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.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:PJTS #308

gramster wrote:


PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

pjts wrote:

 
Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.

Let's not confuse what gramps believes with the beliefs of other people.

"in the days of those kings" that being divided Europe just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed" that being the literal kingdom of God. "It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" that being the result of God having put an end to sin, suffering, and death. The earth will be made new, and all things will be restored as they were before the fall of man into sin.

Just clarifying my position. Now you can continue on with your fantasy land interpretation.



 

You've clarified it - goody. Why can't you substantiate it?

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:PJTS #308

gramster wrote:


PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

pjts wrote:

 
Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.

Let's not confuse what gramps believes with the beliefs of other people.

"in the days of those kings" that being divided Europe just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed" that being the literal kingdom of God. "It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" that being the result of God having put an end to sin, suffering, and death. The earth will be made new, and all things will be restored as they were before the fall of man into sin.

Just clarifying my position. Now you can continue on with your fantasy land interpretation. 

One would think that this should have occurred when Europe actually had kings.

No monarchy, no king - Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Sam Marino, Serbia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Montenegro, Turkey


Constituional Monarchy or monarchy - Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK, Norway, Andorra,  Monaco,

Not really in Europe but no king - Iceland

Dictatorship - Vatican

As your claim does not include the rest of the world, it matters little if they have kings or not.

Republics are not kingdoms.

The Jesus however is not mentioned in Daniel, you interpreted it into the text.

And still, one must buy into other story telling legends as I indicated, that being the Jesus.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 3

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 4

Daniel 4
Chapter 4 details king Nebuchadrezzar's tree dream and his supposed affliction.

Later on Gramps argues that King Neb was mad as indicated in BM 34113 where he claimed in his post 1162 that this supported Dan 4:19-37.

In post 1167 I refuted this by posting the full translation from A K Grayson and I took a position that instead of King Neb being mad that the whole tablet was about a traitor in the court.

As so much of the text is missing it could be about anything one wishes to insert.

Chapter 4 does not add anything to Gramps arguments at all. More on this later.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 5

Daniel 5
Chapter 5 is the story of the handwriting on the wall and the supposed death of Bel-shar-usur. We argued over this repeatedly as well.

This chapter indicates that a disembodied hand wrote on the wall in a language that could not be understood by the Crown Prince or his advisers. The JPS version of the Hebrew Bible indicates this was in Aramaic, a language that should have been known. Regardless of the language, there is still “magic” here to be proved as based in reality. This is a case of “magic” and requires substantiated validation. Do hands just write on walls every day? Have you ever seen a hand write on a wall that was not attached to a body? I sure have not. If a claim of unrealistic occurrence is made it must be supported with validation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That this claim is in an ancient book that has other unrealistic tales should automatically place it into a skeptical position until proof is shown that this can occur. If not possible to do this, then it should not have merit any more than any other ancient storytelling legend. See my response in post 1168.

Then we have a claim in the last verses that Bel-shar-usur died that night. The storytelling in Daniel seems to occur in the capital city, Babylon. Records seem to indicate that the crown prince was killed in battle during the invasion by Cyrus.  According to both the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder Babylon was taken without bloodshed. Roux indicated on p 387 that Belshazzar was killed in Opis citing Josephus and Eusebius. Further, Gubaru (Gobryas) the governor of Assyria went over to Cyrus instead of supporting Belshazzar at Opis.

Does this fit into the story of Daniel 5 where Belshazzar is said to be holding a feast for 1000 of his lords in v 1? If Cyrus was invading at the time as history indicates why would the Crown Prince be holding a feast? And this version has other errors as continuing to call Nebuchdrezzar his father. Though Gramps used the standard line that kings would do such things, or perhaps he was somehow related. Supposedly they gave toasts to the gods of silver, gold, stone, brass, etc which is part of the misconceptions priest writers of the Jews had of the gods of Sumer. The objects were not thee god.

Daniel 5 does not fit into the history we know happened when Cyrus invaded and Belshazzar was killed or captured.
More later on the relationships of Nabonidus and Bel-shar-usur to Nebuchadrezzar.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 6

Daniel 6
The lions den adventure is told in this chapter. Do we really need to go into more fantasy and magic? Guess so.

This story is part of the court stories and intrigue in Daniel. Here, the Babylonian officials/advisers were apparently jealous of Daniel’s quick rise to fame and the power he held. They devised a plan to be rid of him.

When Daniel does not worship the golden image he is condemned to the lions den. Instead, an angel shows up and shuts the lions mouths so they don't make a snack out of the main character in this myth.

As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Any volunteers to recreate this myth?

See also my comments in regard to Daniel 3 as they apply to this myth as well.
 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 7

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

 

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

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

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

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

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

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


What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.


The little horn of Daniel 7 according to Gramps:
Gramps post 387 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Please note, as Gramps often does he screwed up the chapter here on Daniel, he really meant chapter 7. He also does this with the 5th and 6th centuries BCE, so be warned.

Here Gramps discussed the Holy Roman Empire as rising from the dust of Pagan Rome. This is not exactly accurate. Rome as an Empire continues in the East until it's overthrow by the Turks  in 1461. One could also look at the 4th Crusade as the end of the Empire in 1204.

The first Holy Roman Emperor is considered to be Otto I of Germany in 962 CE. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

Some try to claim that The Carolingian Empire was also the Holy Roman Empire which is dated as starting under Charlemagne. see wiki- Holy Roman Emporers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor

Pagan Rome however continued until the reign of Constantine 307-337 CE at minimum. After this point paganism had no real power except for a short revival under Emperor Julian.

There is a period of at least 400 years between the end of Pagan Rome and even Charlemagne and over 600 years to Otto I. In this period the empire still flourished from Constantinoble with little influence from the pope or bishop of Rome. The East broke with Rome on several occasions and did not follow the pope, rather their authority was the Patriarch of Constantinoble.

Who was the little horn in this adventure?

My response
PJTS #501 wrote:

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

Instead how about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8-He was successful for a time.



Gramps responded
Gramps#524 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


He then goes further in his explanation and presents his view on the “little horn" (finally!!)

gramps#525 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Here he admits he is biased and sees the Jesus as the Jewish messiah. He claims the Bible indicates the Jews rejected their messiah, but that is in the NT which is another long argument in regard to myths and legends. He makes excuses that Christians are now "spiritual Israel" in order to make the Apocalyptic writing of Daniel fit his puzzle.

He then claims that Papal Rome is the little horn of Daniel 7.
In post #797,

gramps wrote:

In another sense, Christian Rome took away, or obscured the "daily" or "continual" sacrifice of Christ from his followers. Confessions to priests, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship were all substitutes given to the people rather than having them just come to Christ as their heavenly high priest.

Whereas, the Jesus has yet to be shown as the real mashiach aka messiah, and this is pure conjecture on Gramps part, he has only added more confusion to the mix.
Whereas, Antiochus did in fact cause the sacrifices in the Temple to cease, this describes him, not the RCC which as mentioned before requires one to buy into another set of mythological legends and storytelling.
Now how will Gramps prove this? He doesn’t.
He also tried to wiggle in the intermarriages of Europe, to the present day were prophesied.

gramps post 603 wrote:

There is one more point that doesn't seem to fit well with either the Grecian Theory, or the 2nd Century BC Theory.

Daniel 2:43 As you saw the iron mixed with miry clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage,  but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Sure there were intermarriages, but this seems to portray repeated, failed attempts in uniting the powers. This is not what I see very clearly in the Seleucid kingdom. It was very prevalent in the nations of early Europe.


Gramps goes further with his claim in post 722:
gramps#722 wrote:

In regards to Daniel 2:43 "As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men, but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay."

I previously pointed out that this text strongly suggests a notable pattern of intermarriages between those in positions of power. These marriages would naturally involve the divisions of this beast, and in its later stages. I suggested this was clearly the case after the breakup of the Roman Empire. You asked for some examples.

If one takes the "long view" of interpretation with the prophecies where the history of relevant nations are portrayed down to the coming of the "kingdom of God" at the end of the world, this all makes perfect sense.

The 4th beast, represents at first Pagan Rome, and then Modern Europe after the breakup of the Roman Empire. Modern Europe being the divided kingdom at the later days of this beast's existence.

That being said, I will give a very small glimpse of the "mingling" that went on between these European Powers.

We will start at a point just prior to WWI.

German born Prince Albert weds Queen Victoria of England.

Kaiser Wilhelm II (their son) ends up ruling Germany and Prussia.

Queen Sophia (their granddaughter) marries Constantine soon to be King of Greece

Edward VII (their son) soon to be King of England marries Alexandria of Denmark

Maud (their granddaughter) marries Haakon IV King of Norway

Tsarina Alexandra (their granddaughter) marries Nicholas soon to be Emperor of Russia

Marie (their granddaughter) marries Ferdinand I soon to be King of Romania

Margaret (their granddaughter) marries Prince Gastav of Sweden

Victoria Eugenie (their granddaughter) marries King Alfonso of Spain

The relations were so "intermingled" that Edward VII was commonly referred to as the "Uncle of Europe". He was closely related to rulers of many European countries including: Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Romania, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Bulgaria, and more.

Not to mention that Isabella (daughter of King Philip of France) became the wife of King Edward II of England, and the list goes on.

One cannot study the history of Europe without being overwhelmed with all the "mingling" that went on.

This is truly a short list indeed. A complete list may not even be possible. That's why WWI has often been referred to as on big family feud.

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

And just what would be referred to as the "divided kingdom" that did not adhere to one another?

Really? Just one more poor fit.

I informed him that not so, there were countless marriages between the resulting kingdoms after Alexander. This part of Daniel was clearly referring to the intermarriages between the 4 Greek kingdoms not European countries. See posts - 725 and 726.
In post 726 I fully detailed the intermarriages and backed them all with substantial proof.
PJTS #726 wrote:

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

I did not detail it again because it is substantial, go to #726 to review it if you have questions.

Gramps conceded that he was wrong to discredit the intermarriages in the Greek-Hellenistic period, see post 728

gramps #728 wrote:

You are right. I should not have discredited this without doing proper research. My apologies. I will avoid doing this in the future. You have done a fine job in proving your point on this one.

So does this alone discredit his European theory in regard to the prophesies? Not from the point he is still using his divided Europe scenario even still. Please also note he had made the claim without research as well though he admitted he was wrong.



What I consider the most probable Daniel 7 Kingdoms:
Daniel 7

1-Babylon

2-Medes

3-Persians

4-Greece(Macedonia) from which the Seleucid kingdom comes from as do the 10 kings and the little horn which is Antiochus 4.

Gramps has now banged pieces into this puzzle that have no place in it.

He has yet to provide extraordinary proof for any of the extraordinary claims so far.
 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 8

Once again, sorry about the length.

 

 

Daniel 8
Gramps in Post 356

Gramps #356 wrote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

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

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

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

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

And also Gramps presented more comments on this again in post # 736.
Gramps #736 wrote:

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

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

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

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

2. The Ram was pushing 3 directions - The Bear had 3 ribs between its teeth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The differences between how Gramps sees the kingdoms and beasts and what is really the most probable interpretation causes a split that is not reconcilable.

This difference allows Gramps to slam in Rome, the popes and the RCC into a puzzle to which they do not belong.


Another major point of difference is in regard to Daniel 8:8. Here Gramps has taken a position that the verse "The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. " And the 1st part of v 9 "Out of one of them came another horn,....".

Gramps view is that the little horn comes from out of the 4 winds as opposed to one of the other horns. This is a minority view held by RCC hating denominations such as the JWs. Gramps has presented a link from one of the JW scholars that supports his view. OTOH, nearly all translation are otherwise and in the OG (Old Greek), LXX it says "and four other horns rose up in its place toward the four winds of heaven." and in v 9 "And out of one of them came forth one strong horn...". As the Septuagint is the oldest versions other than the DSS, one can't come up with the Gramps JW version without "puzzle piece fitting".

There is no basis for the claim that the little horn comes from out of the 4 winds, therefore the Rome claim is misconstrued interpretation and is not supportable.


Gramps will not concede this error and consequently continues to slam Rome in as a piece where it does not belong. It's not like this is not further explained in the interpretation:


pjts #745 wrote:

Also consider Daniel 8:22-23(NIV)- which makes it clear that it is a king from one of the kingdoms, not a new kingdom from across the 4 winds as you claim.

"The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.  23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise."


So, if we are talking about Rome, who does this mean? If we are talking about the Seleucids, it's clear it is Antiochus IV.


Gramps continues in his claim that the power comes from the 4 winds in post 842.


I again argue against it in Post 881.


pjts #881 wrote:

There is of course this thought you miss, if the writer of Daniel wanted to say the little horn came from the 4 winds of heaven he'd have actually had said that straight up. He did not.

What was said in the Hebrew JPS version of Daniel 8:8 was "And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up the appearance of four horns toward the four winds of heaven."

It indicates that after the great horn was broken or dead, meaning after Alexander, there came 4 other horns that appeared towards the 4 winds of heaven.

Considering this, it means the kingdom of Alexander was broken into 4 other pieces in 4 different directions. And that's what happened.

Next we have the Hebrew JPS version of Daniel 8:9 - "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous land."

