual world.

gramster wrote:

A. (Jerusalem Destruction) "And upon the wing of abomination comes one who makes desolate;..."

Again talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that would follow.

More text out of context and puzzle piece fitting on your part is what it is.

gramster wrote:

this interpretation does not have dates that are somewhere between 15 and 50 years off target like the AE IV's best attempt. It also does not violate the rules of poetic literary structure in order to puzzle fit ones preferred view. 

You saw to that with your creative dismissal of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return, your ignoring that the Temple was open for business at the time, as so indicated by Ezra, and your ignoring that people were living in Jerusalem as well.

Considering all of the things you did to get to your predetermined date, what's 130 years that you jumped over to get there?

____________________________________________________________
"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
Jesus' Ministry - Time Frame

jcgadfly wrote:

So you believe Jesus had a six year ministry? Or is every scholar but you and those you steal from three years off?

I believe that Jesus was baptized in AD 27, and died and was resurrected in AD 31. It is very rare that "every scholar" agrees on anything. Many come very close to agreeing to these dates.


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So you believe Jesus had a six year ministry? Or is every scholar but you and those you steal from three years off?

I believe that Jesus was baptized in AD 27, and died and was resurrected in AD 31. It is very rare that "every scholar" agrees on anything. Many come very close to agreeing to these dates.

If by "close" you mean having him crucified near the time you say he was baptized or having him at the height of his ministry after you say he was dead, buried and resurrected, you might be right.

"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
A day for a year

cj wrote:

gramster wrote:

B' (Anointed One) Unto an anointed one there will be 7 weeks and three score and two weeks. This is a poetic way of saying sixty nine weeks. Nothing more. 69 weeks = 483 days, or as all are agreed 483 prophetic years.

Taking 483 years from 457 BC and adjusting for not having a zero year brings us down to 27 AD exactly.

This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

gramster wrote:

D (Anointed One) "After the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off and have nothing". This is  following the 69 weeks.

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

This is reference to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Through the death Jesus, the sacrificial offerings ceased to have any relevance or meaning. This system had met it's ultimate fulfillment. Yes, the "ritual" did continue for some time after the death of Christ, but it no longer meant anything.

A. (Jerusalem Destruction) "And upon the wing of abomination comes one who makes desolate;..."

Again talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that would follow.

this interpretation does not have dates that are somewhere between 15 and 50 years off target like the AE IV's best attempt. It also does not violate the rules of poetic literary structure in order to puzzle fit ones preferred view.

 

So how is it not "puzzle fitting" for the first section to have days=years and in the second section for days=days?

There is noting in the text to justify this interpretation that I can see.

I still haven't got over how Greece is explicitly a goat in one verse and implicitly a leopard a few verses later. 

Not only have you not convinced me, I am even more certain that bible "prophecies" are all bs.

 

Greetings once again,

The language of the text literally says "sevens". It does not originally say either days or years. However, the word usage in the Hebrew can only refer to years. PJTS understands this, and that is why he is not disputing me on this.

I did cover this a few pages back.

In reference to the creatures in the visions, and the countries they represent, each vision uses it's own set of symbols to represents the various powers.

In chapter 7 there are 4 beasts. The first being Babylon, and just count down the powers that follow Babylon to identify the following beasts. In chapter 8 Babylon is left out since it was soon to pass in to other hands.

Most scholars, even secular ones agree on this. What is questioned is which countries are being discussed, and when the book was written.

In chapter Greece is represented by a leopard, in chapter 8 Greece is represented by a goat. Different visions, different symbols.

I have given my reasons why I believe these powers to be Babylon, "Medo-Persia", "Greece", and Rome. The evidence is there in the text. This is not "puzzle fitting".

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Greetings

gramster wrote:

Greetings once again,

The language of the text literally says "sevens". It does not originally say either days or years. However, the word usage in the Hebrew can only refer to years. PJTS understands this, and that is why he is not disputing me on this.

I did cover this a few pages back.

In reference to the creatures in the visions, and the countries they represent, each vision uses it's own set of symbols to represents the various powers.

In chapter 7 there are 4 beasts. The first being Babylon, and just count down the powers that follow Babylon to identify the following beasts. In chapter 8 Babylon is left out since it was soon to pass in to other hands.

Most scholars, even secular ones agree on this. What is questioned is which countries are being discussed, and when the book was written.

In chapter Greece is represented by a leopard, in chapter 8 Greece is represented by a goat. Different visions, different symbols.

I have given my reasons why I believe these powers to be Babylon, "Medo-Persia", "Greece", and Rome. The evidence is there in the text. This is not "puzzle fitting".

 

I have been following along on this thread and have read all the previous posts you refer to.  And it still doesn't make any sense.  AND you still haven't explained why you switched to days=days when the chapter is supposedly about when Jesus was supposedly alive.  I guess it is days=years and days=days when you want that particular definition to prove what you want to prove.

There is no logic, no continuity, no evidence, it is only what you want it to mean.  So it isn't "prophecy" and it is all bs in my book.

 

-- 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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Days

cj wrote:

gramster wrote:

Greetings once again,

The language of the text literally says "sevens". It does not originally say either days or years. However, the word usage in the Hebrew can only refer to years. PJTS understands this, and that is why he is not disputing me on this.

I did cover this a few pages back.

In reference to the creatures in the visions, and the countries they represent, each vision uses it's own set of symbols to represents the various powers.

In chapter 7 there are 4 beasts. The first being Babylon, and just count down the powers that follow Babylon to identify the following beasts. In chapter 8 Babylon is left out since it was soon to pass in to other hands.

Most scholars, even secular ones agree on this. What is questioned is which countries are being discussed, and when the book was written.

In chapter Greece is represented by a leopard, in chapter 8 Greece is represented by a goat. Different visions, different symbols.

I have given my reasons why I believe these powers to be Babylon, "Medo-Persia", "Greece", and Rome. The evidence is there in the text. This is not "puzzle fitting".

 

I have been following along on this thread and have read all the previous posts you refer to.  And it still doesn't make any sense.  AND you still haven't explained why you switched to days=days when the chapter is supposedly about when Jesus was supposedly alive.  I guess it is days=years and days=days when you want that particular definition to prove what you want to prove.

There is no logic, no continuity, no evidence, it is only what you want it to mean.  So it isn't "prophecy" and it is all bs in my book.

 

Sorry, I did not realize what you were referring to. I haven't switched to literal days. When I quoted that the anointed one will be cut off in the middle of the week, I was referring to a week of years, not literal days. That is that he would be crucified during the last seven year period of this prophecy.

My apologies for not making this clear.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: OK, now that

gramster wrote:

OK, now that we have failed to find any proven inaccuracies in the book of Daniel but claim never the less that they are there, we will go on and finish this chapter.

PJTS wrote:

Yeah right! Keep telling yourself that.

Just waiting for something other than unproven speculation.

gramster wrote:

There are only a very limited few dates that one can make any case at all for being the starting date for this prophecy.

You have chosen the date of Jeremiah's prophecy made in 586 BC as the start date. I believe the Artarxeres decree on 457 BC more fully fits this prophecy. We will never agree on this.

 

PJTS wrote:

No we will never agree on this.

gramster wrote:

I will use the above structure to reference my view.

A' (Jerusalem construction) The command by Artaxeres in late 457 BC begins the clock ticking.

PJTS wrote:

Apparently the re-dedication and the resumption of sacrifices mentioned earlier even by Ezra (Chapter 6) has no meaning to you, perhaps because it invalidates your scenario.

Yes, this has meaning, but fails to provide for the full "restoration" of Jerusalem.

gramster wrote:

B' (Anointed One) Unto an anointed one there will be 7 weeks and three score and two weeks. This is a poetic way of saying sixty nine weeks. Nothing more. 69 weeks = 483 days, or as all are agreed 483 prophetic years.

PJTS wrote:

Since the originators of the god belief in Yahweh see it as two anointed ones not one, you are doing more of that "puzzle piece fitting" here.

Once again, the non Christian Jews are no more reliable, or less bias than anyone else.

gramster wrote:

Taking 483 years from 457 BC and adjusting for not having a zero year brings us down to 27 AD exactly.

PJTS wrote:

Of Course! Your creativity has been duly noted.

gramster wrote:

 This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

PJTS wrote:

Was it? How do you know this? Oh, you get it from the heretical books of the NT that developed a new religion from the Jews that don't see things your way.

Are you sure Jesus was not mythical? Can you show he actually lived? There are several threads on the mythical Jesus, perhaps you should read them.

Yes, more conspiracy theories. I have read a good deal of them. No time at this point to detail the errors.

gramster wrote:

C' (Jerusalem Construction) The temple shall be built again. No time reference is given here.

PJTS wrote:

Seemingly Jerusalem was occupied after Cyrus allowed the Jews to go home. The Temple was also put back in use. People were in fact living there. Do you think the women would continue to live in tents? The only thing that was blocked was the construction of WALLS weren't allowed.

No WALLS, No Government, not much of a city.

gramster wrote:

D (Anointed One) "After the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off and have nothing". This is  following the 69 weeks.

PJTS wrote:

And if you don't play games and ignore what was very clearly given,you find yourself in the 2nd century BCE. Actually you have an error of 130 years and end up in the 2nd century BCE not in the 1st century CE.

I give you a C for creativity on this.

"And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah...in the 4th year of Jehoiakim...the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar...".

This is 604-605 BC, not 586 BC. I'm not sure where you get your start date, but is it obviously an attempt to puzzle fit AE IV in. The problem is that any date you pick will have serious problems. It is kind of like a woman getting out of a shower and trying to cover up modestly with a hand towel. If one end is covered the other will be exposed. Put the date anywhere you wish. It will not work. And the claim that the writer was so confused that he was this far off is pretty lame. He had enough information just in the existing scriptures to do better than this.

gramster wrote:

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

PJTS wrote:

You think the analogy here to the Prince of Peace is the Romans? You're kidding right?

"nagid" does not translate "the prince of peace". It translates out leader, ruler, or prince. The "prince of peace" thing is an added interpretation.

gramster wrote:

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

PJTS wrote:

So in your view the Jesus did 7 years of ministry? Not according to your legendary book of Gospels.

