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.

 


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
The important questions.

You are failing to answer the only two important arguments from a literary and philosophical viewpoint.

1. Is the Flash really faster than Superman?

2. Did Mary cum?

 

I mean as long as you are spending endless bandwidth arguing absurdity...

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Breif return to Hell

VanLandingham 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!

 

[/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 disdain?


 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.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I will make a brief revisit to hell.

You posted some very interesting verses. Typical of those which are commonly misunderstood, mainly due to previous misconceptions.

First we come to Matt 3:12 which contains the phrase "unquenchable fire". This is the Greek word "asbestos" which correlates with Strong's G762. The definition is unquenchable, inextinguishable, or perpetual. Used sometimes to describe the fire on an alter. Sodom and Gomorrah were also destroyed with "unquenchable fire", as was Jerusalem.

Many read this passage and interpret this as a fire that will burn throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. It is obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning, as is also the case with Jerusalem. The fires on the alters that used this term are also at this time not still burning.

Mark 9:32 also uses this term.

Matt 5:22, 29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:33, Mark 9:43, 45, 47, Luke 12:5, and Peter 2:4, also use the same word for hell. This word Gehenna simply refers to the Valley of Hinnom where filth and dead animals were thrown out to be burned. This was a place where a fire was continually burning, and maggots (worms) ate the dead carcasses.

Matt 10:28 refers to the destruction of the wicked using the term "apollymi" defined "to kill, to put an end to, to destroy". Here it indicates that the "dammed" are not to be burning indefinitely, but clearly coming to an end.

Matt 25:41 refers to an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. It does not indicate that any beings will be placed here to suffer an eternally burning fate.

Mark 9:47 says that "the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched. The worms referred to here is not some kind of everlasting spirit or soul, but the maggots. They are always there eating the carcasses, and the fire is continually burning.

Peter 2:4 talks about putting the evil angels in Tartarus, a place of darkness. Still no indication of people burning throughout ceaseless ages of eternity.

Isaiah 47:14 refers to the punishment of the wicked. He says they "shall be as stubble"... "fire shall burn them"..."they shall not deliver themselves"..."there shall not be a coal"..."nor a fire". The fire will go out! End of story.

Jonah uses the term "forever" to refer to being in the belly of the fish 3 days and 3 nights. I'm sure it felt like forever.

In Deuteronomy the term "forever" is used to mean as long as one lives, or unto death.

This should  not be difficult for us to understand. We also use the term forever this way. It is much like saying that we had to stand in line forever. We are not still there, and we will not be there in 6 million years, still standing in line.

Malachi 4 speaks about the fate of the wicked that they shall be "ashes under our feet". Not burning forever, but they will be burnt up, or consumed.

Ezekiel 28 says that even Satan will be reduced to ashes. Even he is not going to burn throughout the ages.

Psalms 37 says that the wicked shall be no more.

The wages of sin = death. Not eternal life burning in hell. The gift of God is eternal life.

So take comfort. If you reject God, and refuse His gift of eternal life, He will not burn you throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. He simply grants you your expressed wish. That is to be no more.

Sorry for such a brief overview. For more information just visit the website www.helltruth.org

Once again. Thanks for your comments.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Given your squirrely

 Given your squirrely interpretation of Daniel how can we trust you on anything Biblical?

This is just more theistic "My <insert holy book here> doesn't actually say what the words on the page say. It must be interpreted to the way that make ms happy".

Must be nice to have a book that supports your view no matter what the words actually are...

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Your failure is duly noted

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

Your failure to be able to provide a rational argument for including Media as a separate power in these prophecies is duly noted. And as we have found, the identities of the 1st 3 beasts are not in the least bit vague.

When we remove the completely irrational interpretation of Media and Persia being separate powers in these prophecies, we are now able to at least get started out in the right direction.

In Chapter 2 we have 1. Babylon, 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and the 4th kingdom which I say is Rome, and you claim is the Seleucid Empire.

In Chapters 7 and 8 we are already nearing the end of Babylonian rule. 1. Babylon is not included in the powers symbolized in these chapters. We go straight to 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and 4. Rome, which you do not agree with.