The subject in the last part was 4 other horns not the 4 winds of heaven. Your interpretation is just strange and makes no sense at all in sentence analysis.

The little horn became great, something Antiochus IV did.

He did so towards the South, Egypt, and towards the East in Iraq, Iran etc ...

He also did so in the beauteous land which was Judea.

See the following links, mostly Christian that do not see a little horn coming out of the winds:

http://www.truthnet.org/Daniel/Chapter8/

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=008

http://www.schooloffaith.com/_assets/files/Salvation/SH0609.pdf

This comes up over and over even in Gramps summary.

gramps #842 wrote:

Verses 9 to 12 put things into perspective for us.

Vs 9 states specifically that this little horn comes out of one of the 4 winds, and not out of one of the 4 horns. We can determine this from the word gender study. If the author had been referring to AE IV, he almost certainly would have used word genders referring to one of the horns.

Vs 9 also states that this little horn would grow exceedingly great which Rome did, and AE IV did not.

Vs 10 states that this power would cast some of the hosts, and stars to the ground and trample them. It is universally understood that this refers to the people of God, and their leaders. It is not agreed to whether this is referring to the Jews, or Christians.

Vs 11 states that this power exalts himself to the Prince of the host which I believe is referring to Jesus. I am sure you do not agree. And that is takes away the continual sacrifice and the place of the sanctuary, which Rome did in AD 70.

Vs 12 states that this power would oppose the daily sacrifices, and cast the truth to the ground. I believe this to be a reference to Papal Rome, and the dark ages. I am sure you do not agree. Later chapters will shed more light on this.

This takes us to vs 13.

He continues with this very obscure interpretation/translation to the end of his arguments and into his summary discussion.

Since Daniel's audience was  the Jews and written to the Jews what purpose would it serve addressing the non-existent Christians? 1 & 2 Maccabees  discuss the leaders of the rebellion, the so called stars in detail. I also love how he tried to inject the characters, James, Stephen and Paul? Tell me, where in the OT are they mentioned? And why do he throw wet twigs on the fire?  Is this to make more smoke so no one will notice his sleight of hand? The NT stories ate legends for another day, adding them in will only mean he will have to prove James the Just was something other than a very observant devout Jew. He will also have to defend the Stephen legend as not being a rewrite of the Jesus character's trial as well. I think he should stick with the OT and Daniel for now, but he seems to need to go into the other myths and storytelling to support his beliefs.


In regards to the sacrifices, the Jews would only be concerned about the Temple, not your "puzzle-piece" Christian view, as the Jews were the intended target of the book.


Gramps in #843

gramps post #843 wrote:

Vs 13 the question is asked, how long will the sanctuary and host be trodden under foot.

Vs 14 the question is answered, unto 2300 days than shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Vs 15 Daniel does not understand the vision, and is seeking understanding.

Vs 16 The angel Gabriel is instructed to give Daniel understanding of the vision.

Vs 17 Gabriel tells Daniel that this vision refers to the "time of the end".

Here is what we can determine with certainty from these texts.

1. A specific time period is given for the fulfillment of this prophecy.

2. Daniel does not understand this vision.

2. This vision refers to "the time of the end".

Now from a 2nd century BC writer’s perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed. This seems to be the case.

In response I said
pjts #853 wrote:



V 13 describes a period of time you wrongly say is days, it was 2300 mornings and evenings in the text. It isn’t 2,300 years though, which would have been 1844 or so which a group of "end days" wackos in the 19th century thought as they gave away all and waited for the Jesus to return on a hill. If you have a date for the end can you leave all of your possessions to a good charity, such as the RRS, though it’s not tax deductible.


V14 says it would be sanctified in 2300 evenings and mornings, not days.


In V15 someone that looked like a man is seen by Daniel. He was referred to as Gabriel in V16 by someone out of sight. He was there to attempt to explain what these visions meant. So does this mean Gabriel was a Cylon, they looked like humans in BSG.


V17 says Daniel was terrified of the construct that looked like a man. He told Daniel that these visions refer to the time of the end and does not explain the end of what. Maybe it was one of Isaac Asimov's robots from his Foundation Series or the Movie version of I Robot.


1-A time period is given but is unclear and/or vague, 2300 mornings and nights or is it 1150 of each? This is not well expressed in the text, it could be either. Counting the total sacrifices that have not or will not occur or the number of days? In Zork things had to be done in a specific way, when do I ring the bell, light the candle and read from the book? Doing it wrong produced nothing while doing it right you made progress.


2-Daniel was considering the visions and trying to understand them does not specifically mean he didn’t get it at all as you suggest. The text only says while he was trying to understand the vision he heard talking and Gabriel being told to tell him the meaning of the vision.


3-The vision refers to the time of the end, the end of what is the question. Later on it describes what this means in other places in various chapters and it is describing the end of persecution of the Jews or the people of the god. You assert it has to do with the end of the world and the return of the Jesus in your overall arguments.


You are guessing that this means it is a history to the end of time whereas the end of persecution fits the entire situation.  The point of the writing wasn’t for the 2nd century BCE writer to understand as he obviously did, he wrote it. No it was intended for the 2nd century BCE reader. You put too much into so little in regard to the understanding that which was discussed.


Gramps argument on Dan 8:12-14 boils down to him buying that 2300 days was not 2300 missed sacrifices based on his interpretation. In the end he sees them as years. This enables him to construct the end times in the future, being now or later on, which, however it all fits with AE IV with no creativity needed.  There is nothing else for it to fit unless you smash puzzle pieces in when they don't belong. Which you most certainly do.

gramps #884 wrote:

I see the 2300 days as symbolic for years. That takes us down to our time. This date I see as marking the beginning of the "time of the end" or "last days of our earth's history. It is right around the time of the great industrial revolution or the modern age. After that date knowledge and technology has increased exponentially.

I also see the cleansing of the temple to refer to the heavenly temple. The one that was shown to Moses as a pattern in which to make the earthly one. This I cannot elaborate on this briefly so I won't at this time.

Here's the Gramster's whole point, the end is now. He denied being a follower of Harold Camping however.

Part of the problem is believers read the "time of the end" to be the end of the world. More on this as we go on.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Not written in English or Modern Times

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:


PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

pjts wrote:

 
Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.

Let's not confuse what gramps believes with the beliefs of other people.

"in the days of those kings" that being divided Europe just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed" that being the literal kingdom of God. "It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" that being the result of God having put an end to sin, suffering, and death. The earth will be made new, and all things will be restored as they were before the fall of man into sin.

Just clarifying my position. Now you can continue on with your fantasy land interpretation. 

One would think that this should have occurred when Europe actually had kings.

No monarchy, no king - Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Sam Marino, Serbia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Montenegro, Turkey


Constituional Monarchy or monarchy - Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK, Norway, Andorra,  Monaco,

Not really in Europe but no king - Iceland

Dictatorship - Vatican

As your claim does not include the rest of the world, it matters little if they have kings or not.

Republics are not kingdoms.

The Jesus however is not mentioned in Daniel, you interpreted it into the text.

And still, one must buy into other story telling legends as I indicated, that being the Jesus.

Once again you fail to realize that this was not originally written in Englsh or in Modern Times. The language was quite limited, and they did not have the terms or awareness of the types of governments we have in our day. And as I already pointed out, the terms for kings and kingdoms were often used interchangably.

To interpret "in the days of those kings" to refer to modern nations is not an abuse of the Hebrew language. It is the best they had in that era.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
No surprise - You don't believe in God

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:


PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

pjts wrote:

 
Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.

Let's not confuse what gramps believes with the beliefs of other people.

"in the days of those kings" that being divided Europe just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed" that being the literal kingdom of God. "It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" that being the result of God having put an end to sin, suffering, and death. The earth will be made new, and all things will be restored as they were before the fall of man into sin.

Just clarifying my position. Now you can continue on with your fantasy land interpretation. 

One would think that this should have occurred when Europe actually had kings.

No monarchy, no king - Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Sam Marino, Serbia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Montenegro, Turkey


Constituional Monarchy or monarchy - Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK, Norway, Andorra,  Monaco,

Not really in Europe but no king - Iceland

Dictatorship - Vatican

As your claim does not include the rest of the world, it matters little if they have kings or not.

Republics are not kingdoms.

The Jesus however is not mentioned in Daniel, you interpreted it into the text.

And still, one must buy into other story telling legends as I indicated, that being the Jesus.

Once again you fail to realize that this was not originally written in Englsh or in Modern Times. The language was quite limited, and they did not have the terms or awareness of the types of governments we have in our day. And as I already pointed out, the terms for kings and kingdoms were often used interchangably.

To interpret "in the days of those kings" to refer to modern nations is not an abuse of the Hebrew language. It is the best they had in that era.

 

 

He's talking about your interpretations now. You know - the one that fits the popes and the EU where they don't belong.

"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


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

 

 

and if you believe in Peter Pan and fairy dust you can fly. Does believing in something make it true?

"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
But your God should know

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:


PJTS #308 wrote:


3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."NAB

pjts wrote:

 
Daniel claims here the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. In the 2nd century BCE, the writer may have thought this was to be, though it wasn't. If as in Gramps case you  puzzle piece fit the Jesus as instituting it as do many Christians, then you have a supposed kingdom that is not observed as it is spiritual as an out. Then one has to go through all the myths of the Jesus to show the Jesus was real, the Jesus was the supposed mashiach of the Jews, and the Jews missed the Jesus fit somehow into their prophecies, even in verses that weren't prophecies. This could take a long time to discuss. But wait, Gramps has claimed the prophecies alone will show Daniel had the god's help, we should not need to go to the myths of the Jesus.

I don't see how this works out for Gramps. In order to prove the God is real, this part needs you to accept the kingdom of god is spiritual and the Jesus was the one that instituted it. But how can one do so if the myths must be accepted for the Jesus to have this kingdom. I think this goes in circles for reasoning.

Let's not confuse what gramps believes with the beliefs of other people.

"in the days of those kings" that being divided Europe just before the 2nd coming of Jesus. "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed" that being the literal kingdom of God. "It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" that being the result of God having put an end to sin, suffering, and death. The earth will be made new, and all things will be restored as they were before the fall of man into sin.

Just clarifying my position. Now you can continue on with your fantasy land interpretation. 

One would think that this should have occurred when Europe actually had kings.

No monarchy, no king - Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Sam Marino, Serbia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Montenegro, Turkey


Constituional Monarchy or monarchy - Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK, Norway, Andorra,  Monaco,

Not really in Europe but no king - Iceland

Dictatorship - Vatican

As your claim does not include the rest of the world, it matters little if they have kings or not.

Republics are not kingdoms.

The Jesus however is not mentioned in Daniel, you interpreted it into the text.

And still, one must buy into other story telling legends as I indicated, that being the Jesus.

Once again you fail to realize that this was not originally written in Englsh or in Modern Times. The language was quite limited, and they did not have the terms or awareness of the types of governments we have in our day. And as I already pointed out, the terms for kings and kingdoms were often used interchangably.

To interpret "in the days of those kings" to refer to modern nations is not an abuse of the Hebrew language. It is the best they had in that era.

 

Since you claim the text was inspired by the god, he should know.

There were republics in ancient times, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Carthage, for example.  Some city states in the far East in India. Even some of the ancient cities in Mesopotamia. There were words to describe them.

If nothing else, the simple word of country could have been used. Instead, kingdoms is used, thus indicating the source was not a god that was privy to the future.

Regardless, your god did  a poor job if one has to use a decoder to determine what is meant.

The text only supports that it was written by a human and did not have a god's all knowing knowledge to draw upon.

No worry, you have more problems with your European claims which wil be discussed shortly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

 

Is that your extraordinary proof?

You actually are doing circular reasoning and don't see it.

You: If Daniel is shown to be prophecy only a god could be involved. So you are in fact trying to prove the existence of a god.

The problem being, the text includes stories that are not possible in the reality we occupy. One must supply extraordinary proof they can happen.

You have not, you avoid the subject.

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Non issues

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

pjts wrote:

Is that your extraordinary proof?

You don't read very well. Not too quick on the uptake I guess. I am not claiming any kind of "proof" or "extraordinary proof" on this chapter. This chapter makes sense if there is a God, and does not if there is not. It's that simple.

pjts wrote:

You actually are doing circular reasoning and don't see it.

You: If Daniel is shown to be prophecy only a god could be involved. So you are in fact trying to prove the existence of a god.

The problem being, the text includes stories that are not possible in the reality we occupy. One must supply extraordinary proof they can happen.

You have not, you avoid the subject.

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere.

 


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

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

pjts wrote:

Is that your extraordinary proof?

You don't read very well. Not too quick on the uptake I guess. I am not claiming any kind of "proof" or "extraordinary proof" on this chapter. This chapter makes sense if there is a God, and does not if there is not. It's that simple.

pjts wrote:

You actually are doing circular reasoning and don't see it.

You: If Daniel is shown to be prophecy only a god could be involved. So you are in fact trying to prove the existence of a god.

The problem being, the text includes stories that are not possible in the reality we occupy. One must supply extraordinary proof they can happen.

You have not, you avoid the subject.

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere.

 

Contradicting yourself again?

You started this exposition of Daniel to show that it was prophecy that came from the God you believe in. If you believe that God grants prophecy, you kind a have to believe that said prophecy is proof of his existence - otherwise you  have no reason to present it.