Jesus ministry was "cut off" in the middle of the week. He did not finish the 7 years of ministry because like the prophecy indicated, he was cut off.

PJTS wrote:

And the Jesus personally caused the Jewish sacrifices to cease when he died? Not according to the Jews, they supposedly continued until 70 CE.

The veil was ripped from top to bottom signifying that this system was no longer needed.

gramster wrote:

This is reference to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Through the death Jesus, the sacrificial offerings ceased to have any relevance or meaning. This system had met it's ultimate fulfillment. Yes, the "ritual" did continue for some time after the death of Christ, but it no longer meant anything.

PJTS wrote:

These are unsupported assertions on your part.

You will have to prove that these sacrifices meant nothing after Jesus.

But first, you have to prove they meant anything in the first place other than ancient rituals by believers in one of countless gods due to their ignorance and lack of understanding of the actual world.

gramster wrote:

A. (Jerusalem Destruction) "And upon the wing of abomination comes one who makes desolate;..."

Again talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that would follow.

PJTS wrote:

More text out of context and puzzle piece fitting on your part is what it is.

gramster wrote:

this interpretation does not have dates that are somewhere between 15 and 50 years off target like the AE IV's best attempt. It also does not violate the rules of poetic literary structure in order to puzzle fit ones preferred view. 

PJST wrote:

You saw to that with your creative dismissal of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return, your ignoring that the Temple was open for business at the time, as so indicated by Ezra, and your ignoring that people were living in Jerusalem as well.

Considering all of the things you did to get to your predetermined date, what's 130 years that you jumped over to get there?


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

gramster wrote:

Just waiting for something other than unproven speculation.

That's all you have presented on this entire subject of the Book of Daniel is your speculation on writing that has no verifiable origin.

You claim with no proof that it was written in the 6th century BCE.

You interpret the text to fit your preconceived belief in the Jesus.

Your entire purpose has been to show this ancient writing was prophecy so there must be a god as these prophecies according to you have come true.

Yet, there is no proof, just more speculation on your part throughout the entire book of Daniel.

You claim a god inspired the writer and it describes events far off in the future.

Several of your statements where you made claims, such as in regard to intermarriage between nations showed you lacked knowledge and you had to be hauled kicking and screaming to the facts over which you were clueless.

You claim magic and Sci-Fi occurred in this ancient world. No proof of this magic has been presented.

You claim many many things are based in reality but have nothing to place on the lab table for examination.

Talk about speculation!

I suggest that this writing likely dates to the 2nd century BCE. And this writing had a purpose and message to the people called Jews.

I reject the unsupported magic you claim happened.

There are many loose threads in your speculation, they have been discussed over and over.

You assume that the Canaanite god Yahweh is something more than myth or legend. I see it as a legend born from ignorance of the world.

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

Apparently the re-dedication and the resumption of sacrifices mentioned earlier even by Ezra (Chapter 6) has no meaning to you, perhaps because it invalidates your scenario.

Yes, this has meaning, but fails to provide for the full "restoration" of Jerusalem.

Please provide the Book, chapter and verse that indicate this start date you have assumed requires a complete restoration of the city of Jerusalem.

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

Since the originators of the god belief in Yahweh see it as two anointed ones not one, you are doing more of that "puzzle piece fitting" here.

Once again, the non Christian Jews are no more reliable, or less bias than anyone else.

It's your belief system that altered course from that of the Jews. It was their god beliefs.

It comes down to the Christian beliefs are one more layer added on top of an already unstable foundation that is mired in myths, legend, magic, and fantasy.

The Jewish myths are far out enough from reality, yours goes even farther out on a ledge on a shaky structure that is unstable.

Fantasy and legends on top of fantasy and legends just equals nothing of validity that can be verified.

 

 

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

 This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

PJTS wrote:

Was it? How do you know this? Oh, you get it from the heretical books of the NT that developed a new religion from the Jews that don't see things your way.

Are you sure Jesus was not mythical? Can you show he actually lived? There are several threads on the mythical Jesus, perhaps you should read them.

Yes, more conspiracy theories. I have read a good deal of them. No time at this point to detail the errors.

You are trying to validate that the writer of Daniel predicted the Jesus.

Yet, you have nothing to even substantiate that the Jesus was actually real, just writings by others, not the originals by any means, and no actual signed documents by any author or verification that any of these NT books have basis in the real world.

Jesus could have easily existed as a rebel zealot, as did John the Baptist. These legends could have morphed  from the miracle workers stories such as the stories in regard to Apollonous of Tyana.

Funny, no one noticed the Jesus outside of his supposed disciples. Funny no one wrote about him for several decades or more.

Legends develop by people in apocalyptic times and times of war.

Your Jesus legend is not a verifiable event outside of the same book that makes claims and tells you how you must live to please the god.

 

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

Seemingly Jerusalem was occupied after Cyrus allowed the Jews to go home. The Temple was also put back in use. People were in fact living there. Do you think the women would continue to live in tents? The only thing that was blocked was the construction of WALLS weren't allowed.

No WALLS, No Government, not much of a city.

They actually had a government, the Persians and their governors. Even your bible tells you so.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

And if you don't play games and ignore what was very clearly given,you find yourself in the 2nd century BCE. Actually you have an error of 130 years and end up in the 2nd century BCE not in the 1st century CE.

I give you a C for creativity on this.

"And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah...in the 4th year of Jehoiakim...the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar...".

This is 604-605 BC, not 586 BC. I'm not sure where you get your start date, but is it obviously an attempt to puzzle fit AE IV in. The problem is that any date you pick will have serious problems. It is kind of like a woman getting out of a shower and trying to cover up modestly with a hand towel. If one end is covered the other will be exposed. Put the date anywhere you wish. It will not work. And the claim that the writer was so confused that he was this far off is pretty lame. He had enough information just in the existing scriptures to do better than this.

There are several start dates in the 6th century, some get closer to Antiochus then others. Nothing supports your speculation, other than backtracking from the mythical date of the Jesus to a point where you puzzle piece fit.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

PJTS wrote:

You think the analogy here to the Prince of Peace is the Romans? You're kidding right?

"nagid" does not translate "the prince of peace". It translates out leader, ruler, or prince. The "prince of peace" thing is an added interpretation.

You are the one that presented it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

PJTS wrote:

So in your view the Jesus did 7 years of ministry? Not according to your legendary book of Gospels.

Jesus ministry was "cut off" in the middle of the week. He did not finish the 7 years of ministry because like the prophecy indicated, he was cut off.

And what happens with the other 3 1/2 years?

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

And the Jesus personally caused the Jewish sacrifices to cease when he died? Not according to the Jews, they supposedly continued until 70 CE.

The veil was ripped from top to bottom signifying that this system was no longer needed.

And somehow you have a personal insight that the god of Yahweh meant this as it's indication the Jews didn't need to sacrifice anymore?

If I have time I will make you a flowchart showing all of the choices that are presented in the book of Daniel.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
"were the rational ones?"

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Just waiting for something other than unproven speculation.

That's all you have presented on this entire subject of the Book of Daniel is your speculation on writing that has no verifiable origin.

You claim with no proof that it was written in the 6th century BCE.

You interpret the text to fit your preconceived belief in the Jesus.

Your entire purpose has been to show this ancient writing was prophecy so there must be a god as these prophecies according to you have come true.

Yet, there is no proof, just more speculation on your part throughout the entire book of Daniel.

You claim a god inspired the writer and it describes events far off in the future.

Several of your statements where you made claims, such as in regard to intermarriage between nations showed you lacked knowledge and you had to be hauled kicking and screaming to the facts over which you were clueless.

You claim magic and Sci-Fi occurred in this ancient world. No proof of this magic has been presented.

You claim many many things are based in reality but have nothing to place on the lab table for examination.

Talk about speculation!

I suggest that this writing likely dates to the 2nd century BCE. And this writing had a purpose and message to the people called Jews.

I reject the unsupported magic you claim happened.

There are many loose threads in your speculation, they have been discussed over and over.

You assume that the Canaanite god Yahweh is something more than myth or legend. I see it as a legend born from ignorance of the world.

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

Apparently the re-dedication and the resumption of sacrifices mentioned earlier even by Ezra (Chapter 6) has no meaning to you, perhaps because it invalidates your scenario.

Yes, this has meaning, but fails to provide for the full "restoration" of Jerusalem.

Please provide the Book, chapter and verse that indicate this start date you have assumed requires a complete restoration of the city of Jerusalem.

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

Since the originators of the god belief in Yahweh see it as two anointed ones not one, you are doing more of that "puzzle piece fitting" here.

Once again, the non Christian Jews are no more reliable, or less bias than anyone else.

It's your belief system that altered course from that of the Jews. It was their god beliefs.

It comes down to the Christian beliefs are one more layer added on top of an already unstable foundation that is mired in myths, legend, magic, and fantasy.

The Jewish myths are far out enough from reality, yours goes even farther out on a ledge on a shaky structure that is unstable.

Fantasy and legends on top of fantasy and legends just equals nothing of validity that can be verified.

 

 

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

 This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

PJTS wrote:

Was it? How do you know this? Oh, you get it from the heretical books of the NT that developed a new religion from the Jews that don't see things your way.

Are you sure Jesus was not mythical? Can you show he actually lived? There are several threads on the mythical Jesus, perhaps you should read them.

Yes, more conspiracy theories. I have read a good deal of them. No time at this point to detail the errors.

You are trying to validate that the writer of Daniel predicted the Jesus.

Yet, you have nothing to even substantiate that the Jesus was actually real, just writings by others, not the originals by any means, and no actual signed documents by any author or verification that any of these NT books have basis in the real world.

Jesus could have easily existed as a rebel zealot, as did John the Baptist. These legends could have morphed  from the miracle workers stories such as the stories in regard to Apollonous of Tyana.

Funny, no one noticed the Jesus outside of his supposed disciples. Funny no one wrote about him for several decades or more.

Legends develop by people in apocalyptic times and times of war.

Your Jesus legend is not a verifiable event outside of the same book that makes claims and tells you how you must live to please the god.

 

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

Seemingly Jerusalem was occupied after Cyrus allowed the Jews to go home. The Temple was also put back in use. People were in fact living there. Do you think the women would continue to live in tents? The only thing that was blocked was the construction of WALLS weren't allowed.