These 3 chapters are simply parallel prophecies each giving certain details about the powers involved. When reading these prophecies one will also notice that the principle of "repeat and enlarge" is being used. That being the later chapters give us a closer and more detailed look at those powers than the preceding ones.

Now we will be able to begin to focus on the beast still in question. That being the 4th beast. The one following "Greece". Or the Macedonian Empire.

And yes, I am quite aware of this "whole world" outside of the Bible.


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

Your failure to be able to provide a rational argument for including Media as a separate power in these prophecies is duly noted. And as we have found, the identities of the 1st 3 beasts are not in the least bit vague.

When we remove the completely irrational interpretation of Media and Persia being separate powers in these prophecies, we are now able to at least get started out in the right direction.

Gramps,

You see the stories as rational in the OT.

You see the god of these legends, myths and storytelling as rational.

You see the unrealistic magic claimed in the storytelling as rational.

I think we all get what you mean by rational by now.

Rational to you is unrealistic events in actual reality. Got it.

gramster wrote:

In Chapter 2 we have 1. Babylon, 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and the 4th kingdom which I say is Rome, and you claim is the Seleucid Empire.

In Chapters 7 and 8 we are already nearing the end of Babylonian rule. 1. Babylon is not included in the powers symbolized in these chapters. We go straight to 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and 4. Rome, which you do not agree with.

No I do not agree with your assertion of Rome.

gramster wrote:

These 3 chapters are simply parallel prophecies each giving certain details about the powers involved. When reading these prophecies one will also notice that the principle of "repeat and enlarge" is being used. That being the later chapters give us a closer and more detailed look at those powers than the preceding ones.

That's obvious. Your assertion of Rome and the papal dictators having a place in this Apocalyptic writing still remains unproved.

gramster wrote:

Now we will be able to begin to focus on the beast still in question. That being the 4th beast. The one following "Greece". Or the Macedonian Empire.

And yes, I am quite aware of this "whole world" outside of the Bible.

 

I figured you might be since you noticed the Earth has curvature in contrast to the ends of the Earth statements and "pillars of the Earth" found in various places in your book of storytelling.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
More circular reasoning? I'm impressed

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

Your failure to be able to provide a rational argument for including Media as a separate power in these prophecies is duly noted. And as we have found, the identities of the 1st 3 beasts are not in the least bit vague.

When we remove the completely irrational interpretation of Media and Persia being separate powers in these prophecies, we are now able to at least get started out in the right direction.

pjts wrote:

Gramps,

You see the stories as rational in the OT.

You see the god of these legends, myths and storytelling as rational.

You see the unrealistic magic claimed in the storytelling as rational.

I think we all get what you mean by rational by now.

Rational to you is unrealistic events in actual reality. Got it.

Yeah, I "got it".

Every time you are backed into a corner you revert to the old "I don't believe in miracles, because I don't believe in God" line of defense. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, this is nothing other than a classic case of circular reasoning. And it does nothing to further your assertions. It also does not get you off of the hook for having to try to make your interpretation make sense.

This same old "poop" keeps getting thrown back into the same old fan.

gramster wrote:

In Chapter 2 we have 1. Babylon, 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and the 4th kingdom which I say is Rome, and you claim is the Seleucid Empire.

In Chapters 7 and 8 we are already nearing the end of Babylonian rule. 1. Babylon is not included in the powers symbolized in these chapters. We go straight to 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and 4. Rome, which you do not agree with.

No I do not agree with your assertion of Rome.

gramster wrote:

These 3 chapters are simply parallel prophecies each giving certain details about the powers involved. When reading these prophecies one will also notice that the principle of "repeat and enlarge" is being used. That being the later chapters give us a closer and more detailed look at those powers than the preceding ones.

pjts wrote:

That's obvious. Your assertion of Rome and the papal dictators having a place in this Apocalyptic writing still remains unproved.

How does one go about "proving" to someone who actually believes that Media was intended to be included as a separate power, and continues to defend this position against all reason, that Rome is the 4th power.

It is a daunting task. As you say, I can lead a horse to water, but... maybe not a skeptic to rational thought?? But never the less, I will once again shine a light on this reality.

gramster wrote:

Now we will be able to begin to focus on the beast still in question. That being the 4th beast. The one following "Greece". Or the Macedonian Empire.

