pjts wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess that means you have outlined your summary into at least 9 parts.

I mentioned Cowles to save time, so you could see in detail why Rome doesn't fit. Not that it helped.

We already discussed Cowles, and all of his faulty reasoning was uncovered. I don't think we need to go there again.

pjts wrote:

You are like my hard core fundie sister, you'd probably like her she's as irrational as you are.

I asked her this what/if scenario once, just to see what she'd say:

If an alien spaceship landed and showed proof that they transported us all to Earth 100s of thousands of years ago and had the proof, video, docs, everything what would she think about it.

Her answer was she'd consider them to be Satan's angels.

She'd wait to die and go to the afterlife to find out the truth. Which might not work out too well.

That's pretty much the view I have of you right now as well.

Even a 2 X 4 between the eyes wouldn't get through to y'all.

But I already knew that before we started in on this discussion. You see in the Bible storytelling what you want to validate your misconstrued view of reality.

______ is real, I know he is, he is, he is.

Insert Santa, Easter Bunny, God, Allah, Enki, or whatever is appropriate.

Yada Yada! Just keep parroting this same old garbage. It is easier I am sure than coming up with rational arguments. Your best has been arguments based on "It can't be true because God doesn't exist. I know he doesn't, I know he doesn't." This kind of stuff doesn't do much for intellegent discussion. 

 

pjts wrote:

So have all the assertions you continue to make.

Still nada to show Daniel actually existed no matter how many times you claim he did.

Around in circles we go!

pjts wrote:

Sumerian clay tablets have been found with financial records, receipts for sales aka bill of sales, etc. So it's not unreasonable something should be found with his name on it from the period.

If Daniel was so important there should have been some sort of mention of him somewhere, sometime, or someplace.

Funny man, I didn't say photos, though there could have been likenesses of him carved into temples, government buildings or statues the 6th century BCE equivalent of photos.

And the Crown prince was indeed mentioned in the Babylonian tablets as being in Babylon when daddy was in Teyma, so we do know he existed as the Crown Prince.

Only a couple of mentions of the "Crown Prince" have been found. Almost Nada. No financial records, no receipts, no bill of sales, etc.

Your expectation is still not a rational one. If we were to find a bill of sale or receipt, you would just claim that it was a "different Daniel".

pjts wrote:

Both the Catholic Church and Cowles go through a long analysis of why Daniel was not about Rome. The Jesus thing is unaffected by it according to them, though the Jesus character has other problems we can discuss some other day if you stick around long enough.

It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would want to try to discredit the Roman View.

The fact that there are people who believe something does not make it true. I'm not sure where you got that idea???

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

 I would be highly "skeptical" of anything so contrary to "common sense".

I love how you speak for me.

I'm highly skeptical you can walk across a street safely.

Luck for you, most people on this site do not believe your views need to make sense. This definately works in your favor, since obviously they do not.

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

Now I know that there are those who will argue that Antiochus IV was seen as "Great and Terrible" to a 2nd century BC Jew. I do not believe it is rational to believe that AE IV would be seen as greater than the previous two empires.

That is just one of many "lame excuses" one must come up to try to puzzle fit AE IV into the prophecies of Daniel.

Excuses not required, common sense might be. Is it OK with you if I say that?

Yes, common sense would be nice.

I see that you have a much different definition for common sense than I have. Maybe it is similar to your definition of a skeptic?

Your implied definitions for evidence and rational indicate to me that you probably have some kind of skewed idea of what common sense might be as well.

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

The only individual ever symbolized by a horn in Daniel was Alexander the Great. And he was unique in that he founded and embodied the Grecian or Macedonian Empire.

 
In your morphed interpretation to puzzle fit it's required. However, Cowles and I have both shown it is not. Each of the 10 horns was a king, but you want them to be nonsensical kingdoms and groups that have no relation to the Jews.I thought only Alexander had a horn as a king, yet, the text and you said other wise in the following post.

Not so fast...

Why are you going to deny what the text said or you said?

Now for the 4th beast of Daniel 7. This beast follows the Leopard with 4wings and 4 heads which remarkably resembles the male goat in Daniel 8 identified for us as Greece.

Daniel 7:7 "After this I saw...a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet...and it had 10 horns".

This is a description of a major power. We can easily rule out individual and rather insignificant kings and kingdoms.

Daniel 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots...eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

The 10 horns and the little horn play an important role in identifying this 4th beast. Helpfully, Daniel is given an explanation specifically addressing these horns.

Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

3. Had another power arise out of these 10 kingdoms after them that would speak pompous words against God, shall persecute the saints for a time times and half a time, and intend to change times and laws.

The only major kingdom following Greece (or Macedonia) that fits this mold is Rome. Rome was not conquered by a single power, or even an alliance of powers. The Goths or Germanic tribes began moving in and breaking up the Roman empire. These tribes became major nations of Western Europe that still exist today.

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.

Next we will go further into the identifying points of the little horn. This will give us further details helping to confirm Rome as the 4th beast of Daniel 7. After that I will consider any alternate kingdom suggested as this 4th beast and see if it can possibly fit this prophecy.

pjts wrote:

In this quoted post, you morphed from 10 kings into 10 kingdoms when the text never indicated that. Then you went on to make them be nonsensical in relation to the Jews.

Sometimes a little grey matter is required. Consider Daniel 7:17 where the 4 beasts are said to be 4 "kings". The same word "melek" is used here as in Daniel 7:23-25.

Nobody disputes that kingdoms are being referred in the earlier reference, however the same word used later in the same chapter is supposed to mean literal kings only and not kingdoms???

Sounds like "puzzle fitting" to me.

I am too rational to make such an irrational assumption.

pjts wrote:

I guess you are trying to ignore what you said and the text said.

You specifically claimed - "The only individual ever symbolized by a horn in Daniel was Alexander the Great."

But Daniel 7:24 (NIV) "The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings"

Kings are individuals, unless of course you have the Gramps Dictionary of words mean what I say they mean copy.

But whatever.

I guess your "grey matter" must be all used up. See above. Once again, the same word that has been translated as "kingdoms" in one passage is later translated as "kings" in the other. Therefore it would be proper also to translate 7:24 to be read "The ten horns are ten kingdoms". This is why I do not place too much stock in any particular translation, but look into the text itself in more than one lexicon.

Maybe this is too complicated for you to understand?

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

Furthermore AE IV did not wax exceedingly great to the South, the East, and into the Glorious Land. He did have some initial success into Egypt (South) and was chased out by Rome, he died during his campaign into the East, and his persecution of the Jews led to revolt and eventual Independence.

No this is not talking about "Medo Persia", "Greece", and "little poo poo", the minor king AE IV. This must be referring to a much greater power. One that actually fits the text. The next great empire after the Grecian or Macedonian empire was Rome.

Antiochus IV was only one king among one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders empire. Not a 4th empire.

Antiochus IV does not fit the 2300 day prophecy. One must mistranslate the text, divide the days into two, and add a couple of months to make this one fit.