No WALLS, No Government, not much of a city.

They actually had a government, the Persians and their governors. Even your bible tells you so.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

And if you don't play games and ignore what was very clearly given,you find yourself in the 2nd century BCE. Actually you have an error of 130 years and end up in the 2nd century BCE not in the 1st century CE.

I give you a C for creativity on this.

"And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah...in the 4th year of Jehoiakim...the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar...".

This is 604-605 BC, not 586 BC. I'm not sure where you get your start date, but is it obviously an attempt to puzzle fit AE IV in. The problem is that any date you pick will have serious problems. It is kind of like a woman getting out of a shower and trying to cover up modestly with a hand towel. If one end is covered the other will be exposed. Put the date anywhere you wish. It will not work. And the claim that the writer was so confused that he was this far off is pretty lame. He had enough information just in the existing scriptures to do better than this.

There are several start dates in the 6th century, some get closer to Antiochus then others. Nothing supports your speculation, other than backtracking from the mythical date of the Jesus to a point where you puzzle piece fit.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

PJTS wrote:

You think the analogy here to the Prince of Peace is the Romans? You're kidding right?

"nagid" does not translate "the prince of peace". It translates out leader, ruler, or prince. The "prince of peace" thing is an added interpretation.

You are the one that presented it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

PJTS wrote:

So in your view the Jesus did 7 years of ministry? Not according to your legendary book of Gospels.

Jesus ministry was "cut off" in the middle of the week. He did not finish the 7 years of ministry because like the prophecy indicated, he was cut off.

And what happens with the other 3 1/2 years?

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

And the Jesus personally caused the Jewish sacrifices to cease when he died? Not according to the Jews, they supposedly continued until 70 CE.

The veil was ripped from top to bottom signifying that this system was no longer needed.

And somehow you have a personal insight that the god of Yahweh meant this as it's indication the Jews didn't need to sacrifice anymore?

If I have time I will make you a flowchart showing all of the choices that are presented in the book of Daniel.

  

 

No proof? Puzzle fitting? Nothing to place on the table? Loose threads? Kicking and screaming?

Proof!

If Daniel was written  before Alexander the Greats great conquests, it must  be God inspired prophecy since man could not know that he would be cut off or die early and his kingdom be split in 4.

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown author than Daniel is not prophecy, and is not God inspired. No need to prove Jesus to prove God.

The "fact" that the book of Daniel describes Alexanders rise to power, early death, and the division of Greece into 4 divisions is not in dispute.

I have place the book of Daniel on the "table" as evidence. You claim it was "history written as it happened". We shall see.

My loose threads? We'll take a look at yours.

Oh, and by the way, I have never had to be "hauled kicking and screaming" to be made to acknowledge a historical fact when it has been pointed out to me with credible references. I was not well versed in the "mingling" of royalty in the Seleucid Empire. This power is not, and never was relevant to these prophecies as we shall see.

"Well, here's one fer y'all"

Since we don't want to believe in God, and prophecy "proves" the existence of God, we "must" come up with an alternate scenario.

Let's say that the book of Daniel is not prophecy.

Let's say it was written by a 2nd century BC unknown Jewish author. (history as it happened, therefore not prophecy)

Let's say he starts his time line in Daniel 9 with the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt around 586 BC.

That will make the first 7 weeks fit Cyrus almost dead on. (puzzle fit)

OK, next we have the 62 weeks. We want this to point to the events in the 2nd century BC, and the only story that can be made to look like this is AE IV. But 62 weeks takes us to around 103 BC, and the events involving AE IV happened between 170 and 163 BC. What to do?

OK, Let's claim the author was ignorant and confused. We will say that he was "good enough" to hit Cyrus "dead nuts on", but too ignorant to get anywhere close to the events in his own time. In fact he was nearly 70 years off.

Let's make unsustainable claims of historical inaccuracies, ignore or deny textual evidence, literary form, and word gendering.

Let's substitute powers that don't fit the symbolism or the textual evidence.

Maybe if we create a lot of confusion, and "muddy up the waters", nobody will notice how absurd this all is.

And let's call ourselves the "rational ones".

I'm sorry, your 2nd century author fable does not hold up. No rational and intellectually honest person could possibly believe that a 2nd century writer could miss events that happened in his own time by nearly seven decades. Not rational. Not possible.

Your only argument remains "it can't be prophecy, it just can't be". "There is no God, so it can't be prophecy".

The book of Daniel was indeed written before the events prophesied. That is my proof!

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So rather than disputing

So rather than disputing PJTS and the textual criticism he provided you fall back on the "You know God exists and you hate him. That means that there can't be prophecy in the Bible because you hate God."

Meanwhile you go around substituting the Popes in for "Rome", making two different visions mean the same thing because you need them to and fudging timelines so Jesus can make an appearance in an office that the Bible and Jesus himself claims he does not hold.

Your dishonesty reeks

"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
jcgadfly wrote:So rather

jcgadfly wrote:

So rather than disputing PJTS and the textual criticism he provided you fall back on the "You know God exists and you hate him. That means that there can't be prophecy in the Bible because you hate God."

Meanwhile you go around substituting the Popes in for "Rome", making two different visions mean the same thing because you need them to and fudging timelines so Jesus can make an appearance in an office that the Bible and Jesus himself claims he does not hold.

Your dishonesty reeks

Not so my friend.

I am going back to the basics. The 2nd century BC theory does not hold up. Not possible. Therefore not written in the 2nd century BC. Written as prophecy before events happened. No Popes needed. No Jesus needed. Just shows that God does exist. Man cannot see the future.

Give me an alternate scenario that makes sense. It does not exist. There is no alternate rational explanation other than this being prophecies given before events happened.

PJTS tried to make the 2nd century BC theory work, but failed. End of story.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:No proof?

gramster wrote:

No proof? Puzzle fitting? Nothing to place on the table? Loose threads? Kicking and screaming?

Pretty much.

gramster wrote:

Proof!

 

I won't hold my breath here.

gramster wrote:

If Daniel was written  before Alexander the Greats great conquests, it must  be God inspired prophecy since man could not know that he would be cut off or die early and his kingdom be split in 4.

Not necessarily. Look up The Mothman.

gramster wrote:

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown author than Daniel is not prophecy, and is not God inspired.

Exactly.

gramster wrote:
No need to prove Jesus to prove God.

Well, you still have the need don't you?

gramster wrote:

The "fact" that the book of Daniel describes Alexanders rise to power, early death, and the division of Greece into 4 divisions is not in dispute.

All verifiable history,

gramster wrote:

I have place the book of Daniel on the "table" as evidence.

Is it evidence?

Evidence of what exactly? That someone wrote a coded book. That it is not always clear and concise to what is meant, as evidenced that even Christians have multiple views on it as do Jews.

 

gramster wrote:
You claim it was "history written as it happened". We shall see.

Still waiting.

gramster wrote:

My loose threads? We'll take a look at yours.

You have many, but instead of addressing them you decide to dodge the question and instead go on offense.

gramster wrote:

Oh, and by the way, I have never had to be "hauled kicking and screaming" to be made to acknowledge a historical fact when it has been pointed out to me with credible references. I was not well versed in the "mingling" of royalty in the Seleucid Empire. This power is not, and never was relevant to these prophecies as we shall see.


Perhaps you should re-read the exchange. You denied it from the beginning making claims that were unwarranted because you had never actually researched the subject. After I meticulously presented credible references you saw it another way. Perhaps kicking and screaming was not the right choice of words, you acknowledged you were ignorant of the history and had posted unwarranted conclusions based on inadequate knowledge.

gramster wrote:

"Well, here's one fer y'all"

Since we don't want to believe in God, and prophecy "proves" the existence of God, we "must" come up with an alternate scenario.

This has nothing at all to do with anything.

1-Believing in a god or not does not have anything at all to do with wanting to or not.

2-This texts are dated to the time of the DSS, no texts of Daniel exist earlier.  Unsupported claims. Show me a dated copy of Daniel from the 6th century BCE that has been verified.

3-We don't have to come up with any alternate scenario at all, you have to prove Daniel can be verified to the 6th century BCE. Skeptics don't require an alternate, just severe doubt that the scenario presented is not correct.

gramster wrote:

Let's say that the book of Daniel is not prophecy.

Let's say.

gramster wrote:

Let's say it was written by a 2nd century BC unknown Jewish author. (history as it happened, therefore not prophecy)

Let's say.

gramster wrote:

Let's say he starts his time line in Daniel 9 with the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt around 586 BC.

OK.

gramster wrote:

That will make the first 7 weeks fit Cyrus almost dead on.

More or less.

gramster wrote:

OK, next we have the 62 weeks. We want this to point to the events in the 2nd century BC, and the only story that can be made to look like this is AE IV. But 62 weeks takes us to around 103 BC, and the events involving AE IV happened between 170 and 163 BC. What to do?

62 weeks goes to sometime in the late 2nd century BCE, OK.

What we want is to understand what the writer was attempting to put forth, we don't want anything specific at all, at least I don't.

gramster wrote:

OK, Let's claim the author was ignorant and confused.

Not hardly. He perhaps didn't have exact dates, that is no reason to call him ignorant at all. His creative use of codes suggests he was not ignorant.

gramster wrote:
We will say that he was "good enough" to hit Cyrus "dead nuts on",

He had help with this from both Jeremiah and Ezra in dating it.

gramster wrote:
but too ignorant to get anywhere close to the events in his own time. In fact he was nearly 70 years off.

It would appear he had no resources that adequately covered this period. He had some issues as indicated with his coding especially the number of Persian kings and of course the last days of Babylon as well.

gramster wrote:

Let's make unsustainable claims of historical inaccuracies, ignore or deny textual evidence, literary form, and word gendering.

Let's not get emotional Gramps.

Historical accuracies have been beat to death in this thread. People will accept whatever they wish.

Textual evidence - how is it that you have any? Explain how you see written words from an unknown writer in an unknown period are any kind of evidence. It was written, therefore it must be true? Once more I refer you to the Sumerian texts, Enki is the god who looked after man, the clay tablets say this is so.

 

gramster wrote:

Let's substitute powers that don't fit the symbolism or the textual evidence.