And yes, I am quite aware of this "whole world" outside of the Bible.

pjts wrote:

I figured you might be since you noticed the Earth has curvature in contrast to the ends of the Earth statements and "pillars of the Earth" found in various places in your book of storytelling. 

FYI, the term "ends of the earth" is still used today, and we do not believe that the earth has "ends". It is simply an expression. The "pillars of the earth" is also an expression. There is no indication that the bible writers actually thought that the earth was sitting on literal pillars. Unless you have something a bit more substantial than a couple of expressions like these, your implied allegations are simply baseless garbage.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
More circular reasoning? I'm impressed

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

Your failure to be able to provide a rational argument for including Media as a separate power in these prophecies is duly noted. And as we have found, the identities of the 1st 3 beasts are not in the least bit vague.

When we remove the completely irrational interpretation of Media and Persia being separate powers in these prophecies, we are now able to at least get started out in the right direction.

pjts wrote:

Gramps,

You see the stories as rational in the OT.

You see the god of these legends, myths and storytelling as rational.

You see the unrealistic magic claimed in the storytelling as rational.

I think we all get what you mean by rational by now.

Rational to you is unrealistic events in actual reality. Got it.

Yeah, I "got it".

Every time you are backed into a corner you revert to the old "I don't believe in miracles, because I don't believe in God" line of defense. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, this is nothing other than a classic case of circular reasoning. And it does nothing to further your assertions. It also does not get you off of the hook for having to try to make your interpretation make sense.

This same old "poop" keeps getting thrown back into the same old fan.

gramster wrote:

In Chapter 2 we have 1. Babylon, 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and the 4th kingdom which I say is Rome, and you claim is the Seleucid Empire.

In Chapters 7 and 8 we are already nearing the end of Babylonian rule. 1. Babylon is not included in the powers symbolized in these chapters. We go straight to 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and 4. Rome, which you do not agree with.

No I do not agree with your assertion of Rome.

gramster wrote:

These 3 chapters are simply parallel prophecies each giving certain details about the powers involved. When reading these prophecies one will also notice that the principle of "repeat and enlarge" is being used. That being the later chapters give us a closer and more detailed look at those powers than the preceding ones.

pjts wrote:

That's obvious. Your assertion of Rome and the papal dictators having a place in this Apocalyptic writing still remains unproved.

How does one go about "proving" to someone who actually believes that Media was intended to be included as a separate power, and continues to defend this position against all reason, that Rome is the 4th power.

It is a daunting task. As you say, I can lead a horse to water, but... maybe not a skeptic to rational thought?? But never the less, I will once again shine a light on this reality.

gramster wrote:

Now we will be able to begin to focus on the beast still in question. That being the 4th beast. The one following "Greece". Or the Macedonian Empire.

And yes, I am quite aware of this "whole world" outside of the Bible.

pjts wrote:

I figured you might be since you noticed the Earth has curvature in contrast to the ends of the Earth statements and "pillars of the Earth" found in various places in your book of storytelling. 

FYI, the term "ends of the earth" is still used today, and we do not believe that the earth has "ends". It is simply an expression. The "pillars of the earth" is also an expression. There is no indication that the bible writers actually thought that the earth was sitting on literal pillars. Unless you have something a bit more substantial than a couple of expressions like these, your implied allegations are simply baseless garbage.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
More circular reasoning? I'm impressed

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

Your failure to be able to provide a rational argument for including Media as a separate power in these prophecies is duly noted. And as we have found, the identities of the 1st 3 beasts are not in the least bit vague.

When we remove the completely irrational interpretation of Media and Persia being separate powers in these prophecies, we are now able to at least get started out in the right direction.

pjts wrote:

Gramps,

You see the stories as rational in the OT.

You see the god of these legends, myths and storytelling as rational.

You see the unrealistic magic claimed in the storytelling as rational.

I think we all get what you mean by rational by now.

Rational to you is unrealistic events in actual reality. Got it.

Yeah, I "got it".