Antiochus IV did not rise against the "Prince of Princes" as stated in vs 8:25.

Please go re read the Cowles quotes or our posts from about 600 to about 900.
I'm not going to go nitpick this once more.

I did. The shoe still does not fit.

 

pjts wrote:

Maybe a Jewish version can help you get it.

See - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04854.html 

Did you have this problem years ago in grade school as well? Did you keep on getting the wrong answer over and over because you let your preconceived ideas interfere with processing that which was presented?

Sarcasm will not help your case.

The above "critical veiw" is nothing new. As always it starts out dismissing the Book of Daniel's authenticity on the basis of disbelief in the ability to predict the future, and the relevance to the Jews.

It than oversimplifies historocity issues, and ignores rational explanations for the alleged errors.

Than comes a rather complicated allegation of multiple authors that reads much like a defense attornies "made up" story to explain away his clients guilt.

An initial, brief reading of this type of "anti christian apologetics" at first seems to be deeply thought out and intellegent. But upon closer examination, it still does not make sense.

 

But that's ok. As we have recently discovered, on this site things aren't supposed to make sense. Good thing for you.

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

In 11:37 it says that "He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor any god." AE IV gave many gifts that benefited the gods of his fathers.

Ares, Mars or Hercules was not the god of his fathers. The desire of women whom he also ordered the cessation of worship including the goddesses loved by women such as Astarte, Anath or Tammuz. see post 1062.

"Ancient Macedonians looked up to Ares as a divine leader as well as a god" Wikipedia.

Antiochus IV was in the process of "finishing or rebuilding" a temple in Athens for Zeus when he died. The project had begun by him several years before he died, and was quite an undertaking.  Wikipedia.

Zeus - An ancient Greek god. The father of the gods, or king of the gods to the Greeks. Wikipedia.

Sorry, it looks like Antiochus IV was showing great regard for the God's of his fathers.

Sorry, Zeus was not a god of fortresses, Ares or Mars was as the god of war.

And you didn't even discuss the goddesses.

Zeus and Ares, definately gods of AE IV's fathers. This already discredits your interpretation. No need to go into the rest.

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramps the linguist wrote:

One must also ignore the importance of gender specific words in the Hebrew Language that clearly indicates that the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds or directions of the compass rather from one of the 4 horn powers that followed Alexander the Great. This is a clear indication that this is not refering to Antiochus IV.

I have asked you several times where you received your advanced grad degree in language and linguistics. If you don't have one, please supply a link to someone who does have one that supports this view.

You can believe that "he" refers to "aunt sue", or "she" refers to "uncle bob" if you wish. I find that just plain "silly".

I asked you for a verifiable source that would support your statement - a Hebrew or Aramaic linguist or language expert that indicates this particular statement should be understood as coming from the 4 winds as opposed to from one of the 4 powers.

Asking you for a source to support a statement you made is silly?

Why?

I already gave links to two supporting lexicons.

pjts wrote:

gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

One can clearly see it is not rational to believe that Antiochus IV a minor individual king is not the major power symbolized by the little horn of Daniel 8. 

I love how you try to play the superiority card using rational.

Sorry if concepts like rational or common sense are offensive to you. To me they are core to the reasoning process. 

Sorry, I should have realized you were using the Gramps dictionary definitions once again.

Sorry, but I must still insist that your arguments need to make sense. You can fight against that all you want, but it will not help your cause.

I mentioned Cowles to save time, so you could see in detail why Rome doesn't fit. Not that it helped.

We already discussed Cowles, and all of his faulty reasoning was uncovered. I don't think we need to go there again.

Supposedly you are doing a summary of your views and presenting your defense against the arguments that discredit your interpretations. That you choose to arbitrarily ignore these arguments indicates you have inadequate "proof" that your interpretations have any basis in reality. Good job Gramps.

I learned as I grew up that Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy were all well intentioned deceptions by my parents.

I have read all of the base manuscripts that make claims for the supposed gods we are discussing and what I find is:

Enki/Enlil/An/Ki and assorted other Sumerian gods - The ancients though writing interesting explicit stories had really no idea what or who they discussed. Proof of their existence in the real world was not presented. Much conjecture was though.

Allah - After an extensive reading of the Koran, I have the opinion Allah is a morphing of the god Yahweh and ancient gods of Arabia. That the angel Gabriel allegedly spoke all of the material to Mohammad and he wrote nothing at the time but it was later transcribed as he recited it indicates an origin from man.

Yahweh - the supposed basis is the OT, though other origins also allude to him in ancient Canaan and Ugaritic writing. He is related to the gods that evolved out of the pantheon of El, Yamm, Litan and Ba'al. Stories lifted by the OT from these traditions include Psalm 74:13-14 in the MT text, the KJV and others have been sanitized. This is the Ba'al cycle from Ugaritic tradition where Ba'al kills the henchman of Yamm or the twisty serpent called Levithan in the OT. In Babylonian literature it was Marduk crushing Tiamat & Kingu. In Psalm 86:8 the original text was "Among the gods there are none like thee O Yahweh. In Psalms 89:5-7 was a discussion how Yahweh is the chief of the sons of gods. This is all lifted from Canaanite storytelling. So knowing all of this, I already have categorized your god as originating in Canaanite myths. It isn't simply, there is no god, it's your god has origins in Canaanite myths from my research and study.

So have all the assertions you continue to make.  Still nada to show Daniel actually existed no matter how many times you claim he did.Around in circles we go! A summary is supposed to go over all of the material you have presented. That you wish to dodge the points that discredit it is very understandable. Again, good job Gramps.

Sumerian clay tablets have been found with financial records, receipts for sales aka bill of sales, etc. So it's not unreasonable something should be found with his name on it from the period.

If Daniel was so important there should have been some sort of mention of him somewhere, sometime, or someplace.

And the Crown prince was indeed mentioned in the Babylonian tablets as being in Babylon when daddy was in Teyma, so we do know he existed as the Crown Prince.Only a couple of mentions of the "Crown Prince" have been found. Almost Nada. No financial records, no receipts, no bill of sales, etc.

There are at minimum 5 references to the crown prince in ABC 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle); also mentioned in the Verse Account ; Mesopotamian Chronicles CM53; specifically named in Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur.

If I spend some time searching on ETCSL and online sites with translations of the cunneform tablets there is more.

A couple of mentions you say, how wrong you are, you are so funny or just ignore on purpose for distortion.

My expectation is very reasonable. In these accounts others are mentioned that were not the supposed level of Daniel. Go read them. One would expect something in regard to the 3rd in charge to be mentioned, after all governors and kings of other lands are even named.

Both the Catholic Church and Cowles go through a long analysis of why Daniel was not about Rome. The Jesus thing is unaffected by it according to them, though the Jesus character has other problems we can discuss some other day if you stick around long enough.

It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would want to try to discredit the Roman View.

As do the Jews.