Let's attempt to detach ourselves emotionally Gramps.

We have beat to death the various interpretations of the coding in Daniel. Your view does not fit and reasons have been repeatedly given.

gramster wrote:

Maybe if we create a lot of confusion, and "muddy up the waters", nobody will notice how absurd this all is.

No, we aren't putting together a Christian sermon or Gospel.

Confusion is not required when analyzing this book, it is very obvious what period is being discussed.

gramster wrote:

And let's call ourselves the "rational ones".

So emotional this morning.

gramster wrote:

I'm sorry, your 2nd century author fable does not hold up. No rational and intellectually honest person could possibly believe that a 2nd century writer could miss events that happened in his own time by nearly seven decades. Not rational. Not possible.

No one but you is saying he missed events in his own time period.

gramster wrote:

Your only argument remains "it can't be prophecy, it just can't be". "There is no God, so it can't be prophecy".

Hardly.

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel was indeed written before the events prophesied. That is my proof!

This is an assertion, not proof.

Do you think that simply saying what you have in this post is proof?

Consider all of the following:

1-Daniel is an undated book by an unknown author.

2-The oldest copy is from the DSS. There are 10 times as many manuscripts of the book of Enoch that were found in the DSS compared to Daniel. Is this because Enoch was far more popular? Or was Daniel still quite new at the time?

3-The only part of the LXX (Septuagint) complete before the 2nd century was likely the Torah. This does not include the Book of Daniel.

4-Conflicting information as to when exactly that was done - under Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) or Philometor (181-146 BCE)

5-ben Sira's grandson wrote in 132 BCE in the preface for Sirach that the Law, the prophets and other books were translated by then.

Remember Daniel is not a prophet in Judaism but is in the area called "writings".

6-What is mentioned in 1 Mac 2:60 is the lions den legend, not the Daniel prophecies. No more.

7-Jeshua ben Sira  does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes in his work this casts doubt & suspicion Daniel was not written by that point. See Sirach 44:1-50:29 which was written before 175 BCE.

 This is just some of the issues that suggest Daniel dates to the 2nd century, there's also how it fits Antiochus IV.

As I said, when I have more time I will provide a flow chart detailing all the choices and issues, I work 6 and 7 days a week right now.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Jeshua Ben Sara -

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

No proof? Puzzle fitting? Nothing to place on the table? Loose threads? Kicking and screaming?

Pretty much.

gramster wrote:

Proof!

 

I won't hold my breath here.

gramster wrote:

If Daniel was written  before Alexander the Greats great conquests, it must  be God inspired prophecy since man could not know that he would be cut off or die early and his kingdom be split in 4.

Not necessarily. Look up The Mothman.

gramster wrote:

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown author than Daniel is not prophecy, and is not God inspired.

Exactly.

gramster wrote:
No need to prove Jesus to prove God.

Well, you still have the need don't you?

gramster wrote:

The "fact" that the book of Daniel describes Alexanders rise to power, early death, and the division of Greece into 4 divisions is not in dispute.

All verifiable history,

gramster wrote:

I have place the book of Daniel on the "table" as evidence.

Is it evidence?

Evidence of what exactly? That someone wrote a coded book. That it is not always clear and concise to what is meant, as evidenced that even Christians have multiple views on it as do Jews.

 

gramster wrote:
You claim it was "history written as it happened". We shall see.

Still waiting.

gramster wrote:

My loose threads? We'll take a look at yours.

You have many, but instead of addressing them you decide to dodge the question and instead go on offense.

gramster wrote:

Oh, and by the way, I have never had to be "hauled kicking and screaming" to be made to acknowledge a historical fact when it has been pointed out to me with credible references. I was not well versed in the "mingling" of royalty in the Seleucid Empire. This power is not, and never was relevant to these prophecies as we shall see.


Perhaps you should re-read the exchange. You denied it from the beginning making claims that were unwarranted because you had never actually researched the subject. After I meticulously presented credible references you saw it another way. Perhaps kicking and screaming was not the right choice of words, you acknowledged you were ignorant of the history and had posted unwarranted conclusions based on inadequate knowledge.

gramster wrote:

"Well, here's one fer y'all"

Since we don't want to believe in God, and prophecy "proves" the existence of God, we "must" come up with an alternate scenario.

This has nothing at all to do with anything.

1-Believing in a god or not does not have anything at all to do with wanting to or not.

2-This texts are dated to the time of the DSS, no texts of Daniel exist earlier.  Unsupported claims. Show me a dated copy of Daniel from the 6th century BCE that has been verified.

3-We don't have to come up with any alternate scenario at all, you have to prove Daniel can be verified to the 6th century BCE. Skeptics don't require an alternate, just severe doubt that the scenario presented is not correct.

gramster wrote:

Let's say that the book of Daniel is not prophecy.

Let's say.

gramster wrote:

Let's say it was written by a 2nd century BC unknown Jewish author. (history as it happened, therefore not prophecy)

Let's say.

gramster wrote:

Let's say he starts his time line in Daniel 9 with the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt around 586 BC.

OK.

gramster wrote:

That will make the first 7 weeks fit Cyrus almost dead on.

More or less.

gramster wrote:

OK, next we have the 62 weeks. We want this to point to the events in the 2nd century BC, and the only story that can be made to look like this is AE IV. But 62 weeks takes us to around 103 BC, and the events involving AE IV happened between 170 and 163 BC. What to do?

62 weeks goes to sometime in the late 2nd century BCE, OK.

What we want is to understand what the writer was attempting to put forth, we don't want anything specific at all, at least I don't.

gramster wrote:

OK, Let's claim the author was ignorant and confused.

Not hardly. He perhaps didn't have exact dates, that is no reason to call him ignorant at all. His creative use of codes suggests he was not ignorant.

gramster wrote:
We will say that he was "good enough" to hit Cyrus "dead nuts on",

He had help with this from both Jeremiah and Ezra in dating it.

gramster wrote:
but too ignorant to get anywhere close to the events in his own time. In fact he was nearly 70 years off.

It would appear he had no resources that adequately covered this period. He had some issues as indicated with his coding especially the number of Persian kings and of course the last days of Babylon as well.

gramster wrote:

Let's make unsustainable claims of historical inaccuracies, ignore or deny textual evidence, literary form, and word gendering.

Let's not get emotional Gramps.

Historical accuracies have been beat to death in this thread. People will accept whatever they wish.

Textual evidence - how is it that you have any? Explain how you see written words from an unknown writer in an unknown period are any kind of evidence. It was written, therefore it must be true? Once more I refer you to the Sumerian texts, Enki is the god who looked after man, the clay tablets say this is so.

 

gramster wrote:

Let's substitute powers that don't fit the symbolism or the textual evidence.

Let's attempt to detach ourselves emotionally Gramps.

We have beat to death the various interpretations of the coding in Daniel. Your view does not fit and reasons have been repeatedly given.

gramster wrote:

Maybe if we create a lot of confusion, and "muddy up the waters", nobody will notice how absurd this all is.

No, we aren't putting together a Christian sermon or Gospel.

Confusion is not required when analyzing this book, it is very obvious what period is being discussed.

gramster wrote:

And let's call ourselves the "rational ones".

So emotional this morning.

gramster wrote:

I'm sorry, your 2nd century author fable does not hold up. No rational and intellectually honest person could possibly believe that a 2nd century writer could miss events that happened in his own time by nearly seven decades. Not rational. Not possible.

No one but you is saying he missed events in his own time period.

gramster wrote:

Your only argument remains "it can't be prophecy, it just can't be". "There is no God, so it can't be prophecy".

Hardly.

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel was indeed written before the events prophesied. That is my proof!

This is an assertion, not proof.

Do you think that simply saying what you have in this post is proof?

Consider all of the following:

1-Daniel is an undated book by an unknown author.

2-The oldest copy is from the DSS. There are 10 times as many manuscripts of the book of Enoch that were found in the DSS compared to Daniel. Is this because Enoch was far more popular? Or was Daniel still quite new at the time?

3-The only part of the LXX (Septuagint) complete before the 2nd century was likely the Torah. This does not include the Book of Daniel.

4-Conflicting information as to when exactly that was done - under Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) or Philometor (181-146 BCE)

5-ben Sira's grandson wrote in 132 BCE in the preface for Sirach that the Law, the prophets and other books were translated by then.

Remember Daniel is not a prophet in Judaism but is in the area called "writings".

6-What is mentioned in 1 Mac 2:60 is the lions den legend, not the Daniel prophecies. No more.

7-Jeshua ben Sira  does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes in his work this casts doubt & suspicion Daniel was not written by that point. See Sirach 44:1-50:29 which was written before 175 BCE.

 This is just some of the issues that suggest Daniel dates to the 2nd century, there's also how it fits Antiochus IV.

As I said, when I have more time I will provide a flow chart detailing all the choices and issues, I work 6 and 7 days a week right now.

 

 

I really get a kick out of you brilliant arguments of omission.

According to your theory about Jeshua Ben Sara, the books of Esther and Job were not yet written either. The story of Sampson must have been inserted at a later date, and Adam and Eve were also later addition. And certainly if he had known about Joseph, he would have been included.

The one I like the best is still the 2nd century BC author claim. Now that's a good one.

Here's a good analogy. An author goes to a publisher right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He has a story about some dreams Ben Franklin supposedly had in the early days of US history. In these dreams Franklin predicts the civil war, the assassination of Lincoln, and WWI, with pretty remarkable details, and intriguing symbolism. He also predicts an event that fits the bombing of Pearl Harbor to a tee.

The publisher is impressed. He asks if any dates were predicted, and how they match up. The author says "Oh yes, the first  three events are right on the money. And the bombing of Pearl Harbor he predicted would take place in the year 2000. But that ain't too far off." (CEFGW)

The publisher would no longer be impressed. In fact the author would than be considered to be the village idiot. Nobody would take his work serious.

But that is what you expect me to believe happened in the 2nd century BC. There is no way an author is going to be nearly 7 decades off on events that happened in his own time. That is not a rational belief. I would think that a "skeptic" would question that one???

You claim the Book of Daniel was not written in the 6th century BC because of "alleged" inaccuracies. None have been proven. Yet, you claim that this book was written in the 2nd century BC and was about AE IV, and ignore a huge inaccuracy of nearly 7 decades for the most significant events of the authors own lifetime??