Every time you are backed into a corner you revert to the old "I don't believe in miracles, because I don't believe in God" line of defense. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, this is nothing other than a classic case of circular reasoning. And it does nothing to further your assertions. It also does not get you off of the hook for having to try to make your interpretation make sense.

This same old "poop" keeps getting thrown back into the same old fan.

gramster wrote:

In Chapter 2 we have 1. Babylon, 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and the 4th kingdom which I say is Rome, and you claim is the Seleucid Empire.

In Chapters 7 and 8 we are already nearing the end of Babylonian rule. 1. Babylon is not included in the powers symbolized in these chapters. We go straight to 2. Medo Persia, 3. Greece, and 4. Rome, which you do not agree with.

No I do not agree with your assertion of Rome.

gramster wrote:

These 3 chapters are simply parallel prophecies each giving certain details about the powers involved. When reading these prophecies one will also notice that the principle of "repeat and enlarge" is being used. That being the later chapters give us a closer and more detailed look at those powers than the preceding ones.

pjts wrote:

That's obvious. Your assertion of Rome and the papal dictators having a place in this Apocalyptic writing still remains unproved.

How does one go about "proving" to someone who actually believes that Media was intended to be included as a separate power, and continues to defend this position against all reason, that Rome is the 4th power.

It is a daunting task. As you say, I can lead a horse to water, but... maybe not a skeptic to rational thought?? But never the less, I will once again shine a light on this reality.

gramster wrote:

Now we will be able to begin to focus on the beast still in question. That being the 4th beast. The one following "Greece". Or the Macedonian Empire.

And yes, I am quite aware of this "whole world" outside of the Bible.

pjts wrote:

I figured you might be since you noticed the Earth has curvature in contrast to the ends of the Earth statements and "pillars of the Earth" found in various places in your book of storytelling. 

FYI, the term "ends of the earth" is still used today, and we do not believe that the earth has "ends". It is simply an expression. The "pillars of the earth" is also an expression. There is no indication that the bible writers actually thought that the earth was sitting on literal pillars. Unless you have something a bit more substantial than a couple of expressions like these, your implied allegations are simply baseless garbage.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Well, grams.1. It beats

 Well, grams.

1. It beats your "My unsupported opinion must be right because the God in my mind agrees with me" defense that you fall back on whenever you're in a corner.

2. You don't agree with PJTS' (fully supported) "assertion" about Rome because it doesn't include the Popes and the EU - that's all.

3. As PJTS said, combining the Medes and the Persians doesn't affect his view. You have to throw out everything after Macedon to shoehorn Rome in. You can be led to facts but all you seem to be able to do is poop on them.

4.  And again, we go back to the "They didn't mean what they meant when they wrote the Bible" canard. What parts do you take seriously?

 

"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


CharliesGhost
CharliesGhost's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-12-30
User is offlineOffline
Every creationist with talk

Every creationist with talk circles and circles but all still come to a common dead end. They cannot prove anything in the bible to be true.

Until that time (which no doubt will never come), Jesus and God are the equivalent to leprechauns and unicorns. I don't even know why you

guys waste time arguing with these people. Use your energy to spread the word of truth, rationality and reality -  so that our future generations are

not controlled and abused by blind faith (to be nice) any longer.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Just put up your proof for Rome

In reply to Gramps - A Triple Post with Nada

So bring it on, get it over already.

And by the way 

Feliz Año Nuevo.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
CharliesGhost wrote:Every

CharliesGhost wrote:

Every creationist with talk circles and circles but all still come to a common dead end. They cannot prove anything in the bible to be true.

Until that time (which no doubt will never come), Jesus and God are the equivalent to leprechauns and unicorns. I don't even know why you

guys waste time arguing with these people. Use your energy to spread the word of truth, rationality and reality -  so that our future generations are

not controlled and abused by blind faith (to be nice) any longer.

Welcome Charlies Ghost.

We don't argue to change their minds but to help those out there in the world that might be open to the real world.

Should I take the blue pill or the red pill.

Have fun on the forums.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Gramps - Summary of posts that you haven't Addressed

Gramps,

The following list are posts you have not as yet addressed.