The only individual ever symbolized by a horn in Daniel was Alexander the Great. And he was unique in that he founded and embodied the Grecian or Macedonian Empire.

In your morphed interpretation to puzzle fit it's required. However, Cowles and I have both shown it is not. Each of the 10 horns was a king, but you want them to be nonsensical kingdoms and groups that have no relation to the Jews.I thought only Alexander had a horn as a king, yet, the text and you said other wise in the following post.

Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".

pjts wrote:

In this quoted post, you morphed from 10 kings into 10 kingdoms when the text never indicated that. Then you went on to make them be nonsensical in relation to the Jews.

Sometimes a little grey matter is required. Consider Daniel 7:17 where the 4 beasts are said to be 4 "kings". The same word "melek" is used here as in Daniel 7:23-25.

Nobody disputes that kingdoms are being referred in the earlier reference, however the same word used later in the same chapter is supposed to mean literal kings only and not kingdoms???

Sounds like "puzzle fitting" to me.

I am too rational to make such an irrational assumption.

I guess you are trying to ignore what you said and the text said.

You specifically claimed - "The only individual ever symbolized by a horn in Daniel was Alexander the Great."

But Daniel 7:24 (NIV) "The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings"

Kings are individuals, unless of course you have the Gramps Dictionary of words mean what I say they mean copy.

But whatever.

I guess your "grey matter" must be all used up. See above. Once again, the same word that has been translated as "kingdoms" in one passage is later translated as "kings" in the other. Therefore it would be proper also to translate 7:24 to be read "The ten horns are ten kingdoms". This is why I do not place too much stock in any particular translation, but look into the text itself in more than one lexicon.

Maybe this is too complicated for you to understand?

 

This is why I accuse you of puzzle piece fitting.

It is very clear in the text it means kings not kingdoms when you stay within context.

Since you have the goal in mind to make Daniel be prophetic writing instead of Apocalyptic writing you must distort and distract.

Maybe you should look into an occupation as a magician.

Furthermore AE IV did not wax exceedingly great to the South, the East, and into the Glorious Land. He did have some initial success into Egypt (South) and was chased out by Rome, he died during his campaign into the East, and his persecution of the Jews led to revolt and eventual Independence.

No this is not talking about "Medo Persia", "Greece", and "little poo poo", the minor king AE IV. This must be referring to a much greater power. One that actually fits the text. The next great empire after the Grecian or Macedonian empire was Rome.

Antiochus IV was only one king among one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders empire. Not a 4th empire.

Antiochus IV does not fit the 2300 day prophecy. One must mistranslate the text, divide the days into two, and add a couple of months to make this one fit.

Antiochus IV did not rise against the "Prince of Princes" as stated in vs 8:25.

Please go re read the Cowles quotes or our posts from about 600 to about 900.
I'm not going to go nitpick this once more.

I did. The shoe still does not fit.

pjts wrote:

Maybe a Jewish version can help you get it.

See - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0005_0_04854.html 

Did you have this problem years ago in grade school as well? Did you keep on getting the wrong answer over and over because you let your preconceived ideas interfere with processing that which was presented?

Sarcasm will not help your case.

The above "critical veiw" is nothing new. As always it starts out dismissing the Book of Daniel's authenticity on the basis of disbelief in the ability to predict the future, and the relevance to the Jews.

It than oversimplifies historocity issues, and ignores rational explanations for the alleged errors.

Than comes a rather complicated allegation of multiple authors that reads much like a defense attornies "made up" story to explain away his clients guilt.

An initial, brief reading of this type of "anti christian apologetics" at first seems to be deeply thought out and intellegent. But upon closer examination, it still does not make sense.

The link above was from a Jewish website, not per se an "anti-Christian Apologetics" site. That you feel threatened by the Jewish views is quite interesting.

The Jews in general don't consider much of the Christian morphing of their religious beliefs to be anything more than deception and the worship of false gods, blasphemy and the like. Insulting them is fine with me as I don't have much esteem for their myths and distortion any more than I do for yours.

The Jewish view in the link is just as reasonable as that of Cowles and both are far more reasonable than you "puzzle piece fitting".

If you had read the bibliography for the article in the Jewish link, you would have noted that it was well researched by notable scholar and writers. Have you bothered to read detailed analysis by anyone that does not hold to your beliefs and views?

In 11:37 it says that "He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor any god." AE IV gave many gifts that benefited the gods of his fathers.

Ares, Mars or Hercules was not the god of his fathers. The desire of women whom he also ordered the cessation of worship including the goddesses loved by women such as Astarte, Anath or Tammuz. see post 1062.

"Ancient Macedonians looked up to Ares as a divine leader as well as a god" Wikipedia.

Antiochus IV was in the process of "finishing or rebuilding" a temple in Athens for Zeus when he died. The project had begun by him several years before he died, and was quite an undertaking.  Wikipedia.

Zeus - An ancient Greek god. The father of the gods, or king of the gods to the Greeks. Wikipedia.

Sorry, it looks like Antiochus IV was showing great regard for the God's of his fathers.

Sorry, Zeus was not a god of fortresses, Ares or Mars was as the god of war.

And you didn't even discuss the goddesses.

Zeus and Ares, definately gods of AE IV's fathers. This already discredits your interpretation. No need to go into the rest.

We weren't talking about Zeus or Macedonia, we were discussing Ares and Syria/Seleucids.

Ares and Hercules are the gods that fit "the god of fortresses" Zeus does not.

As is very evident, AE IV did suppress the worship of the goddesses revered in his empire. That you ignore this suggests that you wish to make your interpretation fit and do not want to consider the possibility that you have errored.

 But please do continue in your presentation of morphed interpretations so all can see how far you will go in grasping at the unlikely scenarios you misconstrue to justify your beliefs.

One must also ignore the importance of gender specific words in the Hebrew Language that clearly indicates that the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds or directions of the compass rather from one of the 4 horn powers that followed Alexander the Great. This is a clear indication that this is not refering to Antiochus IV.

I have asked you several times where you received your advanced grad degree in language and linguistics. If you don't have one, please supply a link to someone who does have one that supports this view.

You can believe that "he" refers to "aunt sue", or "she" refers to "uncle bob" if you wish. I find that just plain "silly".

I asked you for a verifiable source that would support your statement - a Hebrew or Aramaic linguist or language expert that indicates this particular statement should be understood as coming from the 4 winds as opposed to from one of the 4 powers.

Asking you for a source to support a statement you made is silly?

Why?

I already gave links to two supporting lexicons.

The links you gave in post 749. www.biblos.com and www.blueletterbible.org are not from language experts or linguists Gramps, they are Christian websites. I'm asking you to find a scholar that is independent that supports your view on the 4 winds translation you use. For example, Bart Ehrman the noted writer who was trained in Christianity and is an expert in multiple languages does not support your view.  Try again.

One must also ignore the importance of gender specific words in the Hebrew Language that clearly indicates that the little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds or directions of the compass rather from one of the 4 horn powers that followed Alexander the Great. This is a clear indication that this is not refering to Antiochus IV.