And this is the best explanation you have to offer?

There is no rational alternative to this book having been written as prophecy before the events happened. None!

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

No proof? Puzzle fitting? Nothing to place on the table? Loose threads? Kicking and screaming?

Pretty much.

gramster wrote:

Proof!

 

I won't hold my breath here.

gramster wrote:

If Daniel was written  before Alexander the Greats great conquests, it must  be God inspired prophecy since man could not know that he would be cut off or die early and his kingdom be split in 4.

Not necessarily. Look up The Mothman.

gramster wrote:

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown author than Daniel is not prophecy, and is not God inspired.

Exactly.

gramster wrote:
No need to prove Jesus to prove God.

Well, you still have the need don't you?

gramster wrote:

The "fact" that the book of Daniel describes Alexanders rise to power, early death, and the division of Greece into 4 divisions is not in dispute.

All verifiable history,

gramster wrote:

I have place the book of Daniel on the "table" as evidence.

Is it evidence?

Evidence of what exactly? That someone wrote a coded book. That it is not always clear and concise to what is meant, as evidenced that even Christians have multiple views on it as do Jews.

 

gramster wrote:
You claim it was "history written as it happened". We shall see.

Still waiting.

gramster wrote:

My loose threads? We'll take a look at yours.

You have many, but instead of addressing them you decide to dodge the question and instead go on offense.

gramster wrote:

Oh, and by the way, I have never had to be "hauled kicking and screaming" to be made to acknowledge a historical fact when it has been pointed out to me with credible references. I was not well versed in the "mingling" of royalty in the Seleucid Empire. This power is not, and never was relevant to these prophecies as we shall see.


Perhaps you should re-read the exchange. You denied it from the beginning making claims that were unwarranted because you had never actually researched the subject. After I meticulously presented credible references you saw it another way. Perhaps kicking and screaming was not the right choice of words, you acknowledged you were ignorant of the history and had posted unwarranted conclusions based on inadequate knowledge.

gramster wrote:

"Well, here's one fer y'all"

Since we don't want to believe in God, and prophecy "proves" the existence of God, we "must" come up with an alternate scenario.

This has nothing at all to do with anything.

1-Believing in a god or not does not have anything at all to do with wanting to or not.

2-This texts are dated to the time of the DSS, no texts of Daniel exist earlier.  Unsupported claims. Show me a dated copy of Daniel from the 6th century BCE that has been verified.

3-We don't have to come up with any alternate scenario at all, you have to prove Daniel can be verified to the 6th century BCE. Skeptics don't require an alternate, just severe doubt that the scenario presented is not correct.

gramster wrote:

Let's say that the book of Daniel is not prophecy.

Let's say.

gramster wrote:

Let's say it was written by a 2nd century BC unknown Jewish author. (history as it happened, therefore not prophecy)

Let's say.

gramster wrote:

Let's say he starts his time line in Daniel 9 with the prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt around 586 BC.

OK.

gramster wrote:

That will make the first 7 weeks fit Cyrus almost dead on.

More or less.

gramster wrote:

OK, next we have the 62 weeks. We want this to point to the events in the 2nd century BC, and the only story that can be made to look like this is AE IV. But 62 weeks takes us to around 103 BC, and the events involving AE IV happened between 170 and 163 BC. What to do?

62 weeks goes to sometime in the late 2nd century BCE, OK.

What we want is to understand what the writer was attempting to put forth, we don't want anything specific at all, at least I don't.

gramster wrote:

OK, Let's claim the author was ignorant and confused.

Not hardly. He perhaps didn't have exact dates, that is no reason to call him ignorant at all. His creative use of codes suggests he was not ignorant.

gramster wrote:
We will say that he was "good enough" to hit Cyrus "dead nuts on",

He had help with this from both Jeremiah and Ezra in dating it.

gramster wrote:
but too ignorant to get anywhere close to the events in his own time. In fact he was nearly 70 years off.

It would appear he had no resources that adequately covered this period. He had some issues as indicated with his coding especially the number of Persian kings and of course the last days of Babylon as well.

gramster wrote:

Let's make unsustainable claims of historical inaccuracies, ignore or deny textual evidence, literary form, and word gendering.

Let's not get emotional Gramps.

Historical accuracies have been beat to death in this thread. People will accept whatever they wish.

Textual evidence - how is it that you have any? Explain how you see written words from an unknown writer in an unknown period are any kind of evidence. It was written, therefore it must be true? Once more I refer you to the Sumerian texts, Enki is the god who looked after man, the clay tablets say this is so.

 

gramster wrote:

Let's substitute powers that don't fit the symbolism or the textual evidence.

Let's attempt to detach ourselves emotionally Gramps.

We have beat to death the various interpretations of the coding in Daniel. Your view does not fit and reasons have been repeatedly given.

gramster wrote:

Maybe if we create a lot of confusion, and "muddy up the waters", nobody will notice how absurd this all is.

No, we aren't putting together a Christian sermon or Gospel.

Confusion is not required when analyzing this book, it is very obvious what period is being discussed.

gramster wrote:

And let's call ourselves the "rational ones".

So emotional this morning.

gramster wrote:

I'm sorry, your 2nd century author fable does not hold up. No rational and intellectually honest person could possibly believe that a 2nd century writer could miss events that happened in his own time by nearly seven decades. Not rational. Not possible.

No one but you is saying he missed events in his own time period.

gramster wrote:

Your only argument remains "it can't be prophecy, it just can't be". "There is no God, so it can't be prophecy".

Hardly.

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel was indeed written before the events prophesied. That is my proof!

This is an assertion, not proof.

Do you think that simply saying what you have in this post is proof?

Consider all of the following:

1-Daniel is an undated book by an unknown author.

2-The oldest copy is from the DSS. There are 10 times as many manuscripts of the book of Enoch that were found in the DSS compared to Daniel. Is this because Enoch was far more popular? Or was Daniel still quite new at the time?

3-The only part of the LXX (Septuagint) complete before the 2nd century was likely the Torah. This does not include the Book of Daniel.

4-Conflicting information as to when exactly that was done - under Philadelphus (285-247 BCE) or Philometor (181-146 BCE)

5-ben Sira's grandson wrote in 132 BCE in the preface for Sirach that the Law, the prophets and other books were translated by then.

Remember Daniel is not a prophet in Judaism but is in the area called "writings".

6-What is mentioned in 1 Mac 2:60 is the lions den legend, not the Daniel prophecies. No more.

7-Jeshua ben Sira  does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes in his work this casts doubt & suspicion Daniel was not written by that point. See Sirach 44:1-50:29 which was written before 175 BCE.

 This is just some of the issues that suggest Daniel dates to the 2nd century, there's also how it fits Antiochus IV.

As I said, when I have more time I will provide a flow chart detailing all the choices and issues, I work 6 and 7 days a week right now.

 

 

I really get a kick out of you brilliant arguments of omission.

According to your theory about Jeshua Ben Sara, the books of Esther and Job were not yet written either. The story of Sampson must have been inserted at a later date, and Adam and Eve were also later addition. And certainly if he had known about Joseph, he would have been included.

The one I like the best is still the 2nd century BC author claim. Now that's a good one.

Here's a good analogy. An author goes to a publisher right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He has a story about some dreams Ben Franklin supposedly had in the early days of US history. In these dreams Franklin predicts the civil war, the assassination of Lincoln, and WWI, with pretty remarkable details, and intriguing symbolism. He also predicts an event that fits the bombing of Pearl Harbor to a tee.

The publisher is impressed. He asks if any dates were predicted, and how they match up. The author says "Oh yes, the first  three events are right on the money. And the bombing of Pearl Harbor he predicted would take place in the year 2000. But that ain't too far off." (CEFGW)

The publisher would no longer be impressed. In fact the author would than be considered to be the village idiot. Nobody would take his work serious.

But that is what you expect me to believe happened in the 2nd century BC. There is no way an author is going to be nearly 7 decades off on events that happened in his own time. That is not a rational belief. I would think that a "skeptic" would question that one???

You claim the Book of Daniel was not written in the 6th century BC because of "alleged" inaccuracies. None have been proven. Yet, you claim that this book was written in the 2nd century BC and was about AE IV, and ignore a huge inaccuracy of nearly 7 decades for the most significant events of the authors own lifetime??

And this is the best explanation you have to offer?

There is no rational alternative to this book having been written as prophecy before the events happened. None!

 

As opposed to your assertion that since Jewish historians didn't mention people they must be real?

I'm not endorsing the view I am writing here. This is simply a response to your "There's no way..." comment.

It is entirely possible for a writer to set a current event as something that happened in the future if they were trying to couch some current happenings in prophetic language. The Gospel writers did the reverse to justify the character of Jesus as Paul's messiah.

Besides, shouldn't a prophecy have a singular meaning? It should not be reinterpreted based on whoever the imperial badass is at the time. What you address as fitting papal Rome I could just as easily claim as fitting the USA.

"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
gramster wrote:I really get

gramster wrote:

I really get a kick out of you brilliant arguments of omission.

I really get a kick out of your arguments from avoidance and fantasy.

You have avoided many questions. Go back and look, I'm not going to ask again.

 

gramster wrote:

According to your theory about Jeshua Ben Sara, the books of Esther and Job were not yet written either. The story of Sampson must have been inserted at a later date, and Adam and Eve were also later addition. And certainly if he had known about Joseph, he would have been included.

Who's Sampson? Did you mean Samson, the Hebrew version of Herakles?

gramster wrote:

The one I like the best is still the 2nd century BC author claim. Now that's a good one.

The writer of Daniel used a fictional representation of a man named Daniel to present his story. The events, visions, actions, and dreams in the book involving this character are nothing more than the use of a past character to make his presentation in regard to his current interest utilizing fiction. His current interest was Antiochus !V and the Selucids. The writers goal was to show the evil Antiochus, the struggle against him and the eventual success of the Jews.

The writer used a story telling method similar to a parable by using a character from the past in the form of Daniel to tell his story.

It is nothing more than that.