1408 - Dan ch 8

1428 - Discussion on ch 2, 7, 8

1429 - ch 9

1439 - Request once more for Rome proof - repeatedly asked.

1441 - Dan ch 10

1442 - Dan ch 11

1443 - Dan ch 12

1444 - Final comments.

 

Thanks,

PJTS

and again

Happy New Year or

Feliz Año Nuevo.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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 4th beast and little horn of chapter 7

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gramps,

The following list are posts you have not as yet addressed.

1408 - Dan ch 8

1428 - Discussion on ch 2, 7, 8

1429 - ch 9

1439 - Request once more for Rome proof - repeatedly asked.

1441 - Dan ch 10

1442 - Dan ch 11

1443 - Dan ch 12

1444 - Final comments.

 

Thanks,

PJTS

and again

Happy New Year or

Feliz Año Nuevo.

 

Feliz Ano Nuevo.

I am back home now. Had a good couple of weeks with family.

Now that we can clearly see that Media and Persia are not represented by separate beasts, we can take a better look at the 4 beasts, and the little horn.

The 1st beast (Lion with Eagles wings) all will agree is Babylon.

The 2nd beast (The Bear raised up on one side) is the (Kings of Media and Persia).

The 3rd beast (The Leopard with 4 wings and 4 heads) is "Greece". That being Alexander's kingdom including the 4 divisions

1. The Antagonid Dynasty.

2. The Ptolemaic Dynasty.

3. The Seleucid Dynasty. 

4. The Attalid Dynasty.  

These powers would fight amongst themselves and their neighbors until the rise and domination of the 4th beast.

The wings of the Leopard represent the speed in which Alexander conquered the than known world. The 4 heads represent the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom that came into being after his death. 

It is important that we understand this as it has significant bearing in the identification of the 4th beast. 

Daniel 7:7 "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth, it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with it's feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns."

"After this" That is after the 3rd beast. The one Daniel refers to in Chapter 8 as Javan. Which refers to the Grecian race or heritage.

This beast is described as "dreadful and terrible", "exceedingly strong". It would "devour", "break in pieces", and "trample". This beast certainly is portrayed as a very substantial and powerful empire. Greater than the ones preceding it.

"and it had ten horns" Horns represent kings or kingdoms. Opinions differ as to whether they can represent minor insignificant kings, or if they are Representative of great kings or kingdoms.

It is important for us to properly understand the identity of this beast in order to properly identify the little horn that is coming next.

Paul John keeps insisting that this power is the Seleucid Empire. And just like his insistence upon Media being portrayed as a separate power, this just does not fit. This is a square peg that has been hammered flat, and still does not go into the hole.

1st, the 4th beast follows Alexander's Empire that already includes the Seleucid's. Therefore it does not make sense for the 4th power to also be the Seleucid's.

2nd, the 4th beast is portrayed as very great and powerful. The 3 previous beasts were great empires, that clearly dominated the region in their time. The 4th beast should also be a great and powerful empire. The Seleucid Empire never really achieved this.

The ONLY power that really fits this 4th beast is Rome. Unlike the Seleucid dynasty, Rome really did follow the "Grecian" power as portrayed by the 3rd beast. The Roman Empire was an exceedingly vast and powerful empire. It was not just one of 4 divisions of Alexander's kingdom, but a separate successive and powerful empire.

The 10 horns on the 4th beast represent kingdoms that arose out of the breakup of the Roman Empire. Unlike the 1st 3 powers, Rome was not conquered by, or succeeded by another great empire. It was broken up by Germanic tribes into what became many smaller countries.

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

Of the 10 main Germanic tribes that invaded Rome, 3 were "plucked up", or destroyed. These being the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoth's.

7:8 continued. "And there, in this horn were the eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

7:9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire;" 10. "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened."

It is interesting to note that we have right after the 4th beast and little horn power a description of what would obviously appear to be a very awesome judgment scene. One unlike anything we have observed take place within our courts to this day.

7:11,12 "I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame." 12. "As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time."

This 4th beast was "slain" because of the pompous words which the horn was speaking.

7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed."

Here we have "One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!" to "The Ancient of Days".