Don't hurt yourself backpedaling.

"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
Trying to back off some of your claims are you?

 

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Is that your extraordinary proof?

You don't read very well. Not too quick on the uptake I guess. I am not claiming any kind of "proof" or "extraordinary proof" on this chapter. This chapter makes sense if there is a God, and does not if there is not. It's that simple.

I read perfectly fine. All of Daniel should be considered in your claim, not just the chapters you interpolate for prophecy.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

You actually are doing circular reasoning and don't see it.

You: If Daniel is shown to be prophecy only a god could be involved. So you are in fact trying to prove the existence of a god.

The problem being, the text includes stories that are not possible in the reality we occupy. One must supply extraordinary proof they can happen.

You have not, you avoid the subject.

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

Once again Gramps, all of Daniel is open for comment and consideration, not just the parts you wish to cherry pick.

Claims that are outside of reality such as this chapter, define and expand the story telling.

The same thing occurs in the story telling of the ancient Sumerians, where fantastic events occur. You do not accept those because of the "magic" as it defines the content. Daniel is no different. The "magic" content must be included, which automatically should put the entire content into the area of skepticism.

Reason and observed reality are against this particular episode, which moves it from your position of : "I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not" to it is highly unlikely.

I understand that you think that simply claiming that a god can do anything is an out. It is not. You may believe you can change lead into gold but reality suggests otherwise.

This does not work for you anymore than it does for any of the ancients that explained thunder and lightning was the act of a god.

Thanks for taking a stand that you have no proof, just conjecture and your belief in an unproven god as evidence.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere. 

I note that you are retracting your statement, that King Neb set himself up as a god in that event, which had no basis but your unwarranted claim.

Gramps, nothing is a non-issue, all is open to examination.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
gramps wrote:Once again, you

gramps wrote:

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

pjts wrote:

Once again Gramps, all of Daniel is open for comment and consideration, not just the parts you wish to cherry pick.

Claims that are outside of reality such as this chapter, define and expand the story telling.

The same thing occurs in the story telling of the ancient Sumerians, where fantastic events occur. You do not accept those because of the "magic" as it defines the content. Daniel is no different. The "magic" content must be included, which automatically should put the entire content into the area of skepticism.

Reason and observed reality are against this particular episode, which moves it from your position of : "I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not" to it is highly unlikely.

I understand that you think that simply claiming that a god can do anything is an out. It is not. You may believe you can change lead into gold but reality suggests otherwise.

This does not work for you anymore than it does for any of the ancients that explained thunder and lightning was the act of a god.

Thanks for taking a stand that you have no proof, just conjecture and your belief in an unproven god as evidence.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere. 

pjts wrote:

I note that you are retracting your statement, that King Neb set himself up as a god in that event, which had no basis but your unwarranted claim.

Gramps, nothing is a non-issue, all is open to examination.

This is still simply a matter of whether or not one believes in God. It God exists, than events like this can take place. If He doesn't, they cannot.

It is just that simple. No need to spend hours chasing ones tail on stuff like this.

 


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 6
The lions den adventure is told in this chapter. Do we really need to go into more fantasy and magic? Guess so.

This story is part of the court stories and intrigue in Daniel. Here, the Babylonian officials/advisers were apparently jealous of Daniel’s quick rise to fame and the power he held. They devised a plan to be rid of him.

When Daniel does not worship the golden image he is condemned to the lions den. Instead, an angel shows up and shuts the lions mouths so they don't make a snack out of the main character in this myth.

As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Any volunteers to recreate this myth?

See also my comments in regard to Daniel 3 as they apply to this myth as well.
 

This one is much like the "fiery furnace" episode. No, there is no reason for us to waste time on this one. I am sure you will want to anyway. Like the firey furnace story, this one is not provable. This one also depends upon the existence of God to be possible. Therefore it does nothing to prove or disprove God's existence, or the validity of the Book of Daniel.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Neb's Madness

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 4
Chapter 4 details king Nebuchadrezzar's tree dream and his supposed affliction.

Later on Gramps argues that King Neb was mad as indicated in BM 34113 where he claimed in his post 1162 that this supported Dan 4:19-37.

In post 1167 I refuted this by posting the full translation from A K Grayson and I took a position that instead of King Neb being mad that the whole tablet was about a traitor in the court.

As so much of the text is missing it could be about anything one wishes to insert.

Chapter 4 does not add anything to Gramps arguments at all. More on this later.

Another story that primarily depends upon the existence of God to have happened. If god is real, than it could have. If not it is highly unlikely. There is certainly room in history for this to have happened. Chase your tail again if you wish.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Neb's Madness

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 4
Chapter 4 details king Nebuchadrezzar's tree dream and his supposed affliction.

Later on Gramps argues that King Neb was mad as indicated in BM 34113 where he claimed in his post 1162 that this supported Dan 4:19-37.

In post 1167 I refuted this by posting the full translation from A K Grayson and I took a position that instead of King Neb being mad that the whole tablet was about a traitor in the court.

As so much of the text is missing it could be about anything one wishes to insert.

Chapter 4 does not add anything to Gramps arguments at all. More on this later.

Another story that primarily depends upon the existence of God to have happened. If god is real, than it could have. If not it is highly unlikely. There is certainly room in history for this to have happened. Chase your tail again if you wish.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 5
Chapter 5 is the story of the handwriting on the wall and the supposed death of Bel-shar-usur. We argued over this repeatedly as well.

This chapter indicates that a disembodied hand wrote on the wall in a language that could not be understood by the Crown Prince or his advisers. The JPS version of the Hebrew Bible indicates this was in Aramaic, a language that should have been known. Regardless of the language, there is still “magic” here to be proved as based in reality. This is a case of “magic” and requires substantiated validation. Do hands just write on walls every day? Have you ever seen a hand write on a wall that was not attached to a body? I sure have not. If a claim of unrealistic occurrence is made it must be supported with validation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That this claim is in an ancient book that has other unrealistic tales should automatically place it into a skeptical position until proof is shown that this can occur. If not possible to do this, then it should not have merit any more than any other ancient storytelling legend. See my response in post 1168.

Then we have a claim in the last verses that Bel-shar-usur died that night. The storytelling in Daniel seems to occur in the capital city, Babylon. Records seem to indicate that the crown prince was killed in battle during the invasion by Cyrus.  According to both the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Cylinder Babylon was taken without bloodshed. Roux indicated on p 387 that Belshazzar was killed in Opis citing Josephus and Eusebius. Further, Gubaru (Gobryas) the governor of Assyria went over to Cyrus instead of supporting Belshazzar at Opis.

Does this fit into the story of Daniel 5 where Belshazzar is said to be holding a feast for 1000 of his lords in v 1? If Cyrus was invading at the time as history indicates why would the Crown Prince be holding a feast? And this version has other errors as continuing to call Nebuchdrezzar his father. Though Gramps used the standard line that kings would do such things, or perhaps he was somehow related. Supposedly they gave toasts to the gods of silver, gold, stone, brass, etc which is part of the misconceptions priest writers of the Jews had of the gods of Sumer. The objects were not thee god.

Daniel 5 does not fit into the history we know happened when Cyrus invaded and Belshazzar was killed or captured.
More later on the relationships of Nabonidus and Bel-shar-usur to Nebuchadrezzar.

Yes, we discussed this one extensively.

What we found is that there are no credible records of Belshazzar's death. There exists only conjecture that he may have been killed at the battle of Opis. As for the Roux account, no references are given in his book that back up this claim. It seems to apparently be also based entirely upon conjecture.

As to your question "why would the Crown Prince be holding a feast while Cyrus was invading", the answer is quite simple. The city of Babylon was surrounded by massive high walls. It was considered to be impregnable. It was easily defended with a relatively small force from the inside.

There was supposedly enough food to last 20 years.

Belshazzar thought he was safe. He apparently was not the least bit worried. As history tells us, Cyrus diverted the Euphrates River that ran through the city, and marched in under the walls undetected for a surprise attack.

The reason there would be no bloodshed, would be due to the great element of surprise.

There are no reasons to believe the Daniel account is in error here. It fits perfectly with any credible accounts that are in existence today.

No bad history required.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Hard to go anywhere with the cart before the horse

gramster wrote:

gramps wrote:

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

pjts wrote:

Once again Gramps, all of Daniel is open for comment and consideration, not just the parts you wish to cherry pick.

Claims that are outside of reality such as this chapter, define and expand the story telling.

The same thing occurs in the story telling of the ancient Sumerians, where fantastic events occur. You do not accept those because of the "magic" as it defines the content. Daniel is no different. The "magic" content must be included, which automatically should put the entire content into the area of skepticism.

Reason and observed reality are against this particular episode, which moves it from your position of : "I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not" to it is highly unlikely.

I understand that you think that simply claiming that a god can do anything is an out. It is not. You may believe you can change lead into gold but reality suggests otherwise.

This does not work for you anymore than it does for any of the ancients that explained thunder and lightning was the act of a god.

Thanks for taking a stand that you have no proof, just conjecture and your belief in an unproven god as evidence.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere. 

pjts wrote:

I note that you are retracting your statement, that King Neb set himself up as a god in that event, which had no basis but your unwarranted claim.

Gramps, nothing is a non-issue, all is open to examination.

This is still simply a matter of whether or not one believes in God. It God exists, than events like this can take place. If He doesn't, they cannot.

It is just that simple. No need to spend hours chasing ones tail on stuff like this.

 

You have the cart before the horse once again.

As always, you claim, but have no evidence.

Properly, one must show the god is real, then show it can do anything.

Ancient texts do not do that for you. They all make fantastic claims what the god(s) can do. No difference in Daniel.

I agree, no point in discussing your asserted claims.

Keep on pushing that cart.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Nothing here

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 6
The lions den adventure is told in this chapter. Do we really need to go into more fantasy and magic? Guess so.

This story is part of the court stories and intrigue in Daniel. Here, the Babylonian officials/advisers were apparently jealous of Daniel’s quick rise to fame and the power he held. They devised a plan to be rid of him.

When Daniel does not worship the golden image he is condemned to the lions den. Instead, an angel shows up and shuts the lions mouths so they don't make a snack out of the main character in this myth.

As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Any volunteers to recreate this myth?

See also my comments in regard to Daniel 3 as they apply to this myth as well.
 

This one is much like the "fiery furnace" episode. No, there is no reason for us to waste time on this one. I am sure you will want to anyway. Like the firey furnace story, this one is not provable. This one also depends upon the existence of God to be possible. Therefore it does nothing to prove or disprove God's existence, or the validity of the Book of Daniel.

 

Same assertion by Gramps. Nothing of substance.

If the god(s) of the ancients is/are real, he/she/it can do whatever is the claim.

Nothing new here. Assertion dependent on puzzle piece proof.

____________________________________________________________
"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 shoe does not fit

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

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

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

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

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

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

pjts wrote:


What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts.

 

 

 

 




 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

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

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

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

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

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

pjts wrote:


What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts.

 

 

 

 




 

So you and PJTS agree except that you magic the popes in there where history says Macedon.?

"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:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

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

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

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

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

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

pjts wrote:


What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

 

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

The height of the Medes conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

If the author meant to have the Medes and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

As I mentioned, you still have not shown the relationship to the Holy Roman Empire. Claiming Rome as the 4th beast of the writer is not sufficient. One must actually show that it correlates more than any other view.

The Seleucids and Antiochus IV do correlate much more than Rome and papal Rome as the little horn.

More later on the interrelationships between these chapters.

Back to you Gramps to finish your critique of my Daniel 7 rebuttal in post 1407, unless you agree with me that because the Eastern Empire still existed that your claim of the Holy Roman Empire was incorrect as well as your previous claims of Europe and  tribes of no consequence were erroneous.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Discussion on Daniel 2,7,and 8 prophecies & relationship if any

Discussion on Daniel 2,7,and 8 prophecies and their interrelationships if any.


Our Daniel 2 Positions:

Gramps views:

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.
2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.
3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.
4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

PJTS views:


1-Babylon
2-Medes
3-Persians
4-Greece(Macedonia) from which the Seleucid kingdom and 3 others come forth.

 

Note: As I mentioned before, 2 can be Medes-Persia, 3 can be Greece, and 4 would be Seleucid Empire and still work.
In Gramps case, he has Rome being divided and uses only the Western part of the empire in his arguments. In the case where it’s Greece/Seleucids the kingdom is also divided. The writer who wrote at the time when the Jews become free once more may have felt that the kingdom would last forever, but not so. This error is not new for Jewish claims, supposedly the kingship of the Jews would continue with David’s ancestors forever. Obviously it did not.


Daniel 7 Positions:


Gramps views:


1. Lion with eagle’s wings - Babylon.
2. Bear raised up on one side - Medo-Persia.
3. Leopard with four wings and four heads - Greece.
4. Dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns – Rome


PJTS views:


1-Lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes or Medes-Persians

-  Note:   Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.

3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians or Greece(Macedonia)
   Note:   Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.