This is done all the time especially today and there are parables throughout the OT and NT that do the same.

gramster wrote:

Here's a good analogy. An author goes to a publisher right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He has a story about some dreams Ben Franklin supposedly had in the early days of US history. In these dreams Franklin predicts the civil war, the assassination of Lincoln, and WWI, with pretty remarkable details, and intriguing symbolism. He also predicts an event that fits the bombing of Pearl Harbor to a tee.

The publisher is impressed. He asks if any dates were predicted, and how they match up. The author says "Oh yes, the first  three events are right on the money. And the bombing of Pearl Harbor he predicted would take place in the year 2000. But that ain't too far off." (CEFGW)

The publisher would no longer be impressed. In fact the author would than be considered to be the village idiot. Nobody would take his work serious.

But that is what you expect me to believe happened in the 2nd century BC. There is no way an author is going to be nearly 7 decades off on events that happened in his own time. That is not a rational belief. I would think that a "skeptic" would question that one???

I really don't care what you believe.

Atlas is holding up the Earth on pillars.

Santa Claus is Real.

Whatever gets you through the day.

The author as said above wrote a story using a fictional representation of a past character called Daniel.

His research was not perfect, it didn't need to be as his point was to show the later events regarding Antiochus but not with explicit names.

In the late 1970s a fictional novel that in all aspects was the entire story of Karen Silkwood was published, while the lawsuit was still underway. I don't recall the name or the author right now. None of the names were at all similar to the Silkwood case. The writer wanted this presented to the world but had to do it as fiction so it could be published. The case was decided in 1979. The 1st 2 books on it came out in 1981 and the movie in 1983.

gramster wrote:

You claim the Book of Daniel was not written in the 6th century BC because of "alleged" inaccuracies. None have been proven. Yet, you claim that this book was written in the 2nd century BC and was about AE IV, and ignore a huge inaccuracy of nearly 7 decades for the most significant events of the authors own lifetime??

One more time, the writer used the technique of taking a character and intermixed fictional actions of the character to put forth his story on Antiochus IV. His concern was for the time around Antiochus, which he did a great job in paraphrasing. He was less accurate with the rest because it was a background story that had the purpose to bring you to his main story and ideas which was the part in regard to Antiochus.

Understand my point yet?

You want it to be prophecy, so it's on you to prove it dates to the 6th century BCE. You have not done so. Throughout our discussion there have been many issues that cast doubts on your presentation. Your views in regard to the beasts, kingdoms etc are some examples. These can be seen in more than 1 way. Your interpreted dates for Jerusalem which you insist must be completely rebuilt including walls. Magic, the supernatural, extraordinary events, prophecies and gods require you to provide extraordinary proof.

You need at minimum at 6th century BCE dated document, you do not have one.

Your next choice is to have your god show up and personally verify this account. No one has seen the mythical Yahweh for thousands of years now, and the claims in his regard are from the mists and depths when man was not very knowledgeable in regard to actual reality. He dates to the same period when Enki was boozing it up in Sumer. In regard to all gods, their claimed existence is hearsay by unknown writers without proof.

 

gramster wrote:

And this is the best explanation you have to offer?

There is no rational alternative to this book having been written as prophecy before the events happened. None!

 

Whatever! Go ahead and believe in Santa, magic, men walking through a furnace, not being eaten by lions and a hand seemingly not attached to a body writing on a wall.

You are like a little child, "I know Santa is real, he's real, he's real.

Please go on to chapter 10, as no progress is being made 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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"The Writings"

You have made, and repeated many points. Most I have answered or covered at some point. I am not aware of any "question" that has been asked that I have not answered.

One point that you like to bring up is that the book of Daniel was not included in the Nevi'ium or "prophets" originally in the Jewish Cannon.

This is correct. The Nevi'ium basically covered the time period chronologically from the Israelite entrance into the promised land, until the Babylonian captivity. With the exception of Chronicles. 

The rest of the cannon was included in the Ketuvium or "the writings". This is not because they were considered any less "inspired" or less important. It was simply a chronological thing.

The fact that you keep bringing this up, as if it has some relevance, makes it look as if you are trying to imply something that is not true. The book of Daniel is not included in the Nevi'ium only because it was not written before the Babylonian captivity. That's all!

I am sure there are more non issues I have not yet responded to. I don't always have time to get to all of these. I do try to cover all of the significant issues.

I will now go on to chapter 10. You can keep on believing that your "unknown author" was writing about significant events in his own time, and that his being 7 decades off is of no significance if you wish. You will do this with a straight face no doubt, and claim to be rational. We will continue to disagree on this. My skeptical mind cannot swallow that big of an error. Obviously yours can.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Ch 10

There's not much to discuss or debate on this chapter. It is simply a prelude to chapter 11. Here Daniel finds himself in distress again. Probably about the situation in Jerusalem where things aren't going as originally planned.

He has another vision. A being (likely Gabriel) appears to him. He had been engaged in a battle with the "Prince of Persia", and one called Michael comes to help him. The being breaks away from the battle to come and give Daniel more information.

This appears to be a glimpse into a "spiritual battle". This is something we don't have much insight into.

That sets the stage for the message of chapter 11.

The atheists will call this "sci-fi", and the theists a "peek behind the scenes" in the spiritual world and the battle between good and evil.

Now I will go on to chapter 11 which has much more to discuss. I will of course answer any questions on chapter 10 that are put forward.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Wow, 20 pages of bible

Wow, 20 pages of bible discussion...on an atheist forum!

You go, Gramps!

Personally, if I'm going to discuss fiction, I'd have to say this is my favorite:

Harry has finally come of age, and finally started on his final journey to defeat Voldemort for good. The Dursely’s are forced to go into hiding so that Voldemort’s Death Eaters will not torture them for information, and Harry sets off with Ron and Hermione on a difficult quest to find and destroy the last of Voldemort’s Horcruxes. Only once those have been destroyed, Harry knows, can Voldemort truly be killed.

It’s not easy. Harry is plagued with rumors of Dumbledore’s past, and begins to wonder if the Headmaster he so long revered might have had a much darker past than he ever let on. The three are frequently without food, and with winter coming their journey is no day at the beach. Because of their lack of plan, lack of food, and lack of progress, their spirits are often low, and Ron especially becomes argumentative. One night he and Harry get into an epic fight and Ron leaves to go back home.

Harry and Hermione are devastated that he’d abandoned them. They finally decide to revisit Godric’s Hollow in search of clues, and once again they’re almost caught by Voldemort. Every step they make, it seems, he is there anticipating them. They’ve almost died too many times to count, and their spirits sink even lower when Harry discovers his wand was broken in the battle.

Ron redeems himself a few weeks later by coming back and saving Harry’s life in the nick of time. They manage to destroy another Horcrux with Gryffindor’s sword, and they become excited again as they begin to learn about a mysterious trio of magical objects called the Deathly Hallows. Whomever possesses the three objects will be a master of death, and to Harry, it’s his one chance to beat Voldemort and live to tell the tale.

As his adventures and the danger he’s in increases, Harry begins to truly understand what Dumbledore intended him to do. He realizes, almost at the last minute, that his own life will have to be sacrificed in order for Voldemort to truly be vanquished. Filled with love for his friends, he willingly gives his life so that they may live.

His last act of heroism, however, saves his life. He meets Dumbledore again in death, and Dumbledore answers many of his questions. He is given a choice to stay or to go back, and he chooses to go back and fight.

It’s all over between Harry and Voldemort with just one spell. Harry is left alive, the true master of the Hallows, and Voldemort is killed for good. He now understands more than he ever has about love (which he loves Ginny), and life, and sacrifice, and in spite of the loss of many of his friends during the last battle, is grateful for the second chance he’s been given at life, and love.

 

 

Please excuse the interruption... you may continue.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Wow, 20

Sandycane wrote:

Wow, 20 pages of bible discussion...on an atheist forum!

You go, Gramps!

Personally, if I'm going to discuss fiction, I'd have to say this is my favorite:

~rip~

Please excuse the interruption... you may continue.

Any time Sandy. This thread is primarily Gramps trying to show us his interpretation of ancient myths, legends, and storytelling proves the god is real.

Gramps has been trying to beat pieces into a puzzle to show us atheists that the god is real because gramps thinks the writer of Daniel made predictions that came true and will come true. He has deluded himself from the beginning and has no explanation for the magic in the writing other than the god does magic.

I agree. I prefer my fiction to be exciting and filled with action, such as anything by Robert Heinlein or Jeff Lindsey (Dexter books) etc. I have read all the Harry Potter books too.

Thanks for stopping by.

____________________________________________________________
"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:There's not

gramster wrote:

There's not much to discuss or debate on this chapter. It is simply a prelude to chapter 11. Here Daniel finds himself in distress again. Probably about the situation in Jerusalem where things aren't going as originally planned.

He has another vision. A being (likely Gabriel) appears to him. He had been engaged in a battle with the "Prince of Persia", and one called Michael comes to help him. The being breaks away from the battle to come and give Daniel more information.

This appears to be a glimpse into a "spiritual battle". This is something we don't have much insight into.

That sets the stage for the message of chapter 11.

The atheists will call this "sci-fi", and the theists a "peek behind the scenes" in the spiritual world and the battle between good and evil.

Now I will go on to chapter 11 which has much more to discuss. I will of course answer any questions on chapter 10 that are put forward.

Let's see if you are correct about nada in chapter 10.

This chapter suggests it is early in the rule of Persia over Babylon, the 3rd year after.

If we take this as literal, which I don't,  then:

 

Daniel as all good "medicine men" or "witch doctors" was starving himself into hallucinations, as in v 2-3.

So should we be surprised he has visions or hallucinations?

He begins his description of his vivid hallucination in v 5. OK, he was eating magical mushrooms, as they weren't on the list of things he wasn't avoiding. He was also likely smelling very bad as well.

No one else around Daniel saw these things he described, yet they fled in terror. Daniel gives no reason for their fear letting the reader think the hallucination Daniel was having caused them to flee in terror. Perhaps partly right, perhaps it was an insane ranting Daniel that was their cause of terror. Think about it. You are sitting with a group and suddenly one guy goes wacky. Would you run? Or hold him down until his psychotic episode or epileptic fit was over?