I do not know of any normal person that travels around in the "clouds of heaven". This would be a reference of Jesus coming to His father (God), and receiving the kingdom He gave his life for. The only kingdom that will be an everlasting kingdom.

Due to the overwhelming length and complexity of this chapter, I will continue in my next post to elaborate further from the explanation given to Daniel starting in verse 15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 7:15 - "Explanation"

Daniel Chapter 7 starting with verse 15 an explanation is given to him by one of the beings in the vision. By the way, I am currently using the NKJV as I also was using in the last post.

7:15 "I, Daniel was grieved in my spirit within my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16. "I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things;

Hear Daniel is both troubled and confused, so he asks for an interpretation.

7:17-22 "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth.

The four beasts are called four "kings" which we know are actually kingdoms. We will note that the words kings and kingdoms are often used interchangeably in the Book of Daniel.

18. "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.

Immediately following the 4th beast, the Lord will set up a kingdom here on earth which will last forever.

19. "Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; 20. "And about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.

21. "I was watching., and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them." 22. Until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom."

Here Daniel specifically asks for more information about the 4th beast and the little horn power.

23. "Than he said: the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces."

This power would follow the 3rd beast which represents Alexander and the four divisions of his empire. And would dominate a major portion to the then known world. It would be a very large and powerful empire. Only Rome can fit this description.

"The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom." (that being out of the territories of the Roman Empire).

"And another shall rise after them: he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings."

We are now looking for a power that would arise out of the remnants of the Roman Empire. It would come up after the other 10 kings or kingdoms, and would have a hand in the destruction of 3 of these powers.

Justinian, who had ties to the "papacy" made war against the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, and these three powers were destroyed.

25. "He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and a half a time."

As the papacy gained in power and influence it became increasingly more and more "arrogant". Claiming to have authority only God can have. As Paul John previously pointed out, the Catholic Church was responsible for massive persecutions and the deaths of scores of Christians during the middle ages.

This power would rise slowly and "reign" for 3 1/2 literal years, or 1260 prophetic years. The papal powers and the Roman Catholic Church grew up out of the territories of the Roman Empire, and it's power and influence lasted for about 1260 literal years which I demonstrated earlier. I will go into this further later.

Verse 26 "But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. 27. Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.; His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him."

We are again back at the end of this old earths history, when God will set up a kingdom and give it to the saints to enjoy forever.

28. "This is the end of the account. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed; but I kept the matter in my heart."

This was quite an experience for Daniel, and a lot to take in.

This chapter is obviously about relevant kingdoms down to the coming of the Lord.

 

 

 

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

......rip.....

This beast is described as "dreadful and terrible", "exceedingly strong". It would "devour", "break in pieces", and "trample". This beast certainly is portrayed as a very substantial and powerful empire. Greater than the ones preceding it.

"and it had ten horns" Horns represent kings or kingdoms. Opinions differ as to whether they can represent minor insignificant kings, or if they are Representative of great kings or kingdoms.

The text used the word "kings". You decided with no basis they were kingdoms, including insignificant tribes.

Why did you pick your list of tribes and not other tribes?

The reason seems to be of convenience to puzzle piece fit your strange views.

Other choices exist even if one ignores the text which used kings not kingdoms that also derived from even the Roman Empire. But, you ignore that because then you can't create your fantasy interpretation.

gramster wrote:

 

It is important for us to properly understand the identity of this beast in order to properly identify the little horn that is coming next.

Paul John keeps insisting that this power is the Seleucid Empire. And just like his insistence upon Media being portrayed as a separate power, this just does not fit. This is a square peg that has been hammered flat, and still does not go into the hole.

1st, the 4th beast follows Alexander's Empire that already includes the Seleucid's. Therefore it does not make sense for the 4th power to also be the Seleucid's.

2nd, the 4th beast is portrayed as very great and powerful. The 3 previous beasts were great empires, that clearly dominated the region in their time. The 4th beast should also be a great and powerful empire. The Seleucid Empire never really achieved this.

The ONLY power that really fits this 4th beast is Rome. Unlike the Seleucid dynasty, Rome really did follow the "Grecian" power as portrayed by the 3rd beast. The Roman Empire was an exceedingly vast and powerful empire. It was not just one of 4 divisions of Alexander's kingdom, but a separate successive and powerful empire.