4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia) or Seleucids
    Note:    No difference either way

Daniel 8 Positions:


Gramps views:


Ram with two horns, one higher than the other - Kings of Media and Persia
Goat – Greece
4  horns - four  that arise out of that nation.
– 10 kings (Gramps considers them kingdoms)
Little Horn – Rome or papal Rome

PJTS views:

1-Ram with 2 horns identified as the Medes and Persians in the verse.
   1-Medes are the small horn
   2-Persians are the much larger horn

We have no difference here.

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

      The 4 horns are:

      1-Antigonid Empire (Dynasty)
      2-Ptolemaic Empire
      3-Attalid Empire
      4-Seleucid Empire


Again, we have no difference here, but then we will as the text describes 10 kings and Gramps decides they are European tribes and kingdoms.

None of which have any meaning to the Jews.  But wait, Gramps claims Christians are “spiritual Jews” so he claims it does.

PJTS view on the 10 kings and the little horn:

The text uses the words horns and kings - "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." - Dan 7:24 NIV

The 10 horns or kings that rose up in Daniel 7:24 are:

1- Seleucus

2- Antiochus I

3- Antiochus II

4- Seleucus II

5- Seleucus III

6- Antiochus III

7- Seleucus IV

8- Demetrius

9- Heliodorus

10-Seleucus IV's infant son

The last 3 kings were "subdued" by Antiochus

From my post 501 - "Seleucus IV is poisoned by Heliodorus who had designs on the throne. He is killed by intrigue of Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV. The next heir would have been Demetrius but he is held hostage in Rome. The infant son of Seleucus was too young to rule and is killed in 170 BCE."

 


Gramps on the 4th beast and the little horn:


gramps #356 wrote:


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.



And Gramps as a biased Westerner only looks at the West part of the Empire or Western Europe.

He sees the following 10 countries/tribes as pertinent:

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

The problem with Gramps view here is he ignores that the Roman Empire was far more than Europe. The Eastern part of the Empire included – All of what is now Turkey, most of Iraq, part of Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Croatia, Greece, Egypt, and all of Palestine. Other parts of the empire ignored by Gramps were North Africa, including Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya.

So, how is it that Greece and Turkey aren’t in Gramps 10 Kingdoms?  The area of Turkey especially was a major part of the Roman Empire as was Greece.

Even later on while Gramps tribes of no relevance are disappearing the Empire was still quite large in 565 CE.

See: http://byzantium.seashell.net.nz/articlemain.php?artid=mapbase_565


Gramps dodged this in this post:


Gramps post 492 wrote:


Yes, many countries that were part of the Roman Empire, or arouse out of it were left out of this prophecy. The text seems to be referring to 10 kingdoms that arouse from this Empire for some particular reason. It would be logical in moving forward to keep this in mind and discover the reason for this.


So how did Gramps select his particular kingdoms/tribes?


As far as I can tell he pulled them out of thin air.


 Gramps need to explicitly explain why these 10 fit and nothing else does.


Apparently, he deciphered them from the text and simply asserted they were,  because he never actually explained why.

The only thing I see in his arguments to support these particular tribes/kingdoms, is they are in the West.

Gramps has a bias for considering only the West. He never looks at the East. If he did, it would break up his claim.


10 kingdoms from the East & West


Turkey/Ottoman Empire
Syria
Egypt
Iraq
Libya


And just for fun not in the East, but why not:
Italy
Germany


And some of these 3 no longer exist:
Yugoslavia – a modern created country ended recently, multiple dates
Cilicia – ended 546 BCE
Lydia – 1200- 546 BCE


There are many other choices one can substitute for the tribes Gramps has asserted:
Such as:
Bithynia – 297 – 74 BCE
Pergamon – 281-133 BCE
Galatia – 280-64 BCE
Uratu – 860-290 BCE
Pontus – 291-62 BCE
Commagene – 163-72 BCE


These are just a few of the kingdoms that end after the supposed prophecies of Daniel.


Why not one of them instead of Western European tribes?

We can also assert any of these bad guys is the “little horn”
Suleiman the Magnificent – Ottoman Empire – maybe a really good choice. As the Ottoman Turks had claimed the title of Roman emperor, he can come close.
Benito Mussolini – Italy – OK, so he didn’t do so well. He was Italian though.
Adolf Hitler – NAZI Germany – certainly a nasty little bugger as Gramps would say. He did succeed for a time, then his madness won out. He did set himself up as a god, at least to Germans.
Saddam Hussein  - Iraq – OK, so he fought 8 years against Iran and could not beat an army that had 1 rifle for every 10 men.
Bashar al-Assad – Syria – maybe daddy is a better choice - Hafez al-Assad
Libya - Muammar Gaddafi – he was certainly mad, thought himself to be something important, until he met his end in a drainpipe.
Egypt - Gamal Abdel Nasser – he did try, don’t forget about the UAR

Why pick Rome as the 4th beast?


Why not some other such as:


Ottoman Empire- It stretched into vast areas, Mehmed II after his conquest of Constantinople, assumed the title of Roman Emperor.  See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
NAZI Germany – clearly conquered Europe, parts of North Africa, a large part of Russia
British Empire – OK, they fight stupidly, but they did dominate the world for a time.
USSR- they did seize and take all of Eastern Europe, for a time. Stalin might be considered
Spain – their empire was in new territory. Several leaders to choose from
France – Napoleon comes to mind

So if one wants to just assert without basis any of these can be made to relate just as well as Gramps assertions. Gramps did not supply proof or an argument as to why his 10 countries/tribes  fit.
I did supply in detail the 10 kings prior to Antiochus IV. I also detailed how the text fit Antiochus IV, verse by verse. Did Gramps do the same? Nope. He made his claims and argued that papal Rome did fit some of that which was in the text, such as the sacrifices. He indicated that the little horn persecuted “the saints” and construes this to mean Jesus believers of a certain faction apparently, at least different than the RCC. He has a lot of holes in his little horn explanation.
He assumes the Jesus is the mashiach (Christian Messiah). He does not prove this and can’t actually. This would lead into a discussion of exactly what prophecies the Jews see as relating to the mashiach and what Christians see as prophecies and a long discourse on the two. Jews see Christians as using unrelated text to misconstrue the mashiach while Christians think Jews are blind to their own scriptures' meaning. Some other day this can be discussed. No matter, the Jesus cannot be proven as the mashiach in any event.

My view is that the writing is Apocalyptic written in the 2nd century BCE about Antiochus IV. Gramps puzzle piece interpretation has as much basis as Hitler being the little horn.




 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter argument Summary Daniel 9

Counter argument Summary Daniel 9

Daniel 9 is primarily about the supposed 70 weeks prophecy

My views on it from post #931

My summary of Daniel 9:

70 years of captivity recycled from Jeremiah 25:11

An anointed one comes after 7 weeks of 7 or 49 years namely Cyrus as given  by Isaiah.

62 weeks of 7 later, another anointed one comes and he is “cut off" or killed, I consider this to be Onais during the time of the Maccabees.

2 anointed ones are discussed, the 1st in Daniel 9:25 is Cyrus and the 2nd in Dan 9:26 is Onais.

Jerusalem was rebuilt per Jeremiah 31:37-39

Then a covenant will be made for 1 week and broken in 1/2 week. This refers to exactly what Antiochus IV did and he broke it in 3-1/2 years.

 

Gramps views:

Gramps wrote:

From post 898- "  The fulfillment of this prophecy began to be fulfilled at this time. It would be many years in the future before this prophecy would come to full fruition. The point that after 70 years this great kingdom would come to its end, which was so important to the Jews in Daniels day was fulfilled immediately after the 70 years ended."

 

1st decree 537 or 538 BC

2nd decree 519 BC


3rd decree 457 BC

In post 909 Gramps goes on:

"The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself.

Therefore I prefer the latter decree."

"The second decree listed above was made by Darius I (520 or 519 BC) to be found in Ezra 4 and 5. 4:24 the building ceased unto the second year of Darius.

And in Ezra 5:15 Darius issues a decree to resume the rebuilding. This also covers primarily the temple."

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self-governance. That is why I prefer this one. This set the stage for the rebuilding of Jerusalem which Nehemiah became a leader in accomplishing. The date for this decree can also be verified by a quick Wikipedia search of Artaxerxes I.

Please note, Gramps is hung up on the word decree(s). No where in the text does decree(s) fall into the picture, but Gramps insists on it. Even going on to say that Jeremiah predicted Jerusalem would be rebuilt that he did not decree it. I do not see how his mind processes this at all. He should get a blue screen aka BSOD.

He sees them as the means to accomplish the supposed prophecies.

Consider, Daniel 9:1-2 (JPS)indicated the Jews would be held in captivity for 70 years. The writer of Daniel was obviously familiar with Jeremiah 25:11(JPS). Here  multiple decrees are not discussed, but Gramps decides that it should be so he can make it to the time of the Jesus.  Also read Jeremiah 31(JPS) which indicates that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. There are no time frames mentioned. Daniel 9 was supposedly written in about 538 BCE, somewhere nearing 60 years after the captivity.

Gramps ignores that the Temple was once again open for business in 520 BCE as discussed by Ezra 6. He has decided to ignore that and consider Jerusalem rebuilt when every street has been paved with cobblestones, every house painted, every stone set back where it once belonged, and every piece of wall rebuilt. He has no basis for this, because Jeremiah gave no date for its completion. He has to move to his 3rd decree so he can smack in the Jesus as the"one". Though the text of Daniel indicates it was the"two".

Gramps view on chapter 9 from post 914 cont'd:

Gramps wrote:

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

He also presented more in post 1014 so he could detail how he gets to the Jesus.

Gramps 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.

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.

 

Notice how Gramps is working his way into 1844 in the first quoted post by using 2300 years and cutting off 490 years he has 1810 years left. When you add this to 34 CE, the supposed date of the execution of the Jesus character you get to 1844.

An important year 1844, Joseph Smith was hanged,  James Polk was elected as US President and Samuel Morse sent the 1st telegraph message.

And a bunch of believers thought the Jesus would return. If he did, he took one look around, saw Jews were still being killed and told "Scotty" to beam him the hell out of there.

As to the 2nd quoted post, we have major disagreement. Gramps of course is working his way to the Jesus using every available technique he can muster.

The 7 weeks are 7 years of weeks beginning in circa 586 BCE or 49 years ending with Cyrus as the anointed one. Please note Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the anointed one. This is within 1 year, close enough for the poor history student/writer of Daniel.

The 62 weeks are 62 weeks of years or until approximately the Maccabee times, actually it's off by a few years but once again consider the accuracy of the poor history student  Daniel was its pretty close. 

The 2nd anointed one who is "cut off" or killed is Onais who is murdered.

Gramps of course only sees one anointed one, the Jesus. He used the KJV and Strong's to smack in pieces for this, though even his links show the Jews do not accept that and KJV and JPS are very different on v24.

The 1 week covenant is Antiochus with the high priest but only halfway there he breaks it. Here 1 week = 7 years and 1/2 week =  3 1/2 years, which fits with Antiochus.

The text seemed to give the idea the city and the Temple would be destroyed, though it doesn't explicitly say that. The actual word used in Hebrew was “shachach” which means to corrupt, ruin, destroy or cause decay, according to Strong's concordance, Gramps favorite backup support. In the view of a pious Jew, what Antiochus did was to corrupt or cause decay and ruin.

One thing to note is the text calls for 2 anointed ones not one. And the wording is not THE Messiah but a messiah, but Gramps needs it to be only "one" so he can beat the Jesus character into the puzzle. No Jesus character then Gramps has no place to go.

Maybe we should go into the discussion on the Jesus since he has to have the character to make his case. Anyone want to spend a year or more arguing about the Jesus being real, a composite, or a character from legend?

So many legends, so little evidence.

Summary of some issues from post 952:

1- There is more than 1 way that this prophecy can be fulfilled, therefore it fails the specific requirement of being a truly miraculous prophecy.

2- There was no decree given to Nehemiah. He had letters of safe passage, and authorization to cut wood for remodeling the Temple.

3 - The Temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before Nehemiah and he was only remodeling it.

See - Ezra 6:15 JPS - "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." - 516 to 520 BCE approx.

4 - Jews used a 365 day year though they used a lunar calendar month. They adjusted for this every few years by adding a month so that it came out to 365 day years.

5- The rest of the prophecies of Daniel were never fulfilled if this pertains to Jesus.

6 - You completely ignore the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks which result in 2 anointed ones.

7 - As I mentioned before, the text refers to A messiah, anointed one or moshiach not THE MESSIAH, as there is no definitive article before anointed one or messiah.

 

Our discussion on Daniel 9 starts at post 872 and continues to somewhere around post 1032 with many distractions.

 

 As one can see from this, I'm not convinced by Gramster's view.

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

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

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

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

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

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

pjts wrote:


What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

 

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Meades and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Meades and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

The height of the Medes conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Medes conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Medes and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

As I mentioned, you still have not shown the relationship to the Holy Roman Empire. Claiming Rome as the 4th beast of the writer is not sufficient. One must actually show that it correlates more than any other view.

The Seleucid's and Antiochus IV do correlate much more than Rome and papal Rome as the little horn.

More later on the interrelationships between these chapters.

Back to you Gramps to finish your critique of my Daniel 7 rebuttal in post 1407, unless you agree with me that because the Eastern Empire still existed that your claim of the Holy Roman Empire was incorrect as well as your previous claims of Europe and  tribes of no consequence were erroneous.