As Daniel hears the hallucination speak to him, he falls asleep. Perhaps it was that boring? A hand then touched him and he bolted up on hands and knees. He told him not to be afraid, that his words were heard by the god. The hallucination was delayed for 21 days because the prince of Persia resisted him. A chief prince called Michael came to help the hallucination. He told him that he had come to Daniel now to tell him what would happen to his people in a future time, (in JPS, end of days, and a vision of the days).Key here is his people, the Jews. Though you have indicated everyone is a Jew in your view thanks to the Jesus.

Daniel was freaking from his hallucination trip, (too many magical mushrooms?) and couldn't speak. The hallucination also described as a human like construct, perhaps an advanced robot such as in Asimov's books, touched him on the lips and he could speak again. Daniel revealed he had no strength and was having trouble breathing. A drug overdose or starvation will do this. The robot man touched him again and told him to be strong. Daniel tells him he now has strength and told the robot to speak.

The robot/hallucination said he would return to fight against the prince of Persia. After the humanlike construct left, the prince of Greece would come. However, the hallucination told him  first he would discuss what was written in the Book of Truth.  Also no one supported the robot against them except Michael, your prince.

Instead of the hallucination, what if it is just more storytelling to introduce chapter 11 and 12?

It has magic, fantasy, and hallucinations caused by starvation. The intent is to show the reader the god's agents are working for them as always to save them from their current situation in the 2nd century BCE, as in the mention of "end of days."

So either it has more Sci-Fi Fantasy, or it's fiction to relate the rest of the goal of the writer in his presentation in regards to the 2nd century events.

Unless you have something to add you can go on to the next chapter.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Cute little story

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

There's not much to discuss or debate on this chapter. It is simply a prelude to chapter 11. Here Daniel finds himself in distress again. Probably about the situation in Jerusalem where things aren't going as originally planned.

He has another vision. A being (likely Gabriel) appears to him. He had been engaged in a battle with the "Prince of Persia", and one called Michael comes to help him. The being breaks away from the battle to come and give Daniel more information.

This appears to be a glimpse into a "spiritual battle". This is something we don't have much insight into.

That sets the stage for the message of chapter 11.

The atheists will call this "sci-fi", and the theists a "peek behind the scenes" in the spiritual world and the battle between good and evil.

Now I will go on to chapter 11 which has much more to discuss. I will of course answer any questions on chapter 10 that are put forward.

Let's see if you are correct about nada in chapter 10.

This chapter suggests it is early in the rule of Persia over Babylon, the 3rd year after.

If we take this as literal, which I don't,  then:

 

Daniel as all good "medicine men" or "witch doctors" was starving himself into hallucinations, as in v 2-3.

So should we be surprised he has visions or hallucinations?

He begins his description of his vivid hallucination in v 5. OK, he was eating magical mushrooms, as they weren't on the list of things he wasn't avoiding. He was also likely smelling very bad as well.

No one else around Daniel saw these things he described, yet they fled in terror. Daniel gives no reason for their fear letting the reader think the hallucination Daniel was having caused them to flee in terror. Perhaps partly right, perhaps it was an insane ranting Daniel that was their cause of terror. Think about it. You are sitting with a group and suddenly one guy goes wacky. Would you run? Or hold him down until his psychotic episode or epileptic fit was over?

As Daniel hears the hallucination speak to him, he falls asleep. Perhaps it was that boring? A hand then touched him and he bolted up on hands and knees. He told him not to be afraid, that his words were heard by the god. The hallucination was delayed for 21 days because the prince of Persia resisted him. A chief prince called Michael came to help the hallucination. He told him that he had come to Daniel now to tell him what would happen to his people in a future time, (in JPS, end of days, and a vision of the days).Key here is his people, the Jews. Though you have indicated everyone is a Jew in your view thanks to the Jesus.

Daniel was freaking from his hallucination trip, (too many magical mushrooms?) and couldn't speak. The hallucination also described as a human like construct, perhaps an advanced robot such as in Asimov's books, touched him on the lips and he could speak again. Daniel revealed he had no strength and was having trouble breathing. A drug overdose or starvation will do this. The robot man touched him again and told him to be strong. Daniel tells him he now has strength and told the robot to speak.

The robot/hallucination said he would return to fight against the prince of Persia. After the humanlike construct left, the prince of Greece would come. However, the hallucination told him  first he would discuss what was written in the Book of Truth.  Also no one supported the robot against them except Michael, your prince.

Instead of the hallucination, what if it is just more storytelling to introduce chapter 11 and 12?

It has magic, fantasy, and hallucinations caused by starvation. The intent is to show the reader the god's agents are working for them as always to save them from their current situation in the 2nd century BCE, as in the mention of "end of days."

So either it has more Sci-Fi Fantasy, or it's fiction to relate the rest of the goal of the writer in his presentation in regards to the 2nd century events.

Unless you have something to add you can go on to the next chapter.

 

Cute little story. Only a few minor problems.

The first option (hallucinations) in the early years of Persian rule could not have been the case. Unless you believe that mushrooms can allow one to accurately predict the future while denying God's ability to do so.

And the 2nd option (2nd century BC writer) has also been shown to be highly unlikely since no writer gets the dates on the most significant events of his own life time 7 decades off. As well as numerous other problems I have pointed out with the AE IV theory.

Anyway I will go on to chapter 11.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Let me see if I understand

Let me see if I understand this...

1. You believe that the people mentioned in the book of Daniel are real because Jewish historians didn't mention them.

2. You believe that because incidents (wars, the rise of empires) happened after the "prophecies" were written that they couldn't have happened at the time

"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
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

There's not much to discuss or debate on this chapter. It is simply a prelude to chapter 11. Here Daniel finds himself in distress again. Probably about the situation in Jerusalem where things aren't going as originally planned.

He has another vision. A being (likely Gabriel) appears to him. He had been engaged in a battle with the "Prince of Persia", and one called Michael comes to help him. The being breaks away from the battle to come and give Daniel more information.

This appears to be a glimpse into a "spiritual battle". This is something we don't have much insight into.

That sets the stage for the message of chapter 11.

The atheists will call this "sci-fi", and the theists a "peek behind the scenes" in the spiritual world and the battle between good and evil.

Now I will go on to chapter 11 which has much more to discuss. I will of course answer any questions on chapter 10 that are put forward.

Let's see if you are correct about nada in chapter 10.

This chapter suggests it is early in the rule of Persia over Babylon, the 3rd year after.

If we take this as literal, which I don't,  then:

 

Daniel as all good "medicine men" or "witch doctors" was starving himself into hallucinations, as in v 2-3.

So should we be surprised he has visions or hallucinations?

He begins his description of his vivid hallucination in v 5. OK, he was eating magical mushrooms, as they weren't on the list of things he wasn't avoiding. He was also likely smelling very bad as well.

No one else around Daniel saw these things he described, yet they fled in terror. Daniel gives no reason for their fear letting the reader think the hallucination Daniel was having caused them to flee in terror. Perhaps partly right, perhaps it was an insane ranting Daniel that was their cause of terror. Think about it. You are sitting with a group and suddenly one guy goes wacky. Would you run? Or hold him down until his psychotic episode or epileptic fit was over?

As Daniel hears the hallucination speak to him, he falls asleep. Perhaps it was that boring? A hand then touched him and he bolted up on hands and knees. He told him not to be afraid, that his words were heard by the god. The hallucination was delayed for 21 days because the prince of Persia resisted him. A chief prince called Michael came to help the hallucination. He told him that he had come to Daniel now to tell him what would happen to his people in a future time, (in JPS, end of days, and a vision of the days).Key here is his people, the Jews. Though you have indicated everyone is a Jew in your view thanks to the Jesus.

Daniel was freaking from his hallucination trip, (too many magical mushrooms?) and couldn't speak. The hallucination also described as a human like construct, perhaps an advanced robot such as in Asimov's books, touched him on the lips and he could speak again. Daniel revealed he had no strength and was having trouble breathing. A drug overdose or starvation will do this. The robot man touched him again and told him to be strong. Daniel tells him he now has strength and told the robot to speak.

The robot/hallucination said he would return to fight against the prince of Persia. After the humanlike construct left, the prince of Greece would come. However, the hallucination told him  first he would discuss what was written in the Book of Truth.  Also no one supported the robot against them except Michael, your prince.

Instead of the hallucination, what if it is just more storytelling to introduce chapter 11 and 12?

It has magic, fantasy, and hallucinations caused by starvation. The intent is to show the reader the god's agents are working for them as always to save them from their current situation in the 2nd century BCE, as in the mention of "end of days."

So either it has more Sci-Fi Fantasy, or it's fiction to relate the rest of the goal of the writer in his presentation in regards to the 2nd century events.

Unless you have something to add you can go on to the next chapter.

 

Cute little story. Only a few minor problems.

The first option (hallucinations) in the early years of Persian rule could not have been the case. Unless you believe that mushrooms can allow one to accurately predict the future while denying God's ability to do so.

Your problem here is I was ONLY discussing the possibility here that the guy in chapter 10 was doing drugs. As this was very obviously satire, no more need to be said.

gramster wrote:

 

And the 2nd option (2nd century BC writer) has also been shown to be highly unlikely since no writer gets the dates on the most significant events of his own life time 7 decades off. As well as numerous other problems I have pointed out with the AE IV theory.

Anyway I will go on to chapter 11.

Did you have this same difficulty when you went to school that you so blantantly missed what has been said?

Or is this what happens as people age?

LAST TIME - The writer in the 2nd century BCE DID NOT get his dates for his time wrong. He had difficulty with the time period from Cyrus to HIS TIME.

He had help from Jeremiah in establishing the 70 years of captivity, and the 49 years from Jerusalem to Cyrus as it was written by Jeremiah.

Please do go on to the next chapter.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Daniel Chapter 11

Alrighty then.

Since you insist that it is "rational" to believe that this writer was 7 decades off on the time from Cyrus to his own time, we will go on to chapter 11.

This is too much for me to swallow since the beginning of the captivity is clearly dated off of the 3rd year reign of King Jehoiakim king of Judah. But believe what you want.

Chapter 11 follows the previous patterns of the other prophetic passages of "repeat and enlarge". It gives a closer look at the powers previously discussed.

To someone not familiar with this period of history in this part of the world chapter 11 probably looks pretty confusing. A simple look into the events going on at this time makes this chapter much easier to understand.

vs 1 "And as for me (Probably Gabriel), in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him."