I have asked you several times where you received your advanced grad degree in language and linguistics. If you don't have one, please supply a link to someone who does have one that supports this view.

You can believe that "he" refers to "aunt sue", or "she" refers to "uncle bob" if you wish. I find that just plain "silly".

I asked you for a verifiable source that would support your statement - a Hebrew or Aramaic linguist or language expert that indicates this particular statement should be understood as coming from the 4 winds as opposed to from one of the 4 powers.

Asking you for a source to support a statement you made is silly?

Why?

I already gave links to two supporting lexicons.

The links you gave in post 749. www.biblos.com and www.blueletterbible.org are not from language experts or linguists Gramps, they are Christian websites. I'm asking you to find a scholar that is independent that supports your view on the 4 winds translation you use. For example, Bart Ehrman the noted writer who was trained in Christianity and is an expert in multiple languages does not support your view.  Try again.

I suppose these lexicons were created by individuals that knew nothing of the Hebrew language???

These lexicons were created by scholars with exceptional expertise in the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic languages. Lexicons are not created by back woods evangelical preachers.

Good going PJ.

My point is you are utilizing Christian web sites only and not an independent language expert, at least that is what I get from your reference. 

** Edit added**

And as I show in my follow up below, these sources don't say what you claim anyway.

I'm sorry, I can not find anywhere an example of Bart Ehrman discussing the language gender in the passage discussed. Maybe you can give me this link?

I know of no links, I read his comments in one of his books in regard to Daniel and I don't recall exactly which at this point. I'll look through my books in my boxes and see if I can find it.  In a book  I'm currently reading "Forged" on p 30 he calls Daniel an example of Apocalyptic writing.

**edit added**

From your own link -

http://bible.cc/daniel/8-8.htm

click on parallel.

None of these translations say that the power comes from the 4 winds. They indicate it goes towards or in all directions.

Also from the same site click on lexicon - it does not indicate your interpretations.

Also from your other link, it does not support your claim either, see - http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=8&v=1&t=KJV#conc/8

I have read all of the text commetaries linked to this verse and none say what you do, that the power comes from out of the 4 winds, they indicate towards the 4 winds.

So it appears to me that you have incorrectly pieced the power comes from the 4 winds on your own and do not have a language scholar to support your claim in these links.

Please supply the source for your claim as these links do not do it for you.

Earlier in our discussion I gave you the expert the Rev S R Driver, who disagrees with you, see post 746 and followup.

Driver's book is a free Google ebook, see Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899 by Driver pp 230-232.

Also see The book of Daniel edited and discussion by the Rev SR Driver Cambridge Press 1900 pp 114-115. which is also free.

** end edit added ***

In any event, it was you that needs to prove that the kingdom comes from the 4 winds, not me that needs to prove it does not. The general accepted view is not the one you present. So it is on you to present the scholar that agrees wirth your statement not me to show you are in error as you have only presented a morphed viewpoint from your own beliefs as supposed proof.

 

pjts wrote:

I know of no links, I read his comments in one of his books in regard to Daniel and I don't recall exactly which at this point. I'll look through my books in my boxes and see if I can find it.  In a book  I'm currently reading "Forged" on p 30 he calls Daniel an example of Apocalyptic writing.

**edit added**

From your own link -

http://bible.cc/daniel/8-8.htm

click on parallel.

None of these translations say that the power comes from the 4 winds. They indicate it goes towards or in all directions.

Also from the same site click on lexicon - it does not indicate your interpretations.

Also from your other link, it does not support your claim either, see - http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=8&v=1&t=KJV#conc/8

I have read all of the text commetaries linked to this verse and none say what you do, that the power comes from out of the 4 winds, they indicate towards the 4 winds.

 

You base too much on "translations and comentaries". Isn't it better to dig a little deeper and to use ones own grey matter? I was not referint to "translations and comentaries", but into ancient Hebrew textual evidence.

 

pjts wrote:

So it appears to me that you have incorrectly pieced the power comes from the 4 winds on your own and do not have a language scholar to support your claim in these links.

Please supply the source for your claim as these links do not do it for you.

Earlier in our discussion I gave you the expert the Rev S R Driver, who disagrees with you, see post 746 and followup.

Driver's book is a free Google ebook, see Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899 by Driver pp 230-232.

Also see The book of Daniel edited and discussion by the Rev SR Driver Cambridge Press 1900 pp 114-115. which is also free.

** end edit added ***

In any event, it was you that needs to prove that the kingdom comes from the 4 winds, not me that needs to prove it does not. The general accepted view is not the one you present. So it is on you to present the scholar that agrees wirth your statement not me to show you are in error as you have only presented a morphed viewpoint from your own beliefs as supposed proof.

 

Since you place so much stock in "experts", I have looked up information on Bart Ehrman. It seems as if his education consists of a Masters in Divinity. It's really quite humerous how this credential is generally "mocked" on this site as something of a joke. And now suddenly this same credential makes someone you happen to agree with a "renouned expert" in an entierly different field.

Bart Ehrman is an author with an "interest" in the Hebrew language. He started doubting God when he couldn't understand or handle the "problem of pain". Hence, he began writing books. Good one!

Yes, in fact there are language experts who agree with me on this one.

One in particular, W.H. Shaw. He has his degree in Archaeology with his post grad work done at Harvard. He has spent his life in the field of Archaeology, and has focused heaviliy on the textual translation issues in the Book of Daniel.

He has also spent 14 years teaching Hebrew as a university professor.

I would classify him as a language expert.

I found a link to one of his articles that includes this passage. It also discusses many of the other issues we have been discussing. I do not know much about the website, or what else is on there. But this will take you to the article.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/antiochus_epiphanes.html

Scroll down to 5. The origin of the little horn.

 

I will now look up your reverend, check out his credentials, and read some of his views.

  

How much time did you spend researching Dr Shea?

I can't find where the man ever went on an archeology expedition.

I do not know how many "expeditions" Shea went on, and neither do you. One does not have to dig things up themselves to study and evaluate them. It seems as if you have stooped to a new low.

I searched all the sites connected to him and see nothing about expeditions. In your post you mentioned he had a degree in archeology, which normally would mean that he'd do an expedition at some point.

But no worry, he can be your expert.

He appears to have spent his life puzzle piece fitting like you do, not doing archeology.

A 7th Day Adventist professor from Andrews is your only grasp at an independent expert. Really.

Really!

Here's his CV - http://origins.swau.edu/who/shea/cshea01.html

I did find the 7th Day Adventist University he taught at for 14 years - http://www.andrews.edu/

And the articles he wrote for the 7th Day Adventist publications - http://www.atsjats.org/publication.php?action=Search&author=William%20H.%20Shea&field=All&journal=1&other_through=1&volume=&year= 

Please define "independent". You asked for a "language expert". Shea spent 14 years teaching Hebrew. That definitely qualifies. Or in your book does ones race, gender, or religion by itself make one unqualified.