If one does not take the irrational approach of trying to insert Media as a separate power, or divide the Grecian kingdom up to make two, Rome is naturally the most logical 4th power discussed.

And if one does not turn a blind eye to the fact that Christianity has it's roots in the belief in a Jewish Messiah, and therefore a strong connection with the Jews, the relationship to Rome and the Holy Roman Empire is quite obvious.

More on this to come.

 

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

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

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

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

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

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

pjts wrote:


What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

 

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Meades and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Meades and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyse using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

gramster wrote:

 

pjts wrote:

The height of the Medes conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Medes conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Medes and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendent, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As I mentioned, you still have not shown the relationship to the Holy Roman Empire. Claiming Rome as the 4th beast of the writer is not sufficient. One must actually show that it correlates more than any other view.

The Seleucid's and Antiochus IV do correlate much more than Rome and papal Rome as the little horn.

More later on the interrelationships between these chapters.

Back to you Gramps to finish your critique of my Daniel 7 rebuttal in post 1407, unless you agree with me that because the Eastern Empire still existed that your claim of the Holy Roman Empire was incorrect as well as your previous claims of Europe and  tribes of no consequence were erroneous.

If one does not take the irrational approach of trying to insert Media as a separate power, or divide the Grecian kingdom up to make two, Rome is naturally the most logical 4th power discussed.

And if one does not turn a blind eye to the fact that Christianity has it's roots in the belief in a Jewish Messiah, and therefore a strong connection with the Jews, the relationship to Rome and the Holy Roman Empire is quite obvious.

More on this to come. 

 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

____________________________________________________________
"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
 gramster wrote:There are

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here? It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

pjts wrote:
 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.


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

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:
 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Myth #1. God

gramster wrote:

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.

Thanks for posting your opinions.


 

 


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:
 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

Good job PJ.


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

digitalbeachbum wrote:

gramster wrote:

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.

Thanks for posting your opinions.

Welcome Beach Bum. Feel free to jump right in at any time.

Gramps.

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:
 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

Good job PJ.

Sorry, grams,

Calling the rational arguments you've received "mud on the windshield" doesn't weaken them. It certainly doesn't improve your "I believe this so it must be right" position.

"Common sense" would have man still believing in a flat earth. "Common sense" would have locked Einstein in an asylum for his theories of General and Special Relativity.

The facts state otherwise.

PJTS seems to have facts while you have "common sense". Maybe you should consider trading up? You might have to give up the idea that the Popes are Satan's tools but it would be worth it.

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


VanLandingham
VanLandingham's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2011-12-06
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: Myth #1.

gramster wrote:

 

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!

 

[/quote

 

Christians are not credible as witnesses to their god’s existence. They do not believe in either the bible or the words of Jesus unless it suits them. How can anyone believe in the Christian god when Christians themselves treat the gospels with such distain?


 Here is the truth about Jesus’ take on hell:

 

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

 Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

 Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

 Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

 Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

 Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

 Matthew 23:33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

 Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Mark 9:45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

 Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

Luke 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him..

Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment.

]


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I've been waiting for 100s of posts for your Rome Proof

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:
 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

 

gramster wrote:

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

As my Grandpa used to say, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

gramster wrote:

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

No one is against reason, common sense needs to be considered with reason and science.

gramster wrote:

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

In your morphed view of reality perhaps.

When you interpolate words into the text that are not there as you do, you can see pretty much anything.

You have adequately demonstrated that.

gramster wrote:

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

I did answer this, but you were in such a huff to blow smoke you can't see it as your eyes are watering from it. Get on the other side of the fan you put up.

The 2nd century writer was documenting history as he knew it. He knew about the Medes as a kingdom. He also knew about the Persians. He knew about Alexander and his conquests that were broken into 4 different kingdoms.

The exact interelationship is not in chapter 7. All appear from the sea at once.

gramster wrote:

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

I do take all into consideration. Analyse each, and put them together.

Explanations have been given for the Medes and Persians, several times. You seem to miss it because you have your own smoke in your eyes.

gramster wrote:

Good job PJ.

Thank You!

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

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Summary Counter Arguments

I'm going to post more of my counter arguments today on Daniel even though Gramster is far behind.

It will give him something to work on the rest of the year.

However, still waiting on that Rome/papal proof and argument you have never given.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 10

Counter Argument Summary Daniel 10

Daniel 10
Daniel has a vision by the river in the 3rd year of Cyrus' reign.

Gramps decided there was nothing in chapter 10 worthwhile.

gramps #1033 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.


Daniel has dreams or hallucinations and this is expected to be taken seriously?


Perhaps believers can buy the storytelling that the god(s) communicate through dreams but it is more "magic" no different than oracles.


Problems with this story include:
If we go with the date Gramps uses for Daniel's capture, he'd be over 90 years old. Not impossible, but not normal for the time.
No one else saw this encounter which is a typical claim in the Bible.


What this really is a discussion letting the people know that there is hope in their time of trial, in other words,Apocalyptic writing.

Taking it to be more would be not realistic,which is why I used satire to address it in post 1036.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 11

Counter Argument Summary Daniel 11

Sorry for the length

Daniel 11
Supposedly in the 1st year of the reign of Darius the Mede, Daniel is told the interpretations of previous visions and the kings of the North and South are discussed. This chapter has many problems with being consistent to history or perhaps it’s just Gramps warped presentation of it that has problems.
The 1st problem is in the first verse, in regard to Darius the Mede.


Discussion & comments on Gramps version:

gramps #1040 wrote:

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.
v1-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.
v2 -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.


In v1 the character is an angel, but once again, angels weren't in Jewish mythology until much later, such as the 1st and 2nd century BCE. We argued over the supposed reign of Darius the Mede. There is nothing from Persian history or tablets that supports there was ever such a person.
From my post 1275:
Darius the Meade is likely a made up character in this story telling. We know exactly who administered Babylon from Cyrus. Cyrus appointed his son the crown prince Cambyses as the king of Babylonia, documents are dated with both Cambyses as King of Babylon and Cyrus as King of Lands. There is nothing with the name of Darius the Meade.
See - H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (1935; repr. Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press Board, 1964), p. 12, 26.

Why did this happen that a 2nd century BCE writer might be confused? Scripture such as Isaiah 13:17,21:2 and  Jeremiah 51:11 and 28 indicate Babylon would be conquered by the Meades. However in reality it was Cyrus the Persian who did so in 539 BCE. Possibly helping to confuse the writer the revolt suppressed in 522 BCE was done by Darius. This involved invading Babylon - see http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun01.html

So the writer confused this Darius as the one that invaded Babylon and decided he must have been a Meade as the prophets indicated the Medes would conquer Babylon. Thus he created a character that did not exist in reality. But, this whole book was Apocalyptic story telling, so why not.
In v2, Gramps denies the writer missed history in the kings that are described. Only 4 kings are mentioned. The 4th being Xerxes invaded the Greek mainland successfully defeating Sparta and Athens. Gramps says he was not successful, which is not true. He returned to the East because of rebellion taking much of the army along. The text of Daniel does not indicate whether the 4th king Xerxes would be successful or not, Gramps comment is clearly his injection of opinion.

gramps #1040 wrote:

v3-4-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).


V3 and 4 deal with Alexander, history easily obtained by a 2nd century BCE writer.


gramps #1041 wrote:

V5-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.

gramps #1048 wrote:

V6-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.


v5 & 6 deal with the kings of the North & South, Syria/Babylon aka Seleucid kingdom and Egypt aka Ptolemies.


Summary of Gramps view v7-8 (post 1050)
Gramps details the text as compared to history in regard to Ptolemy III and Antiochus II.


Summary of Gramps view v9-13(post 1051)

Gramps details more history of Seleucus II, Antiochus II, Antiochus III , and Ptolemy IV.

gramps #1052 wrote:

Daniel 11:13
"For the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies."
As vs 12 indicated Ptolemy's victory would not last long. Antiochus III "bounced back", regrouped his forces, and returned for a "rematch" which did not go well for Ptolemy IV.
Vs 14. "In those times many shall rise against the king of the south; and the men of violence among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision; but they shall fail."
All along the Nile the Egyptians were defying and revolting against their Greek overlords ("many shall rise up. The south had a new king (Ptolemy V), and he was only a boy of six. Antiochus II also made an alliance with Philip of Macedon successor of Cassander in the west. All these rose up in hostility against the king of the south.
Interestingly the Rosetta Stone records concessions made to the Egyptian people by the regents of the boy king in an effort to prevent further trouble.
The "men of violence among your own people" in the Hebrew means literally "the breakers of your people". This can mean either trouble from within, or from "outsiders". The Hebrew is not clear on this point.
Vs 15. "Then the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall come and throw up siege works, and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, for there shall be not strength to stand."
Antiochus III defeated a well trained army led by Scopas, a skilled general in the Egyptian army. His troops retreated to Tyre, but Antiochus laid siege to this well fortified city. When he had accomplished his mission, the north or the Seleucid Empire had a firm grip on Judea. The southern or Ptolemic kingdom never regained these territories.
We are now getting down to the time in history that Rome begins to enter the picture.


V 7-14 details the wars between Egypt and Syria/Seleucids quite well as good history written in the 2nd century BCE.

Gramps injects conjecture into his view of v14. I pointed out his source must have been marginal as this description is filled with conjecture and accuracy issues. The agreement made was between Antiochus III and Phillip V to expropriate the territories and possessions of Egypt and divide them.
After the assassination of Ptolemy IV and his wife-queen-sister by his father's mistress Agathoclea, she and the other conspirators ruled as regents for about 2 years. This did not end well for Agathoclea.  Agathoclea and her family were lynched by a mob in Alexandria .The revolt that deposes them was primarily instigated by general Tlepolemus. This is not a revolt by the many as Gramps claimed.
 
v 15 and 16 still describe Antiochus, but Gramps injects Rome here a misconception so he can build his puzzle his way.
Gramps pulls out a large mallet for v16 and smacks pieces into the puzzle with shrapnel flying everywhere from the broken pieces and puzzle.


gramps #1053 wrote:

Daniel 11:16 -
The following verses can be interpreted to fit various figures in history. Therefore, what I will give is the ones that seem to be the best fit to me. Puzzle fitting if you want to think so.


Beating the pieces in with a large sledgehammer is what I’d call it.

Gramps#1053 wrote:

Daniel 11:16
"But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and all of it shall be in his power."
A couple of things to note here. In Hebrew the word "he" is not used. This is not necessarily talking about a specific person, although it can be.
The second thing to note is that the author has suddenly stopped using the terms kings of the north and south. I believe this is because he is shifting his focus from the previously dominant powers (the Seleucids and Ptolemys), and now focusing on a new and powerful arising power (Rome).
"He" is referring to "Rome", and verse 16 is about the Roman armies under Pompey who campaigned through Syria, and into Palestine, including Jerusalem. He conquered all in his path.
At this point Pompey and Julius Cesar were in alliance with each other. That would change later.
Verses 16 also concerns Julius Cesar, and through 19 portrays the movements of Rome at this time, and Cesar's famous affair with Egypt's Cleopatra. Also his later exploits in the frontier "coast lands". 


Gramps indicated in post # 1053 that this is Rome, where he jumps forward to Pompey.

However, this still is in the time of Antiochus as:
1)None stood before him at this point anyway.
2)He took Syria aka the Beautiful Land from Egypt.
3)Many suffered, especially in Judea, see Josephus quote -  http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Josephus,_Antiquities,_XII,_129-46:_Antiochus_III_conquers_Jerusalem
and - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iii.html

Back to Gramps
gramps #1053 wrote:

Vs 17. "He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom; but it shall not stand or be to his advantage."
Vs 18. "Afterward he shall turn his face to the coast lands, and shall take many of them; but a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him."
Vs 19. "Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found."
Julius Cesar was assassinated at the hands of sixty fellow Romans led by G. Cassius Longinus the "commander" who "put an end to his insolence". Vs 19 is a repeat of the event in verse 18, but does not translate that well in language and style into English. The word "then" is an insert added by interpreters to make things "flow" for the reader.
I would like to again state that the above information is just history and easily verified with a quick search of Wikipedia, or ones favorite history books.

I so love Gramps attempt at using the “power of legitimacy” by claiming all of the above is just history. Yep, Julius Caesar is from history. Nope, it is not related to Daniel.
Without using a sledgehammer to beat in Rome we have:

Antiochus the Great was denied the invasion of Egypt because Rome warned him not to mess with their food source. So he decided to invade by deceit using his own daughter as a wife to Ptolemy. She became loyal to her husband, bad plan on Antiochus the Great's part. She is the one in v17, Antiochus III’s daughter.  Gramps claims this refers to Caesar so, what daughter of women is meant? Then  a Roman general named Sciopio defeated Antiochus III when he tried to invade Greece at Magnesia in 190 BCE.
see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Magnesia

gramps #1054 wrote:

Daniel 11:20
"Than shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle."
This would be referring to Cesar Augustus who succeeded Julius Cesar and "established" the Roman Empire. He did not die in battle, or by assassination, but peacefully in his own bed.


Why this is wrong:
V 20 speaks of "one who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken," Augustus inherited power from his uncle Julius and was the leader in fact of Rome in one way or the other for 40 years. How is that being "a few days"?