This verse states that at the beginning of the very short reign of Darius the Mede he was aided and influenced by an unseen helper.

vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

vs 3 "Than a mighty king (Alexander the Great) shall arise who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will."

vs 4 "And when he (Alexander) has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided towards the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these."

As we all know, Alexander the Great died soon after his great conquest. And his kingdom went to his leading generals. This would be Cassander (far west), Lysimachus (north), Seleucus (east), and Ptolemy (south).

I will give only one reference for the information above since it can all be easily found on Wikipedia by typing in the names in the search window. Numerous other sources can also be found to verify the above. Therefore Wikipedia is my reference given here.

Just so nobody will get offended, all the dates above are BC or BCE.

Next we will be discussing the kings of the North and of the South. We probably don't have any significant issues up to this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11 - Kings of the North and the South

gramster wrote:

Alrighty then.

Since you insist that it is "rational" to believe that this writer was 7 decades off on the time from Cyrus to his own time, we will go on to chapter 11.

This is too much for me to swallow since the beginning of the captivity is clearly dated off of the 3rd year reign of King Jehoiakim king of Judah. But believe what you want.

Chapter 11 follows the previous patterns of the other prophetic passages of "repeat and enlarge". It gives a closer look at the powers previously discussed.

To someone not familiar with this period of history in this part of the world chapter 11 probably looks pretty confusing. A simple look into the events going on at this time makes this chapter much easier to understand.

vs 1 "And as for me (Probably Gabriel), in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him."

This verse states that at the beginning of the very short reign of Darius the Mede he was aided and influenced by an unseen helper.

vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

vs 3 "Than a mighty king (Alexander the Great) shall arise who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will."

vs 4 "And when he (Alexander) has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided towards the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these."

As we all know, Alexander the Great died soon after his great conquest. And his kingdom went to his leading generals. This would be Cassander (far west), Lysimachus (north), Seleucus (east), and Ptolemy (south).

I will give only one reference for the information above since it can all be easily found on Wikipedia by typing in the names in the search window. Numerous other sources can also be found to verify the above. Therefore Wikipedia is my reference given here.

Just so nobody will get offended, all the dates above are BC or BCE.

Next we will be discussing the kings of the North and of the South. We probably don't have any significant issues up to this point.

 

 

Before discussing the kings of the North and the South, it will be good to give a few simple details for those who are not familiar with the geography and history at that time.

If one were standing in Jerusalem during the time period following Alexander the Great, directly North would be the Seleucid Empire in Syria and beyond. Directly South would be the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt and beyond.

The kings of the North (Seleucid kings) all went by the name Seleucus or Antiochus. The kings of the South (Ptolemic kings) all went by the name Ptolemy. This could be confusing. However it is simplified by the fact that they also had a number and "descriptive" name following. Example: Antiochus III the Great was followed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Now all we have to do is follow history. 

vs 5. "The king of the South (Ptolemy I Soter) shall be strong, but one of his princes (Seleucus I Nicator) shall be stronger than he and his dominion shall be a great dominion.

Seleucus I was originally one of Ptolemy I's generals. Through events that included the assistance of Ptolemy I Seleucus I ended up with a large territory mostly North and East of Jerusalem. Thus becoming the first king of the North.

What followed was a period of "feuding" between the Seleucud's and the Ptolemies, broken promises, assassinations, poisonings, and wars. The kind of stuff good books are made of.

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gramps,Now

Gramps,

Now "general"="prince"="king" and "territory"="independent kingdom"?

Is this more of that puzzle fitting you insist you don't do?

 

 

"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
Translation

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramps,

Now "general"="prince"="king" and "territory"="independent kingdom"?

Is this more of that puzzle fitting you insist you don't do?

 

Sorry, I forgot you don't do word meanings very well. When a question arises about the meaning of a word in the text, simply look it up. Most are referenced off of Strongs.

The word translated as "princes" is (sa-rav). It includes the following definitions. Captain, chief, commander, officer, ruler, and prince.

A general fits the meaning of this word quite adequately. This is not even close to "puzzle fitting".

Glad to be of assistance. Your questions are appreciated.

 


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramps,

Now "general"="prince"="king" and "territory"="independent kingdom"?

Is this more of that puzzle fitting you insist you don't do?

 

Sorry, I forgot you don't do word meanings very well. When a question arises about the meaning of a word in the text, simply look it up. Most are referenced off of Strongs.

The word translated as "princes" is (sa-rav). It includes the following definitions. Captain, chief, commander, officer, ruler, and prince.

A general fits the meaning of this word quite adequately. This is not even close to "puzzle fitting".

Glad to be of assistance. Your questions are appreciated.

 

You mean using multiple definitions of the same word as they suit you isn't puzzle fitting?

I humbly apologize for not understanding your "one from column A, one from column B" approach to scriptural interpretation (especially when you do it for one word).

"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
Independent Kingdom

The word used in the text for "dominion" is (mimshal or memshaltov). The definitions include rule, domain, and relm. The word "territory" was just a descriptive word that I used.

An independent kingdom is quite in line with the text here. I am not sure what you would have it to be??

Again, not puzzle fitting. I don't believe there is much argument among scholars about the above interpretation of these texts.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:The word used

gramster wrote:

The word used in the text for "dominion" is (mimshal or memshaltov). The definitions include rule, domain, and relm. The word "territory" was just a descriptive word that I used.

An independent kingdom is quite in line with the text here. I am not sure what you would have it to be??

Again, not puzzle fitting. I don't believe there is much argument among scholars about the above interpretation of these texts.

Like I said, I just have a hard time with your "Oh this word again. It can't mean the same thing as the first time because then it would wreck my argument - what else could it mean?"

"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
Word Meanings

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

The word used in the text for "dominion" is (mimshal or memshaltov). The definitions include rule, domain, and relm. The word "territory" was just a descriptive word that I used.

An independent kingdom is quite in line with the text here. I am not sure what you would have it to be??

Again, not puzzle fitting. I don't believe there is much argument among scholars about the above interpretation of these texts.

Like I said, I just have a hard time with your "Oh this word again. It can't mean the same thing as the first time because then it would wreck my argument - what else could it mean?"

The language of that day did not have separate words for buck private, private, captain, admiral, general, king, ambassador, etc like we do today.

The word sa-rov is used 9 times in the book of Daniel. In all of these it simply means basically someone in a position of command.

"one of his princes" let's us know that this person is in a position of command under the 1st king of the south. Which we know to be Ptolemy I. Not rocket science.

The word "mimshal" or "mimshal-tov" is used only twice. It simply means a dominion, realm, or rule. There is no other way to interpret this other than a person in a position of command under the authority of the 1st king of the south will become stronger and end up having a significant territory of his own. There is no other choice.

This makes it very specific, and not prone to "puzzle fitting".


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:6

This one at first seems a bit more complicated. But as we will see, it still simply continues where vs 5 left off.

"After some years they (Antiochus II and Ptolemy II) shall make an alliance, and the daughter (Bernice) of the king of the south (Ptolemy II) shall come to the king of the north (Antiochus II) to make peace; but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he (Antiochus II) and her offspring (Bernice's baby) shall not endure; but she (Bernice) shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her (Anthichus II).

This looks much more complicated than it is. As was a common practice Antiochus II and Ptolemy II made an alliance. Antiochus II divorced his wife Laodice in order to marry Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy II. This was often done to help "cement" political relationships. When Ptolemy II died, Antiochus took Laodice back, but she had Antiochus II, Bernice, her baby, and attendants all killed. Look it up on Wikipedia or any other source you prefer. This is just what happened.


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

gramster wrote:

Alrighty then.

Since you insist that it is "rational" to believe that this writer was 7 decades off on the time from Cyrus to his own time, we will go on to chapter 11.

This is too much for me to swallow since the beginning of the captivity is clearly dated off of the 3rd year reign of King Jehoiakim king of Judah. But believe what you want.

It's reasonable to consider that the writer(s) of Daniel did not have perfect research ability as you think you have with Google. As I told you before, the writer(s) had Jeremiah to document the time to Cyrus. What document does this for the writer of Daniel to establish the time frame from Cyrus to Antiochus IV that the 2nd century writer(s) would have easy access for research? Please indicate the title of the manuscript, the name of the writer of the document used by the writer(s) and of course it's location. Since the writer(s) were in Jerusalem's vicinity it would need to be nearby. Exactly where might that have been? Alexandria did have a library but it was about 315 miles. This would be a 5 hour drive for you, except for driving through Gaza, which could probably end your life today. Walking would take in the order of 2 or 3 weeks. Then of course there was the conflict between Syria and Egypt as well. Perhaps it was just as dangerous then for this journey as it is today.

Still what were the name of the documents that would have provided the author with the perfect accuracy you demand that would be easily fetched so the 2nd century writer could meet the perfection you think should be present in antiquity?

Oh, I forget, you have the writer(s) connected to the god by an ancient wireless modem that supposedly is an infinite database, so no actual research would be needed as it would all just transmit to Daniel's brain.

Too bad the data from the god is corrupted. Adequately shown throughout the OT. Not rocket science like you like to say.

I'll address all of your Chapter 11 views at once. I'm working 7 days right now as it's the end of tax season and I work for one of the national tax prep  companies. All of the procrastinators who owe money to the IRS are coming in so I never know if I'll have time to do anything.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Daniel 11:7

gramster wrote:

This one at first seems a bit more complicated. But as we will see, it still simply continues where vs 5 left off.

Daniel 11:6

"After some years they (Antiochus II and Ptolemy II) shall make an alliance, and the daughter (Bernice) of the king of the south (Ptolemy II) shall come to the king of the north (Antiochus II) to make peace; but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he (Antiochus II) and her offspring (Bernice's baby) shall not endure; but she (Bernice) shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her (Anthichus II).

This looks much more complicated than it is. As was a common practice Antiochus II and Ptolemy II made an alliance. Antiochus II divorced his wife Laodice in order to marry Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy II. This was often done to help "cement" political relationships. When Ptolemy II died, Antiochus took Laodice back, but she had Antiochus II, Bernice, her baby, and attendants all killed. Look it up on Wikipedia or any other source you prefer. This is just what happened.

Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.