Yes, Shea agrees with me. What you are saying is that you want me to find someone who "does not agree with me", that "agrees with me". Do you always keep moving the bar?

It is much easier to attack a man's religion, than to intelligently evaluate his claims. I will not rule the man out based on his religion alone. I would not want to be that bigoted. 

Independent - not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events or things - Cambridge dictionary;

dictionary .com :

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker. 2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman. 3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research. 4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.  As he is involved with the 7th Day Adventists I have doubts about him as independent, but he can be your expert since you like him and he agrees with you.

 

pjts wrote:

I did read through his Daniel commentary in this link. He has the standard 7th Day Adventist line.

His assumptions are unwarranted in the use of masculine and feminine words on the part of the writer.

Clearly, everyone who could write in ancient times followed all the rules precisely so that experts 2000 plus years later could decipher their meaning when translated.

Perhaps you should study another language to see whar y'all fall out on tha'.

He simply points out, and quite correctly, that the best and most accurate translation would point to "winds", and not "horns".

Once again, you have to revert to the "ignorant author" argument. This is really a good "safety net" for "Y'all".

 

And you have to consider that every single ancient writer had a book or outline of "The Correct Method to Write in Hebrew".

pjts wrote:

While you are at it, try to find a language expert that is not affiliated with a church or seminary that supports your view.

Shea does not do it for you. You should read some of his other views and articles. 

"Try to find someone who believes what I believe" "who does not believe what I believe"?

In General there are many who believe in the "Historicist" interpretation of the Book of Daniel. And there have been for centuries. This is not a newly invented interpretation.

Martin Luther, and Isaac Newton are among them. There are countless others, but I am not going to attempt to name them all.

Luther is a great choice as someone who adheres to the "Historicist" view, after all he was such a wonderful person.

Luther - "Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them."

"If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth."

"...they remain our daily murderers and bloodthirsty foes in their hearts. Their prayers and curses furnish evidence of that, as do the many stories which relate their torturing of children and all sorts of crimes for which they have often been burned at the stake or banished."

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

see - http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm 

What I have found in hard core fundies and believers such as you is they all usually have some kind of SEE (significant emotional event) that resulted in their acceptance of the Sci-Fi of the Bible as real world.

What happened to you?

Sometimes it is from misuse of alcohol or drugs. Or other problems.

If you are one of these, perhaps we should curtail our discussions as I do not ever attempt to dispel the beliefs of someone that is holding on to a "blanket" that keeps them from doing self destructive acts.

Both the Catholic Church and Cowles go through a long analysis of why Daniel was not about Rome. The Jesus thing is unaffected by it according to them, though the Jesus character has other problems we can discuss some other day if you stick around long enough.

It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would want to try to discredit the Roman View.

As do the Jews.

Wrong again. Many Jews do accept Jesus as the Messiah, as well as understanding and believing the Roman View. I like how you try to put ALL Jews into your own back pocket. I don't think they would like that.

Technically if a person of the Jewish religion stops practicing it for Christianity they are no longer Jews.

Ethnically speaking there is really no race called the Jews. If you think so present such evidence. A poster called A_Nony_Mouse argues on this forum that Jews are just a made up group from the 2nd century BCE, go visit his threads and argue it with him.

Jews as discussed in the OT are very hard to distinguish from all of the others in Palestine until later periods. Sometime after the Northern kingdom called Israel is destroyed by Assyria they become noticeable in a country called Judah, though many other gods are still worshiped other than Yahweh in their territory.

Those claiming to be Jews today are from many places other than Palestine and ethnically have diverse origins.

And I did not say ALL JEWS, you did.

In 11:37 it says that "He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor any god." AE IV gave many gifts that benefited the gods of his fathers.

Ares, Mars or Hercules was not the god of his fathers. The desire of women whom he also ordered the cessation of worship including the goddesses loved by women such as Astarte, Anath or Tammuz. see post 1062.

"Ancient Macedonians looked up to Ares as a divine leader as well as a god" Wikipedia.

Antiochus IV was in the process of "finishing or rebuilding" a temple in Athens for Zeus when he died. The project had begun by him several years before he died, and was quite an undertaking.  Wikipedia.

Zeus - An ancient Greek god. The father of the gods, or king of the gods to the Greeks. Wikipedia.

Sorry, it looks like Antiochus IV was showing great regard for the God's of his fathers.

Sorry, Zeus was not a god of fortresses, Ares or Mars was as the god of war.

And you didn't even discuss the goddesses.

Zeus and Ares, definitely gods of AE IV's fathers. This already discredits your interpretation. No need to go into the rest.

We weren't talking about Zeus or Macedonia, we were discussing Ares and Syria/Seleucid's.

Ares and Hercules are the gods that fit "the god of fortresses" Zeus does not.

As is very evident, AE IV did suppress the worship of the goddesses revered in his empire. That you ignore this suggests that you wish to make your interpretation fit and do not want to consider the possibility that you have erred.

 But please do continue in your presentation of morphed interpretations so all can see how far you will go in grasping at the unlikely scenarios you misconstrue to justify your beliefs.

I'm glad you can walk so well with just one shoe. For me both shoes must fit.

Once again "He shall regard neither the god of his fathers.....nor any god". That shoe does not fit. Does not even come close.

And you deny that AE IV suppressed the worship of the goddesses. You already lost both of your shoes a while back.

I recently found out I can fly, like Superman. You don't need evidence of this, it's not a myth, I am not going to prove myself to anyone... take it on faith.

Jack_Glass_1903 wrote:

I recently found out I can fly, like Superman. You don't need evidence of this, it's not a myth, I am not going to prove myself to anyone... take it on faith.

Greetings Jack  Glass.

Please let me know when you will be "taking the big jump" off a high building. This should be interesting.

 Gramps,

1. Any reason for the popes being included besides anti-Catholic bigotry? Haven't seen any.

2. Where is this "divided Europe" you speak of? (this is the point where you can fit in the EU as a "reforming of the roman empire" because your prophecies win either way, right?)

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Gramps,

1. Any reason for the popes being included besides anti-Catholic bigotry? Haven't seen any.

2. Where is this "divided Europe" you speak of? (this is the point where you can fit in the EU as a "reforming of the roman empire" because your prophecies win either way, right?)

I don't recall mentioning any Popes. It seems as if you and Paul John are obsessed on this one. No Catholic bigotry needed.

Where do you think they got the term Papal Rome? Or the Holy Roman Empire? I certainly did not invent these terms.

When it comes to identifying the "power" that followed the Roman Empire one can not just name another Kingdom that conquered The Roman Empire. Rome was broken up and divided by invading tribes just as the text prophecies. And most of it's occupied territories came under the power of the Holy Roman Empire, or if you wish Papal Rome.

During our time, most of the territories that comprised the Roman Empire is now known as Western Europe. But as it has already been pointed out on this thread, a successive power rarely if ever has the exact footprint of the one that preceded it.