In contrast, the Seleucid king Seleucus IV ruled but 12 years when he was assassinated setting up the scenario that brings in Antiochus IV.

gramps #1057 wrote:

11:21 "In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
vs 22. "Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, and the prince of the covenant also.
These verses refer to Tiberius Cesar (who was in power at the time of Christ) particularly, and Rome in general. Some suggest that there is a parallel reference to the papacy here with the reference to the prince of the covenant being figurative in reference to the obscuration of the ministry of Christ. These theological arguments may have something to them, but not necessarily.


Then Gramps does no research on Tiberius at all to produce his last assertion. What is wrong here is Gramps is fixated on the Jesus and Rome and ignored that Antiochus IV fits this perfectly. Tiberius, was not a contemptible person, reclusive later on yes but that is not what was said in the verses. He in fact retracted himself from power in the latter years allowing his prefects to basically run things. . He was both adopted by Augustus and married to his daughter Julia, so he was directly in line for succession.  He was a great military commander. Trickery and flattery were not in his playbook either. Tiberius does not fit here.

AE IV was not direct in line to be king. He was clearly a contemptible person. He used trickery and flattery to gain the kingship. And don't forget the 6th Syrian war mentioned in v22 See - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/6_syrian_war.html

Back to Gramps:
gramps #1057 wrote:


Verses 23 to 30 cover the period of pagan Rome.
"Ships from kittim" appear to be in reference to the ships the Vandals sailed into the Roman fleet and set on fire, nearly destroying the Roman naval capacity, and hastening the fall of Rome.


This is not about pagan Rome at all as Gramps so asserts.

From my post 1062:

It all fits Antiochus IV


v 23 – is in reference to the agreement made by  AE IV with the High Priest,  which after 3-1/2 years Antiochus breaks, killing Onais.
v 24 - is Antiochus’ venture into Armenia where he took the king captive seizing many riches. He distributed many riches to many individuals and cities.
v 25 –This  refers to his continuation of war against Egypt once more. He made an alliance with one brother Ptolemy VI against the other Ptolemy VII. There were at least 4 invasions of Egypt by Antiochus IV in this period.
v 26 - 27 refer to the 2 brothers Ptolemy VI and VII and the battle between them instigated and supported by Antiochus IV.
v 28 -  Antiochus IV returned to Judea in 169 BCE along with great riches. He finds rumors he had been killed in Egypt as well. He took out his anger on Jerusalem as described in 2 Mac  5. Supposedly killing over 40,000 and taking many captive and selling many into slavery.
v 29 – is the 3rd expedition into Egypt by AE IV which unlike the others was not successful.

Gramps once more shows he did not research his claims on Rome. Vandals! Sure!
v 30 - In the 6th century BCE  "Kittim or Chittim" was in reference to Cyprus but in the 2nd century BCE it was understood as the Romans. And what happened was well known, the Roman Popilius Laenas ordered Antiochus to depart in the famous scene where he drew a circle in the sand. Antiochus IV returns to Judea and vents his anger violently upon the Jews.
And all of this is history, see Wiki,  Livius, Josephus, the Books of the Maccabees or whatever you'd like as a historical reference.

gramps #1058 wrote:

Daniel 11:31
"Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate."
Vs 32. "He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action."
Vs 33. "And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder,  for some days."
Vs 34. "When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery;"
Vs 35. "and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed."
Verses 31 to 35 appear to be covering the period of Papal supremacy. Governments were largely controlled or influenced by the established church, and those who stood up in opposition were severely persecuted. As the text states, persecution always has a refining effect on Gods people.
 


Gramps simply asserted this part was about Papal Supremacy, nothing shown how the verse fit. But they do fit Antiochus IV.

v 31 - This is a very good description of the actions of Antiochus IV. In the Summer of 167 BCE he sent an army to Jerusalem, took it, put an idol in the Temple, sacrificed  pigs to Zeus, banned Jewish worship and sacrifice including the daily burnt offering.
v 32 - Many Jews according to the Books of the Maccabees disregarded the Jewish god and worship and were Hellenized, even to be idol worshipers. They accepted bribes, did the kings bidding and aided in persecuting those Jews who remained pious. 
v 33- This is well documented in Maccabees and Josephus as the Jewish War or the War of the Maccabees.
v 34 – There were many treacherous acts befell the righteous Jews by their fellow countrymen, also well documented. The time of the god intervening had passed as well.
v 35 - Many of the leaders of the Jewish War against Antiochus and the Seleucids were killed, such as Jonathan and Judas, again well documented.  As the end of this particular period had not been reached as yet, the time of the end or the end of the persecution had not arrived at this point in the writing.

Gramps completely misses the point of this Apocalyptic adventure and created his own in a world that does not exist. No Rome, no Popes, and no pieces that do not belong.

Gramps goes on to try to take this to our time period next:

gramps #1059 wrote:

Daniel 11:36
"And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against The God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done."
Vs 37. "He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall  magnify himself above all."
Vs 38. "He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts."
Vs 39. "He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price."
We have been marching down through time. With this much time to cover, every detail of history can not be included. The writer of Daniel instead chooses to portray the various relevant aspects of each period of history briefly and than go on to the next. This has been done in a way that allows Gods people who live in those times and later to study and understand.


He summarizes it as:
gramps wrote:


1-Verses 36 to 39 appear to be portraying "the age of reason", or atheistic communism. The previous kings of the north and south are long gone. A new king of the south arises. This time it is representative of spiritual Egypt.
2-Because of the abuses endured by Papal suppression, the nation of France rejected all belief in God. Napoleon, wanting control over Europe knew he must first overthrow the powerful Papacy. In 1798 he took the Pope (the now king of the north) captive.
3-Out of the rise of atheism, war was waged against the God of heaven. Darwin turned many away from their creator. Marx introduced Communistic Atheism, which took away the land from the people and gave it to the state. Freud taught the loss of morals and many turned from the desire of women.
A new era had began.


One might wonder exactly where Gramps got his views on “age of reason” atheism, communism, Darwin causing loss of belief and Freud supposedly causing homosexuality.  As in other assertions, Gramps provides nothing to prove these assertions.

This all fits Antiochus IV however.


v 36 - Antiochus did whatever he wanted as indicated in this verse. He disregarded the Jewish  god and forced beliefs in the Greek gods.
v 37 - The gods of his fathers were of Syria whom he also ordered the cessation of worship including the goddesses loved by women such as Astarte, Anath or Tammuz.
v 38 - Antiochus did honor the god of force, likely Mars or Ares perhaps even Herakles.
v 39 - Antiochus rewarded well those who served him in his pursuits this also fits Technically, he  did divide the land for a price in that he took payment  for the appointment of the high priest.

So Gramps is trying to slam in atheism, communism and the "Age of Reason" into the puzzle now. He claims that France rejected all belief in God. He considers the Pope to be the king of the North. He even claims that the rise of atheism began a war against the god. Darwin caused many to abandon their creator. Marx launched communism which took away the land or property from the people and gave it to the state. How this relates to the Apocalyptic writing is never shown by Gramps.

And he even claims Freud caused the loss of morals and turned many away from women. I take this to mean that Freud caused homosexuality to become prevalent.  This must mean that he caused an increase in homosexuality. And the Moon is made of “green cheese.”

On we go to more Gramps misinterpretations:


gramps #1060 wrote:

Daniel 11:40. "At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him; but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through."
Vs 41. "He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites."
Vs 42. "He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape."
Vs 43. "He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train."
Vs 44. "But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many."
Vs 45. "And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him."


Gramps sees this as:
gramps wrote:


Verses 40 to 45 covers the re-establishment of the Papal Powers, the rapid fall of communism, and events still future.


Communism? Really! Really! What papal powers can he mean? The RCC has no power over any country today other than the Vatican. I love to see the detail on how Daniel predicted the rise and fall of communism.

Instead this once again fits Antiochus IV:

v 40 - A summary of events in regard to Antiochus IV
v 41 - Antiochus did all of this, killing thousands.
v 42 - He attacked Egypt multiple times (at least 4) and their possessions elsewhere, well established by history.
v 43 - He seized treasures from Egypt in all of his successful wars. The JPS says "and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps" and as mercenaries they were.
v 44 - Antiochus fought battles in both the North (Armenia) and the East (Parthia) to keep control of his empire and to expand, see http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iv_epiphanes.html
v 45 - His end came after a failed attack on Susa in the East probably from an illness.


No popes required.
Gramps made some rebuttals to my criticisms in posts 1072, 1075, 1079, 1092, 1103, 1106,
He never did address the error he made in regard to Reagan and Pope John Paul 2 which he claimed happened in 1993. “1993 Reagan and Pope John Paul II met and agreed to undertake a clandestine campaign to hasten the fall of the communistic empire. The whole world was astonished at the rapid fall of this great empire. In the perspective of history it fell "like a whirlwind".” In fact the USSR came apart in 1991, Clinton was President in 1993.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Counter Argument Summary Daniel 12

Counter Argument Summary Daniel 12
 
 
Daniel 12
This chapter deals with "the time of the end." The end of what is the main question here. Gramps sees it as the end of the world, however the text indicates it is the end of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus and the Seleucids.

Gramps on Chapter 12

Gramps #1063 wrote:

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.


What is really in v1 - Michael is mentioned not the Jesus - "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people.." And he ignores it refers to -"as never has been since there was a nation til that time.." And he sees this wrong as well - " your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Why he is wrong - 1 & 2 Mac as well as Josephus indicate this period was the most violent period ever for the Jews. Antiochus viciously persecuted the Jews, killing babies that had been circumcised and their mothers, hanging the dead baby around her neck. There was not a more violent time in the world of the Jews up to this point. Those who remained faithful are those that are delivered.

Gramps #1063 wrote:

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.


What it really indicated in v2 - The writer was still trying to give hope to his people as this was Apocalyptic writing. The hope would be that the god would reward the righteous as indicated, though when that might be is not clear.

Gramps #1063 wrote:

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.


The writer is still indicating to those who have been persecuted that if they remain righteous the god will reward them. It is still the Apocalyptic writer's approach to give hope to the oppressed.

Gramps #1063 wrote:

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.


Instead, it's very clear in context the "time of the end" meant the end of persecution by Antiochus and the end of the war. He is amusing with his claim that Daniel refers to our time citing airline traffic.



Gramps views on Dan 12:5-8

gramps post #1131 wrote:

12:5,6 Than I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank an the other on that riverbank. vs 6. "And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?"

This question seems to be about the prophecy that started in chapter 10, and more specifically about the events mentioned in 12:1-3.


That v5-6 is still about the Jews and the end of the persecution is likely. That it is about a character named Jesus from another legend, not so. What is mentioned deals with the end of the persecution still.


gramps post #1131 wrote:

12:7,8 Than I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times and half a time; and when the power of the holy people  has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished. vs 8. Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, "my lord, what shall be the end of these things?'

Here we have another reference to a 1260 day time period. Daniel did not understand. Interestingly Daniel did understand the 1260 day prophecy in chapter 7, so this would not likely be that same event.

Also good to note is the meaning of the word translated "shattered". The Hebrew word "narphats" is better translated to disperse.

Following down in time from the previous verses, this puts us near the end of time.

Being that there is no symbolism in this portion of Daniel I would have no reason to give the time period the symbolic day year interpretation.

This appears to be the "dispersion" or pouring out of the power of the holy spirit in the latter days often referred to as the "latter rain".

This is foretold to happen shortly before the 2nd coming of the Lord.


Gramps continues to see this as forecasting events near the end of the world. Besides asserting this, he provides nothing.
He was told by TG Baker that this part was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew yet Gramps fixates on Hebrew words.
See my response in post 1152.


Gramps continues in post 1139.
gramps #1139 wrote:

Daniel 12:9-13

vs 9. And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the end of time.

Once again we have a reference to the "end of time", and the "closing" or "sealing of this book".

vs 10. "Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand."

The events here are descriptive of end times. Again "the wise" that shall understand would be God's people at that time.

vs 11. "And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days."

Here the use of the word "yowm" (generally translated as a literal day) for days instead of "iddan" (generally translated as a year), combined with the absence of symbolism would point to a literal day application.

vs 12. "Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

This appears to be in reference to the great time of tribulation mentioned in verse one. A blessing is pronounced on those who stand firm through those times.

vs 13. "But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

Daniel was not to live to see the fulfillment of these prophecies for they were far off into the future. He would live out his days, rest in the ground, and arise in the resurrection at the end of this worlds history.

Chapter 12 is not a description of the events of the 2nd century BC, but a vivid and glorious depiction of the final events of this earths history.


Gramps continues in his misinterpretations that this all refers to the end of the world.

I responded to Gramps in post 1152 the following is a summary:

Gramps searched out a translation that met his need using "end of time" instead of the more reliable version, "time of the end" in v9. He continues with his misunderstanding into v10 where he sees it to be at the end of the world but it is describing those who were wicked by forsaking the god and colluding with the Seleucids.

v11 is about the halt of the Temple sacrifices which were approximately 1290 days. Gramps admits this means days but never answered on how his method fits. Verse 12 is again about the Jews great tribulation persecuted by Antiochus. Gramps does not explain how it could be about anything else nor gave details

V13- Gramps sees here that Daniel will not live to see the end. He is to rest, be buried and be resurrected at the end of the world. But that is not what is said at all. It said, that he should rest now for the end is not yet here. When the end comes he is to arise for his inheritance. This is again Apocalyptic with the point being there is hope and the god will make it all right at the end of the persecution. This was the theme meant throughout with the term, "time of the end" and was never intended to be the end of the world. Once again Gramps never addressed these comments.