One would be hard pressed to give a more accurate portrayal of this period in history in so few words as was given in Daniel.

 

1. Look at point 5 of your summary whee it says that papal Rome is a part of the prophecy and tell me again that you didn't mention the popes. 

2. Rome's name came from its founder Romulus - no popes involved. As for the Holy Roman Empire, there were no popes before Constantine's reign so you don't have a case there either.

3. You might be hard pressed but that's only because you're pressing hard on those puzzle pieces trying to make them fit. PJTS doesn't seem to have a problem with the history. Then again, he's not straining against puzzle pieces. He has evidence. Where's yours?

Gramps  wrote *If one cannot distinguish the vast difference between the writings regarding Enki and Enlil, and the Bible, I could hardly trust their "brilliant observations", "superior judgment", and "unbiased opinion" on a subject such as this.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Still waiting for you to put it altogether and show how tribes that had no relation to the Jews have anything to do with the writer's points. Still waiting to see how this all relates to the "papal dictators" ©PJTS.

Still waiting for you to relate this whole thing to the end times and today with basis and proof.

coming soon.

pjts wrote:

Luther on his death bed was still cursing the Jews.

I'm aware that many have been interpolating texts to suit their own purposes for centuries.

Your point?

My point, is any text can by interpreted to suit the needs of those attempting to control, as adequately demonstrated by the Church for generations. After all, the god does not come forward to present himself for cross examination now does he?

 

I wouldn't expect God to come down for "inspection" upon request. I don't believe He would want to "force you to believe". He leaves you the opportunity to remain a skeptic, and not accept Him.

He does not want you in his kingdom based upon a reluctant admission that He is real. The last thing He needs is someone in heaven who would rather not be there. You seem to enjoy being a skeptic and not believing in God. He honors that choice.

Back to business.

Now that we are finished (I hope) with having to defend things like the expectation for ones arguments to make sense, let's get back to the Book of Daniel.

When one takes this book as what it claims to be, and is open to the possibility that God may indeed really exist, and be able to see into the future, everything falls right into place. And it all makes perfect sense.

When one rejects the possibility that God exists, and therefore any possibility for the prediction of the future, than one has to warp and twist things and reject interpretations that support the existence of the prophetic word.

The book of Daniel simply starts with Daniel being taken captive into Babylon.

It continues telling a few stories of some problems faced by Daniel and his friends, and how God intervened in their behalf.

It also includes dreams and visions where God foretells the future of God's people, and nations and powers that affect them.

Along the way some kings, rulers, and other figures are mentioned as they relate to the stories being told.

Not all of the kings and notable figures in Babylon are mentioned, as this is not a book about the history of Babylon.

The following is a summary of the powers foretold as I have detailed in earlier posts.

1. Babylon

2. "Medo-Persia" As it was seen by the author with both Median and Persian influence and heritage.

3 "The Grecian Kingdom" Alexander the Great's kingdom and it's 4 divisions that followed.

4. Rome.

5. Papal Rome or the holy Roman Empire.

6. Divided Europe

7. The Kingdom of God.

If this were merely a Jewish author's invention, this would not make sense. But if it has God as it's base of information and inspiration, than it makes perfect sense.

God looks down past the time when the Jews were his "special project" and "holy people" to the spread of the gospel into the whole world. Therefore His focus shifts to his "holy people" being all who choose to accept and follow Him.

Something to consider.

Not one single historical error has been proven to exist in the whole book of Daniel. This is amazing since one cannot say the same about any of the historians who wrote about this period in all of BC history.

There have been many allegations, but none, no not one holds water when examined closely.

I do not believe a 2nd century BC Jewish author could have possibly accomplished that. He would certainly have made at least one historical error that could be proven to be an error indeed. Not just something that can be "questioned".

As I have shown, one does not have to make excuses for the author, shift time lines, skew events, etc for the above interpretation. One only need to simply take a look into the history of the past 2600 or so years to realize the accuracy of these prophecies.

 The powers 1 through 6 has happened just as predicted. Only #7 is left. At that time God will appear, and you will have your "proof positive" that will not be explained away.

 

Quote:

Gramps  wrote *If one cannot distinguish the vast difference between the writings regarding Enki and Enlil, and the Bible, I could hardly trust their "brilliant observations", "superior judgment", and "unbiased opinion" on a subject such as this.

 

 

 

 

 

     Only watching your own link is often straying into "Troll" territory  Usually no one gets hurt.

    Dude, "on a subject such as this"..Nobody  makes time enough to read *the-Subject!   And IMHO, It is past overdue someone made the time.  REALLY! IMHO, that must be paramount to 'sin'.  Websites too often contain vast inaccuracies or false information. So  whatever is said goes undisputed ? Far too often any arguments someone thought they understood, is not the case,  w/ no fact-checking  ... One of the rules violated by you yourself in the past.

 

 

Http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/21084 <rationalresponders.com/forum/21084>  Old URL entitled "Biblical Plagiarism"   by: OhMan  

Http://www.rationalresponders.com/kill_em_with_kindness/29636  Believe   by TGBaker

  You are invited to this /forum/21084  I ve probably blown-it to get you over there and especially my Netiquette with this post.

 

==   ==  == == == ==

Evolution ..  the  stakes

  Sorry,-for-the-cut-en-paste. 

  ".. These are complex issues, and deserve thoughtful consideration before a decision is made. Theologians, clergy, scientists, and others belonging to many religious traditions have concluded that their religious views are compatible with evolution, and are even enhanced by the knowledge of nature that science provides. Just as vigorously, other theologians, clergy, and members of other religious traditions reject evolution as contradictory to and thus incompatible with their faith positions. And some nonbelievers argue that the methodology and findings of science are philosophically incompatible with any meaningful form of faith".

 

 

 

 

Gramps  wrote *If one cannot distinguish the vast difference between the writings regarding Enki and Enlil, and the Bible, I could hardly trust their "brilliant observations", "superior judgment", and "unbiased opinion" on a subject such as this.

 

     Only watching your own link is often straying into "Troll" territory  Usually no one gets hurt.

    Dude, "on a subject such as this"..Nobody  makes time enough to read *the-Subject!   And IMHO, It is past overdue someone made the time.  REALLY! IMHO, that must be paramount to 'sin'.  Websites too often contain vast inaccuracies or false information. So  whatever is said goes undisputed ? Far too often any arguments someone thought they understood, is not the case,  w/ no fact-checking  ... One of the rules violated by you yourself in the past.

Http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/21084 <rationalresponders.com/forum/21084>  Old URL entitled "Biblical Plagiarism"   by: OhMan  

Http://www.rationalresponders.com/kill_em_with_kindness/29636  Believe   by TGBaker

  You are invited to this /forum/21084  I ve probably blown-it to get you over there and especially my Netiquette with this post.

 

==   ==  == == == ==

Evolution ..  the  stakes

  Sorry,-for-the-cut-en-paste. 

  ".. These are complex issues, and deserve thoughtful consideration before a decision is made. Theologians, clergy, scientists, and others belonging to many religious traditions have concluded that their religious views are compatible with evolution, and are even enhanced by the knowledge of nature that science provides. Just as vigorously, other theologians, clergy, and members of other religious traditions reject evolution as contradictory to and thus incompatible with their faith positions. And some nonbelievers argue that the methodology and findings of science are philosophically incompatible with any meaningful form of faith".

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ rio...~... My beliefs do not come from some kind of SEE. Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience. Which you dismiss at your own peril.

......~ rip   ..... ~

Do you have a research study to support your claim that most Christians believe based upon study, reason, and validated personal experience?

Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences  and they are the largest group of"Christians" or they claim to be "Christians" anyway, though you may see Catholics as the servants of Satan.

Personal experiences can be interesting, mine suggest far different than your conclusions though. Perilous? Hmm!

....~ rip ~ ......

Yes, I have also noticed that Catholics often do a minimal of this. As also many protestants. There are also many Christians who "study and reason" daily throughout their lives. There are also many Atheists who do no study into this at all. I would not want to paint any of these groups with a wide brush as you tend to do.

pjts wrote:

How can you tell if I have one shoe or a pair while you are wearing that rose colored welding helmet?

Another of your all too common unproven assertions! You like muddy water.

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

I often think of you as a poor little orphan boy in need of another shoe.  

Please send your contributions to the RRS such that my poverty can be addressed.

I have already sent you several pairs of new, high quality shoes but you refuse to wear them. You prefer to wear your one old worn out shoe. There's not much more can I do.

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Gramps,

1. Any reason for the popes being included besides anti-Catholic bigotry? Haven't seen any.

2. Where is this "divided Europe" you speak of? (this is the point where you can fit in the EU as a "reforming of the roman empire" because your prophecies win either way, right?)

I don't recall mentioning any Popes. It seems as if you and Paul John are obsessed on this one. No Catholic bigotry needed.

Where do you think they got the term Papal Rome? Or the Holy Roman Empire? I certainly did not invent these terms.

When it comes to identifying the "power" that followed the Roman Empire one can not just name another Kingdom that conquered The Roman Empire. Rome was broken up and divided by invading tribes just as the text prophecies. And most of it's occupied territories came under the power of the Holy Roman Empire, or if you wish Papal Rome.

During our time, most of the territories that comprised the Roman Empire is now known as Western Europe. But as it has already been pointed out on this thread, a successive power rarely if ever has the exact footprint of the one that preceded it.

One would be hard pressed to give a more accurate portrayal of this period in history in so few words as was given in Daniel.

 

1. Look at point 5 of your summary whee it says that papal Rome is a part of the prophecy and tell me again that you didn't mention the popes. 

2. Rome's name came from its founder Romulus - no popes involved. As for the Holy Roman Empire, there were no popes before Constantine's reign so you don't have a case there either.

3. You might be hard pressed but that's only because you're pressing hard on those puzzle pieces trying to make them fit. PJTS doesn't seem to have a problem with the history. Then again, he's not straining against puzzle pieces. He has evidence. Where's yours?

Yes, I know where "Rome" got it's name. My point. The Holy Roman Empire, and Papal Rome both got their name from the power they succeeded. That being "Rome". No puzzle fitting required. If they did not succeed "Rome" than they would probably not have "Rome's" name.

My evidence? It is quite obvious that Papal Rome and The Holy Roman Empire followed Rome. They certainly did not precede Rome. And if not these powers, than what power did follow Rome in succession?

Maybe you think there was an empire called Constantinia?

This is like arguing whether something should make sense. It is basic history. Nothing else.

My interpretation is very simple and straight forward. No puzzle fitting required.

Mow you're playing sematnic games and attacking a straw man. Classic signs of someone losing an argument.

Taking the name of "Rome" means nothing except an association with a known power. Papal Rome took the name from where they were located and has yet to be considered an empire (except by the protestants whi think it should be their job). 

Do you think Rome, GA is a successor to the Roman Empire because they bear the name? How about Indiana University? Do they rule the state?

Semantics?

Tell me if you were naming successive powers, just what major power would you list as the next successive to "Rome"? The one you would think would best fit naturally into the "Daniel Scenario"?

The Popes were not and are not an imperial power so "Papal Rome" didn't succeed the Roman Empire. You're making it easy on me again.

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ rio...~... My beliefs do not come from some kind of SEE. Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience. Which you dismiss at your own peril.

......~ rip   ..... ~

Do you have a research study to support your claim that most Christians believe based upon study, reason, and validated personal experience?

Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences  and they are the largest group of"Christians" or they claim to be "Christians" anyway, though you may see Catholics as the servants of Satan.

Personal experiences can be interesting, mine suggest far different than your conclusions though. Perilous? Hmm!

....~ rip ~ ......

Yes, I have also noticed that Catholics often do a minimal of this. As also many protestants. There are also many Christians who "study and reason" daily throughout their lives. There are also many Atheists who do no study into this at all. I would not want to paint any of these groups with a wide brush as you tend to do.

I asked you for a research study to support your claim that " Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience." and instead you say I paint them with a wide brush.

How can you tell if I have one shoe or a pair while you are wearing that rose colored welding helmet?

Another of your all too common unproven assertions! You like muddy water.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ rio...~... My beliefs do not come from some kind of SEE. Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience. Which you dismiss at your own peril.

......~ rip   ..... ~

Do you have a research study to support your claim that most Christians believe based upon study, reason, and validated personal experience?

Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences  and they are the largest group of"Christians" or they claim to be "Christians" anyway, though you may see Catholics as the servants of Satan.

Personal experiences can be interesting, mine suggest far different than your conclusions though. Perilous? Hmm!

....~ rip ~ ......

Yes, I have also noticed that Catholics often do a minimal of this. As also many protestants. There are also many Christians who "study and reason" daily throughout their lives. There are also many Atheists who do no study into this at all. I would not want to paint any of these groups with a wide brush as you tend to do.

pjts wrote:

I asked you for a research study to support your claim that " Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience." and instead you say I paint them with a wide brush.

In your statement above, you alleged that in your own experience most Catholics/Christians "do a minimal amount of this" (based on your personal experience).

I have not seen any research study to back up your statement. You gave your "opinion" based upon your "observation", and I gave mine. Now you are asking for a research study on "my observations". Sorry, nobody has ever done any extensive research into "the observations of old gramps".

Maybe you have one on the observations of "Paul John the Skeptic".

Sometimes you just out do yourself. You never cease to amaze me.

pjts wrote:

How can you tell if I have one shoe or a pair while you are wearing that rose colored welding helmet?

gramster wrote:

Another of your all too common unproven assertions! You like muddy water.

pjts wrote:

No, it's hard to see gators in muddy water.

My least favorite place to water ski is in the St John's River.

Old shoes and muddy waters aside, you are still missing one important part of the puzzle. That being that the text says that the subject under discussion would have "No regard for ANY Gods". And this is just one more example of where your interpretation does not fit.