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

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Final comments on Daniel

Some Problems with the Book of Daniel

1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

2-An invasion in 605 BCE where Jews are taken captive has no historical evidence. Gramps tried to stretch various texts to mean this but this requires guessing.

3-The error in regards to Chaldeans, in Daniel 2:2 where they are considered soothsayers or astrologers. This was from a later period in the Persian period.
Even the OT calls them people not astrologers or soothsayers. See for example,  Gen 11:31; Gen 15:7; Nehemiah 9; Job 1; Ezekiel 12 & 23.

Daniel 2:2 - "Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans" - which is in error.

Daniel 5:7 has the same error calling them in effect soothsayers. This indicates a later date for the writing when the word Chaldeans had new meanings. This is like saying in the 18th century “that’s’s hot” when discussing a work of art. The meaning would be wrong for the time.

4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record. We argued about this repeatedly. Gramps thought he had something to support this in post #1162. Here Gramps adds words and meaning that is not there. The discussion was in regard to a clay tablet in the British Museum. # BM34113. Gramps claims this proved Nebuchadrezzar was mad. It however is missing so much it could be about anyone or anything.

I responded quoting the translation taking the view it was about a traitor, just an assertion like Gramps did with King Neb being mad. It fits just as well. See post 1167.

5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was the crown prince and never performed the New Year’s Ceremony. This was shown from from the Chronicles to be the case, where it indicates this multiple times. Gramps discounts the importance of the New Year’s Festival in Babylonian worship.

6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

Gramps tried to make the excuse he is a descendant whereas there is no proof for that at all. This was claimed emphatically in Daniel 5 four  times, even naming Nebuchadrezzar directly.
In fact there is no known relationship between Belshazzar and Nebuchadrezzar or Nabonidus and Nebuchadrezzar. Nabonidus or Nabu-na'id was the son of Nabu-balatsu-iqbi and not of royal blood.

After the death of Nebuchadrezzar, his son Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) ruled for 2 years and was killed by his brother-in-law Neriglissar who had been an official under Nebuchadrezzar. He ruled for 4 years. He was followed by his son, Labashi-Marduk who was murdered by conspirators including Nabonidus. Nabonidus was given the throne by the conspirators.

Again, Nabonidus was not of royal blood, so how could his son Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar) be of royal blood and related to Nebuchadrezzar?

7-In Daniel 5:30 it claims Belshazzar was killed the very night after Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall. However, the Nabonidus Chronicle claims he was killed at Opis -
the Nabonidus Chronicle columns 3 & 4 lines 12-14 - "In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus] massacred the inhabitants. "

If this was the case Daniel and the Queen may also have been killed, but the Queen was in Babylon not Opis for one, and the Daniel character was not established to be a real person in either Babylonian or Persian history. If Daniel had been at Opis or Babylon and he was the 3rd in charge some mention would have been made of his capture. There was no mention of him.

We disagreed on this in our discussion. I cited Roux as a source and the Nabonidus Chronicles. Gramps claims Roux has no basis for his citations, therefore the Daniel version must be correct.

8- First person accounts in Daniel of events that the character Daniel did not witness:
1) Dan 1:3 "And the king spoke unto Ashpenaz his chief officer,..."
2) Dan 2:3-11 "And the king said unto them: 'I have dreamed a dream .....rip ....except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh."
3)Dan 3 - All of it. Daniel is not indicated as being there and so could not detail the conversations.
4)Dan 4:1-15 - A 1st person account attributed to Nebuchadrezzar.  and Dan 4:26-34 - where the king is talking and hears a voice. He then supposedly goes made and there is further 1st person account when he becomes normal.
5) Dan 5:10-12 - The hand writing on the wall episode where the Queen talks.
6) Dan 6:6-9 - The events leading to Daniel being cast in the den of lions. And Dan 6:13-16 - where Daniel is turned into for breaking the law.

I have always had issues where there is narrative detailing what someone has said and the supposed writer was not present to hear what occurred. There is much of this throughout the Bible and it has always made me consider the story to be suspicious where ever it occurs. The believer usually dismisses this as the god would have his spy gear tapping into all that is said, thought or done in the entire universe. If the god is the one that supplied this info he needs to produce his time dated recordings as evidence the supposed narrative actually took place and was not filler made up by a well intentioned believer trying to create a story.


9-Dating of Daniel - see post #778. Nothing supports from a physical POV that Daniel existed prior to the Maccabean Wars and Antiochus IV.

1) I mentioned the following list of problems and positions that Gramps has in post 1113:

PJTS #1113 wrote:

You have:

1-Nothing that supports Daniel was present in the Babylonian court from secular sources.

2-You have omissions in the account that cast suspicion on the origination date of the writing.

3- You have nothing mentioned of Daniel in Jewish writing other than the discussion of the lion's den myth in 1 Mac. And a reference to a guy named Daniel in Ezekiel. Neither one discusses where Daniel was located, what he did, nor any relationship to the story telling in the Book of Daniel.

4- There are no manuscripts prior to the DSS to support Daniel existed.

5- Supposed interpretations that can be viewed in multiple ways as meticulously shown to you that can fit various scenarios.

6- What I still consider - Bad history:

a) Dan 9:1 - Darius said to be "the son of Ahasuerus" - Ahasuerus aka Xerxes ruled 486-465 BCE over 50 years off.

b)Dan 4 - Claims Nebuchadnezzar was insane or crazy. No secular account supports this.

c)Dan 3 - The image to be worshiped is not given the name of any Akkadian, Sumerian or Babylonian god. It appears to be the invention of an unnamed god. In addition, the claim to fall down and worship at the sound of music from " horn, pipe, harp, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe,.." or horn, flute, harp, lyre uses words that are of Greek origin from the later Hellenistic period. It is also not clear these instruments were invented at the time.

d) The spelling of the name of the King of Babylon in the book of Daniel is of the later Persian period. The correct spelling is shown in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is Nebuchad R ezzar. Daniel spells it as the later Persian method 100 years later - Nebuchad N ezzar.

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

g) Dan 5 - The supposed writing on the wall - "MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN" is Aramaic. Funny Aramaic was the language used by the Babylonians, why is it they could not read it?

h) Dan 10 & 11 - Daniel errors in the number of Persian kings regardless of how you ignore it by "puzzle piece fitting". In Dan 11:2 "Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece." - The last king in this list means Xerxes who invaded Greece. Yet in Dan 11:3 - "And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. - Alexander is suddenly injected. Alexander did not overthrow Xerxes, it was Darius III he conquered.


Gramps of course denies all of this!



Other alternatives:

Others interpret Daniel only as prophecy to the Jews as discussed by the Rev Henry Cowles,

It is possible there were Daniel legends and mythical adventure stories that predate the 2nd century BCE that were used as a basis for the rant against Antiochus IV that Daniel became.
See - http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/Wooden_Changing.pdf

Here the writer examined the Old Greek text, called OG in his thesis and finds a major difference in the Daniel character versus the newer versions of Daniel including the MT.

And we have this theory here - http://www.patheos.com/Library/Judaism/Origins/Influences?offset=1&max=1

that Daniel was based on Danel of Ugaritic origin.

Did Daniel exist as described in the Book of Daniel?

There are many problems with the Daniel character as described in the book.
1-Jeshua ben Sira does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes - Sirach 44:1-50: circa before 175 BCE
2-There is nothing from either Babylonian or Persian records that indicate a Jewish POW was 3rd in charge in the kingdom.
3-There is nothing that discussed him in regards to the priests of Marduk that were unhappy with Nabonidus.
4-The mention of Daniel by Ezekiel does not fit with the character Daniel but does fit with Ugaritc Danel.

So when was Daniel written?
Consider all of the following:

1-Daniel is an undated book by an unknown author(s).

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. So claiming the book of Daniel existed on the scrap of a legend is grasping at straws and puzzle piece fitting. A legend existed as mentioned in 1 Mac is no more proof than the stories of Atlantis or the exploits of Enki. One can't build upon a scrap so small as proof.

7-Jeshua ben Sira  does not mention Daniel as one of the Jewish heroes in his work this casts doubt & suspicion that 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. Which it does very well with no need for magic and impossible occurrences.


Conclusions

Gramps position was that Daniel contained prophecy that actually occurred and thus proved the god existed as only the god would know of future events.

In attempting to prove that Daniel was prophecy, Gramps has failed in many ways.

1-Alternative interpretations exist which fit better than the Roman theory.


2-The writing was addressed to the Jews, Christians did not exist when it was written and one must buy into more mythology to stretch Jews to also include people that are not Jews. Gramps does so by beating more pieces into the puzzle.

3- In the end, there is nothing very clear or concise in the book of Daniel as Gramps claimed in his opening statement. As I said earlier, if Daniel was clear and concise there 'd be no need for a discussion. That after 100s of posts and thousands of words there is still no obviously clear interpretation shows what Daniel really was, written by man as Apocalyptic writing in the 2nd century BCE. There of course exists the possibility that a character named Daniel of legend and mythology was the basis for the supposed writer Daniel, which may be so. That however is no different than other fictional work and storytelling that incorporate a supposed person of legend into a story. Our libraries and TV networks are filled with such examples as is ancient writing including the OT.

So, there will be no admission from me that the god of this storytelling episode is real as nothing has been presented to validate it any more than any other ancient legend. The stories of Enki are still as valid as the book of Daniel in my view. But, y'all can take it any way you wish, so long as no one attempts to force their beliefs on another.

Gramps goal with this extremely long debate on Daniel was to prove that it contained prophecies that came true. He claimed that if such were the case only a god could do such a thing. He claimed Daniel was clear and concise.
In Summary here's where I'm at:


1-Daniel is definitely not clear and concise. Epic fail for Gramps.


2-Chapter 1 - Epic fail for proof by Gramps. Alternatives exist that are more likely than his interpretation.


3-Chapter 2 - Epic fail for proof by Gramps. Alternatives to his exist that do not require Rome. Gramps did not prove his view. Additionally, this chapter requires one to buy into oracles, soothsayers, or mind readers.


4-Chapter 3 - Epic fail again on Gramps. No proof for the "magic" acts. He claims if the god is real this demonstrates his power, somewhat circular reasoning. The book contains unrealistic events, the events are contrary to observed reality therefore they should be set aside. Many ancient books have "magic", this to me creates skepticism, not acceptance.


5-Chapter 4- Epic fail once again for Gramps. No proof was offered for the supposed madness of King Nebuchadrezzar except the clay tablet BM34113 which is missing so much text it can be about anything or anyone.


6-Chapter 5- Epic fail for Gramps. This chapter once more has "magic". It also has unrealistic narrative in regard to the end of Belshazzar. Ultimately we can't be certain about his end. As ancient texts indicate Babylon was taken without bloodshed, reasonable doubt would support he was not there but in Opis as some accounts indicate.


7-Chapter 6- Epic fail for Gramps. One more storytelling legend with "magic". No proof given.


8-Chapter 7-Epic fail for Gramps. He inserts Rome, claims 10 countries/tribes are the kingdoms not the kings as expressly said in the text. No proof for his tribes as the 10 horns and insufficient correlation and evidence for Rome as the little horn. No matter, ample evidence suggests this was about Antiochus in the end thus creating at minimum a valid possibility. Thus, certainty was not achieved and reasonable doubt exists.


9-Chapter 8 - Epic fail for Gramps. He uses translation issues to attempt to wiggle in a power from out of the 4 winds, not much support from scholars on that, nearly all see this as do the Jews, from whence came the text. Alternatives exist that fit this entire chapter, down to the intermarriages, namely Antiochus IV and the Seleucids.


10-Chapter 9 - Epic fail for Gramps. He uses decrees to ignore the completion of the Temple. He sees THE MESSIAH not 2 moshiachs or anointed ones. He ends up in 1844, his view of modern times. Not so modern, no computers or cell phones, but Morse invented the telegraph that year. Then you have to buy into more myths and legends, such as the Jesus.  Alternatives to his view are more likely thus once more there is reasonable doubt.


11-Chapter 10- Epic fail for Gramps. Daniel here has hallucinations or dreams. No evidence for any of it.


12-Chapter 11- Epic fail for Gramps. The entire chapter fits the Jews, Seleucids and Antiochus IV, but Gramps makes it about Rome, the popes, and even Communism, atheists, and Freud. How did he prove any of this? He didn't.


13-Chapter 12- Epic fail for Gramps. This chapter is about the time of the end. He sees it as end of the world prophecy. It actually fits as the end of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus. Does Gramps prove his view? No. Since an alternative exists that is reasonable not requiring other myths and legends then  reasonable doubt exists.


In the end, Gramps has completely failed to prove his claim that Daniel was clear and concise and that they are prophecies which came true and will come true.