You may have thought you stirred up the muddy water enough that this one would get lost in the haze. Sorry, it still exists.

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

I often think of you as a poor little orphan boy in need of another shoe.  

Please send your contributions to the RRS such that my poverty can be addressed.

I have already sent you several pairs of new, high quality shoes but you refuse to wear them. You prefer to wear your one old worn out shoe. There's not much more can I do.

pjts wrote:

You must have used an invalid link with your contribution to the RRS. There is a link where you can donate here - http://www.rationalresponders.com/donate 

Are there not enough Atheists that feel strongly enough to support this cause? That is so sad. Even though I like the format of this site, being a Christian, I could hardly support a site who's mission is to discredit God.

I know pastors who stand up and ask non believers not to give offerings to the church. They feel that the ministry should be supported by believers only.

That being said. I hope this site is not in danger of going under, as it does provide a good resource for examining and debating the issues.

 

Well, at least you can give your views without them being deleted or banned, can't you Gramps?

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ rio...~... My beliefs do not come from some kind of SEE. Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience. Which you dismiss at your own peril.

......~ rip   ..... ~

Do you have a research study to support your claim that most Christians believe based upon study, reason, and validated personal experience?

Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences  and they are the largest group of"Christians" or they claim to be "Christians" anyway, though you may see Catholics as the servants of Satan.

Personal experiences can be interesting, mine suggest far different than your conclusions though. Perilous? Hmm!

....~ rip ~ ......

Yes, I have also noticed that Catholics often do a minimal of this. As also many protestants. There are also many Christians who "study and reason" daily throughout their lives. There are also many Atheists who do no study into this at all. I would not want to paint any of these groups with a wide brush as you tend to do.

pjts wrote:

I asked you for a research study to support your claim that " Like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason, and yes, validated by personal experience." and instead you say I paint them with a wide brush.

In your statement above, you alleged that in your own experience most Catholics/Christians "do a minimal amount of this" (based on your personal experience).

I have not seen any research study to back up your statement. You gave your "opinion" based upon your "observation", and I gave mine. Now you are asking for a research study on "my observations". Sorry, nobody has ever done any extensive research into "the observations of old gramps".

Maybe you have one on the observations of "Paul John the Skeptic".

Sometimes you just out do yourself. You never cease to amaze me.

There were several points to be discussed here and I was just checking to see if you would notice.

1- You claimed "...like most Christians, they are based upon study, reason.." for your beliefs.

2- You also claimed"...validated by personal experience" as one of your reasons for belief.

3- My comment was clearly defined as my opinion "Most Catholics do a minimal amount of this based on my personal experiences...."

In your statement, this called for proof and I asked for a research study. You could have come back and stated in the same way I did, that it was your opinion "most Christians" did this based on personal observation. But your statement did not so indicate that view.

When you said "validated by personal experience" I'm aware of what that meant and it was not indicating that you observed most Christians basing their beliefs on study, reason, .... but meant you have had some sort of experience that you consider to be supernatural, unexplainable in normal reality, or some sort of intervention by an unseen entity.

And Gramps, I indicated as you noted that my statement was an opinion. Perhaps this misunderstanding is due to your education from an early time back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.  I went to school in the "Wild West".

No need to dwell on this as I was doing a Cpt Pineapple on you is all. You made an unsupported statement so I immediately asked for a research study.

Once again you misunderstood. You claimed that I was a poor little orphan with 1 shoe, so I gave you the opportunity to do the Christian thing by donating to the RRS. Brian would no doubt insure that I got a new pair of shoes with your contribution.

I have no idea if you have ever belonged to Christian forums or not. The discussion we are having would never be allowed to take place on one of those because of the views expressed by the likes of me and Jcgadfly. They limit discussion such that no attack on scripture is allowed, no doubts can be expressed on beliefs, and ban those who express dissent. I know this as I have been kicked off several theist's forums as have many other non-believers. So, what you have here on RRS, is a place that even your view as a believer can be expressed without fear of being banned or silenced.

Isn't that what America has always been about Gramps, the freedom of speech?

You should support the RRS for the reason that it is one of the few places where you can freely express yourself without your posts being deleted or you being banned.

Or to just buy me a pair of shoes.

Playing Dodge Ball Again. I asked a simple question. You dodged it and made an unproven statement. A half truth if you please.

grandpa}

I would like to know what power you personally would list as the next successive to "Rome". You don't like mine, but have not come up with an alternative that you think works better.

You are semi-correct in your allegation. However, that was an age of united church/state powers. The church often controlled the people and their governments with near absolute power. The "apostate" church emerged dominant for centuries over vast teritories in the region.

Also you did not give a reference as to where in Daniel you read that this power was an "imperial power". Please provide this to support your claim.

Since this church/state power that existed following the fall of Rome persecuted and murdered Christians by the millions it would likely be included in prophecies about events affecting "God's people" down to the end of time.

Still waiting for your answer. [/quote wrote:

 

gadfly wrote:

You asked a question in response to a question I didn't ask. I don't feel a need to answer straw men.

I don't think there is a fitting successor to the Roman Empire in the prophecy because I don't think the passages are prophecy.  I don't need to jam the popes into a situation where they don't belong.  Why are you placing them in a prophecy when the supposed prophet knew nothing of them? Oh yeah..."interpretations change to fit what the interpreter needs.

This is just you backpedaling from a position you held until you were shown it to be untenable. 

Christians murdering Christians is also not as much of a problem for me as it is for you. Thought you guys were on the same team - you worship the same God.

grandpa wrote:

First of all, there is no problem with a "prophet" naming a power  they know nothing of. That's what makes it "prophecy".

Second, you are still playing dodge ball. If you were to name a successor to "Rome", just what government, empire, or power would you name?

If you are going to disagree with the power I name, you need to have a better alternative.

I think you are just stalling, and hoping someone will come to your rescue.

gadfly wrote:

As soon as you name a power that succeeded Rome in the sense that the passage in Daniel meant (The prior powers were military and imperial. No reason to imply the power was ecumenical or financial - that's just you swinging that sledgehammer around. ) I'll dispute it with you - the Popes held no power in the sense that the prophecy states. Then again, it is prophecy and it can mean what you want it to mean.

Quit making it so damned easy. I don't have to name a successor to make your prophecy fit to tell you that your prophecy is bunk - I'm not doing your homework for you. 

If it is "so damned easy" than why do you have so much trouble answering my question? If a power (like Rome) was not succeeded by another military or imperial power, than a true and correct prophecy would not prophecy one. If instead it were broken up into separate governments, and the only significant unified power were to be ecuminical or financial than a correct prophecy would indicate this.

Sorry you can't handle the fact the The Roman Empire was not conquered by another great empire. That's just history as the prophecy accurately predicted.

I still believe you are just stalling hoping that PJTS or someone else will come to your rescue and bail you out on this one.

Man Up! and learn to fight your own battles.