He failed to prove his interpretation was real and a product given by the god.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Common Sense - Not Again!

jcgadfly wrote:

Calling the rational arguments you've received "mud on the windshield" doesn't weaken them. It certainly doesn't improve your "I believe this so it must be right" position.

"Common sense" would have man still believing in a flat earth. "Common sense" would have locked Einstein in an asylum for his theories of General and Special Relativity.

The facts state otherwise.

PJTS seems to have facts while you have "common sense". Maybe you should consider trading up? You might have to give up the idea that the Popes are Satan's tools but it would be worth it.

Gramps is back. I'm doing much better now, and have nearly full use of both eyes. It looks like Paul John has already begun writing my Obit. Sorry, doc thinks I still have several years left on old terra.

Your ignorance of these simple facts are duly noted.

1. Common sense would lead one to suspect and examine the idea that the earth is round since one can see the curvature of the earth easily with the naked eye.

2. I am sure that Einstein applied his God given common sense in his analysis of his observations. Otherwise he would have come to faulty conclusions like Paul John.

It is also duly noted that you, like most atheists are against the use of common sense, and thereby able to form your own conclusions based upon senseless arguments.

Yes PJ has the facts. But he has scrambled them until they are no longer recognizable. This is what comes of throwing common sense out the window.

 


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

gramster wrote:

Gramps is back. I'm doing much better now, and have nearly full use of both eyes. It looks like Paul John has already begun writing my Obit. Sorry, doc thinks I still have several years left on old terra.

No, not an Obit.

I do hope you hang around for a long time, on the planet and on this forum.

 

gramster wrote:

1. Common sense would lead one to suspect and examine the idea that the earth is round since one can see the curvature of the earth easily with the naked eye.

The book of stories you hold as importance seem to indicate otherwise in many places, and even in Daniel.

Dan 4:8 (JPS) - "....the sight thereof to the end of all the earth."

Worse yet in (NIV) version Dan 4:11 - ".... it was visible to the ends of the earth."

Glad you can see this for yourself, you may have hope.

 

gramster wrote:

Yes PJ has the facts. But he has scrambled them until they are no longer recognizable. This is what comes of throwing common sense out the window.

 

Thanks for a small admission, in the end we'll see what is scrambled and by whom.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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 waiting for a rational response

 

gramster wrote:

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

pjts wrote:

As my Grandpa used to say, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

It's not water you are leading people to. The slime you are offering no horse with a lick of "common sense" would come close to.

gramster wrote:

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

pjts wrote:

No one is against reason, common sense needs to be considered with reason and science.

If you actually did this you would not be trying to sell Media as a separate power in these prophecies.

gramster wrote:

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

pjts wrote:

In your morphed view of reality perhaps.

When you interpolate words into the text that are not there as you do, you can see pretty much anything.

You have adequately demonstrated that.

No words were "interpolated into the text". I merely pointed out what is obvious from actually reading the text.

gramster wrote:

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

pjts wrote:

I did answer this, but you were in such a huff to blow smoke you can't see it as your eyes are watering from it. Get on the other side of the fan you put up.

The 2nd century writer was documenting history as he knew it. He knew about the Medes as a kingdom. He also knew about the Persians. He knew about Alexander and his conquests that were broken into 4 different kingdoms.

The exact interrelationship is not in chapter 7. All appear from the sea at once.

And this is your example of common sense considered with reason and science? lol. Let's take a closer look at this. 

You are saying that this "2nd century author "knew about the Medes as a kingdom". And he also "knew of the Persians"? 

We do know from the scriptures that were in existence in the 2nd century BC pretty much what this author would know. From reading these scriptures one could not possibly come up with your separate Media and Persia kingdom theory. 

2 Chronicles 20 to 22 clearly indicates that the Jews would be captives of the Babylonians until the rule of the "Kingdom of Persia". It also mentions the 1st year of Cyrus King of Persia.

Ezra 1:1 "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia"

Ezra 1:19 Mentions the "laws of the Persians and the Medes". 

Ezra 4:5 Calls Darius the King of Persia. This same Darius you claim the author of Daniel mistook for "Darius the Mede" in Daniel. 

In Daniel 5:28 the author of Daniel writes "thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". 

There is absolutely no hint from scripture, or in the text of Daniel that would suggest that Media was considered to be a separate kingdom by the author of Daniel. Everything we find indicates just the opposite. This author viewed the Kingdom of the Medes and the Persians to be one kingdom, one power, and not two.

If as you say, the 2nd century was documenting history as he knew it. He certainly would not be portraying Media as a separate kingdom.

Nothing about this theory makes any sense at all. It is not "common sense considered with reason and science". It is lack of any sense at all, combined with lack of reason, and lack of science.

As for the exact interrelationship not being clear. That also is a real "hoot". Nothing could be more clear by reading the prophecies in the Book of Daniel than the fact that the main theme is successive kingdoms down through the ages.

Only an atheist and skeptic could miss this.

You are right the author would have known about Alexander and the 4 divisions of his kingdom. And he portrayed these quite accurately in the symbolism of beasts and horns. I do not however think it rational to believe the author would have a kingdom being successive to itself.

 

gramster wrote:

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

pjts wrote:

I do take all into consideration. Analise each, and put them together.

Explanations have been given for the Medes and Persians, several times. You seem to miss it because you have your own smoke in your eyes.

I have not missed anything. That is why I must reject your theory as pure rubbish, without any rational basis whatsoever.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Still waiting for that Rome/Papal Proof

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

In your morphed view of reality perhaps.

When you interpolate words into the text that are not there as you do, you can see pretty much anything.

You have adequately demonstrated that.

No words were "interpolated into the text". I merely pointed out what is obvious from actually reading the text.

You have interpolated and added that which is not there throughout this discussion. Your posts speak for themselves.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

pjts wrote:

I did answer this, but you were in such a huff to blow smoke you can't see it as your eyes are watering from it. Get on the other side of the fan you put up.

The 2nd century writer was documenting history as he knew it. He knew about the Medes as a kingdom. He also knew about the Persians. He knew about Alexander and his conquests that were broken into 4 different kingdoms.

The exact interrelationship is not in chapter 7. All appear from the sea at once.

And this is your example of common sense considered with reason and science? lol. Let's take a closer look at this. 

You are saying that this "2nd century author "knew about the Medes as a kingdom". And he also "knew of the Persians"? 

We do know from the scriptures that were in existence in the 2nd century BC pretty much what this author would know. From reading these scriptures one could not possibly come up with your separate Media and Persia kingdom theory. 

2 Chronicles 20 to 22 clearly indicates that the Jews would be captives of the Babylonians until the rule of the "Kingdom of Persia". It also mentions the 1st year of Cyrus King of Persia.

Ezra 1:1 "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia"

Ezra 1:19 Mentions the "laws of the Persians and the Medes". 

Ezra 4:5 Calls Darius the King of Persia. This same Darius you claim the author of Daniel mistook for "Darius the Mede" in Daniel. 

In Daniel 5:28 the author of Daniel writes "thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". 

There is absolutely no hint from scripture, or in the text of Daniel that would suggest that Media was considered to be a separate kingdom by the author of Daniel. Everything we find indicates just the opposite. This author viewed the Kingdom of the Medes and the Persians to be one kingdom, one power, and not two.

If as you say, the 2nd century was documenting history as he knew it. He certainly would not be portraying Media as a separate kingdom.

Nothing about this theory makes any sense at all. It is not "common sense considered with reason and science". It is lack of any sense at all, combined with lack of reason, and lack of science.

As for the exact interrelationship not being clear. That also is a real "hoot". Nothing could be more clear by reading the prophecies in the Book of Daniel than the fact that the main theme is successive kingdoms down through the ages.

Only an atheist and skeptic could miss this.

You are right the author would have known about Alexander and the 4 divisions of his kingdom. And he portrayed these quite accurately in the symbolism of beasts and horns. I do not however think it rational to believe the author would have a kingdom being successive to itself.

Your argument has been made repeatedly with the same errors.

I love it, you quote one of the books of inconsistancy, 2 Chronicles which has problems even with the rest of the Hebrew Bible as some kind of proof.

We can discuss 1 & 2 Chronicles next if you want.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

pjts wrote:

I do take all into consideration. Analise each, and put them together.

Explanations have been given for the Medes and Persians, several times. You seem to miss it because you have your own smoke in your eyes.

I have not missed anything. That is why I must reject your theory as pure rubbish, without any rational basis whatsoever.

You miss quite a lot.

You can reject whatever you like.

You however have lots of issues to still address. Such as the Rome and Papal claim you have made without any proof.

____________________________________________________________
"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 rational response

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

In your morphed view of reality perhaps.

When you interpolate words into the text that are not there as you do, you can see pretty much anything.

You have adequately demonstrated that.

No words were "interpolated into the text". I merely pointed out what is obvious from actually reading the text.

You have interpolated and added that which is not there throughout this discussion. Your posts speak for themselves.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

pjts wrote:

I did answer this, but you were in such a huff to blow smoke you can't see it as your eyes are watering from it. Get on the other side of the fan you put up.

The 2nd century writer was documenting history as he knew it. He knew about the Medes as a kingdom. He also knew about the Persians. He knew about Alexander and his conquests that were broken into 4 different kingdoms.

The exact interrelationship is not in chapter 7. All appear from the sea at once.

And this is your example of common sense considered with reason and science? lol. Let's take a closer look at this. 

You are saying that this "2nd century author "knew about the Medes as a kingdom". And he also "knew of the Persians"? 

We do know from the scriptures that were in existence in the 2nd century BC pretty much what this author would know. From reading these scriptures one could not possibly come up with your separate Media and Persia kingdom theory. 

2 Chronicles 20 to 22 clearly indicates that the Jews would be captives of the Babylonians until the rule of the "Kingdom of Persia". It also mentions the 1st year of Cyrus King of Persia.

Ezra 1:1 "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia"

Ezra 1:19 Mentions the "laws of the Persians and the Medes". 

Ezra 4:5 Calls Darius the King of Persia. This same Darius you claim the author of Daniel mistook for "Darius the Mede" in Daniel. 

In Daniel 5:28 the author of Daniel writes "thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". 

There is absolutely no hint from scripture, or in the text of Daniel that would suggest that Media was considered to be a separate kingdom by the author of Daniel. Everything we find indicates just the opposite. This author viewed the Kingdom of the Medes and the Persians to be one kingdom, one power, and not two.

If as you say, the 2nd century was documenting history as he knew it. He certainly would not be portraying Media as a separate kingdom.

Nothing about this theory makes any sense at all. It is not "common sense considered with reason and science". It is lack of any sense at all, combined with lack of reason, and lack of science.

As for the exact interrelationship not being clear. That also is a real "hoot". Nothing could be more clear by reading the prophecies in the Book of Daniel than the fact that the main theme is successive kingdoms down through the ages.

Only an atheist and skeptic could miss this.

You are right the author would have known about Alexander and the 4 divisions of his kingdom. And he portrayed these quite accurately in the symbolism of beasts and horns. I do not however think it rational to believe the author would have a kingdom being successive to itself.

Your argument has been made repeatedly with the same errors.

I love it, you quote one of the books of inconsistency, 2 Chronicles which has problems even with the rest of the Hebrew Bible as some kind of proof.

We can discuss 1 & 2 Chronicles next if you want.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

pjts wrote:

I do take all into consideration. Analise each, and put them together.

Explanations have been given for the Medes and Persians, several times. You seem to miss it because you have your own smoke in your eyes.

I have not missed anything. That is why I must reject your theory as pure rubbish, without any rational basis whatsoever.

You miss quite a lot.

You can reject whatever you like.

You however have lots of issues to still address. Such as the Rome and Papal claim you have made without any proof.

You still do not have a rational answer as to why the author of Daniel would be portraying Media as a separate power in these prophecies.

Every passage in scripture that mentions Media does so in combination with Persia.

Every passage in scripture that discusses the fall of Babylon names Persia as the next kingdom.

Every passage that mentions the names of Cyrus or Darius refers to them as king of Persia.

You say the author was going by what he knew in the 2nd century. Well, this is what he knew.

You are just pulling this stuff out of your "arse". That is the only place one will find stuff like this.

When you start off with the compass needle this twisted, how can you expect to ever find your way back to reality?

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Keep on running in a circle & dodging your Roman Assertion

gramster wrote:

You still do not have a rational answer as to why the author of Daniel would be portraying Media as a separate power in these prophecies.

Every passage in scripture that mentions Media does so in combination with Persia.

Every passage in scripture that discusses the fall of Babylon names Persia as the next kingdom.

Every passage that mentions the names of Cyrus or Darius refers to them as king of Persia.

You say the author was going by what he knew in the 2nd century. Well, this is what he knew.

You are just pulling this stuff out of your "arse". That is the only place one will find stuff like this.

When you start off with the compass needle this twisted, how can you expect to ever find your way back to reality?

 

Thank you for your opinion. It is duly noted you do not agree with me. No problem.

There really is a whole world outside of scripture, venture out and take a look a little more.

As I showed it matters little whether in Daniel 2 and 7 if you have Medes-Persians together or show them each on their own.

The text is vague enough that entire warehouses can fit in.

One still does not get to your Roman papacy assertions.

Keep on avoiding proving your wild assertions on Rome, the papacy, and your single minded focus on only Europe.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.