 

Since Gramps has decided that Daniel is addressed not to the Jews but to Jesus believers instead he warped this to mean something other than what was intended.

As far as the Jews were concerned, the Seleucids were great and powerful. As far as the rest of the world not. But Gramps ignores that there were other kingdoms/empires in the world that were just as powerful as Rome. But since they don't relate to his Christian Jesus believers as Jews, he ignores them. This means he is being selective to piece his fantasy view together to justify what was not there. No problem, Gramps only deceives himself.

gramster wrote:

The 10 horns on the 4th beast represent kingdoms that arose out of the breakup of the Roman Empire. Unlike the 1st 3 powers, Rome was not conquered by, or succeeded by another great empire. It was broken up by Germanic tribes into what became many smaller countries.

Here Gramps interpolates kingdoms where kings were used and ignores the text so he can create his misconstrued reality. From here on Gramps is in a world of never was and never will be. IOW, a world of fantasy where he deceives himself.

gramster wrote:

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

Of the 10 main Germanic tribes that invaded Rome, 3 were "plucked up", or destroyed. These being the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoth's.

7:8 continued. "And there, in this horn were the eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

Here the text seems to indicate a man or king. Does Gramps tell you who this was? No, he ignores it and inserts insignificant tribes as his interpretation so he can put his misconstrued interpretation together.

gramster wrote:

7:9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire;" 10. "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened."

It is interesting to note that we have right after the 4th beast and little horn power a description of what would obviously appear to be a very awesome judgment scene. One unlike anything we have observed take place within our courts to this day.

The scene described with the thousands is similar to the visit of Enoch in many respects, which was also Apocalyptic writing.

gramster wrote:

7:11,12 "I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame." 12. "As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time."

This 4th beast was "slain" because of the pompous words which the horn was speaking.

And once again Gramps does not tell you who the little horn was. The text still indicates it was an individual which Gramps ignores.

gramster wrote:

7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed."

Here we have "One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!" to "The Ancient of Days".

I do not know of any normal person that travels around in the "clouds of heaven". This would be a reference of Jesus coming to His father (God), and receiving the kingdom He gave his life for. The only kingdom that will be an everlasting kingdom.

This was Apocalyptic writing which was common. Similar text is found in Enoch. We had a discussion of who the son of man was in the OT in many posts. The Jews were not indicating this was the mashiach but Gramps has decided it means the Jesus.

Gramps has gone off into a land of never was and never will be world of self deception where nothing will ever reach him to bring him back to the real world.

It is clear which pill he took, the red or blue. He swallowed the blue pill and cares not that all he sees is fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Gramps is Lost in Fantasyland

gramster wrote:

Daniel Chapter 7 starting with verse 15 an explanation is given to him by one of the beings in the vision. By the way, I am currently using the NKJV as I also was using in the last post.

7:15 "I, Daniel was grieved in my spirit within my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16. "I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things;

Hear Daniel is both troubled and confused, so he asks for an interpretation.

7:17-22 "Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth.

The four beasts are called four "kings" which we know are actually kingdoms. We will note that the words kings and kingdoms are often used interchangeably in the Book of Daniel.

 

So here is how Gramps justifies making the 10 horns kingdoms which he selectively picks to create his fantasy.

gramster wrote:

18. "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.

Immediately following the 4th beast, the Lord will set up a kingdom here on earth which will last forever.

Or so thought  the the writer of the Jewish kingdom that was established after Antiochus. Didn't work out though.

gramster wrote:

19. "Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; 20. "And about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.

21. "I was watching., and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them." 22. Until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom."

Here Daniel specifically asks for more information about the 4th beast and the little horn power.

23. "Than he said: the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces."

This power would follow the 3rd beast which represents Alexander and the four divisions of his empire. And would dominate a major portion to the then known world. It would be a very large and powerful empire. Only Rome can fit this description.

"The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom." (that being out of the territories of the Roman Empire).

"And another shall rise after them: he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings."

This was clearly a description of Antiochus IV who did exactly this in regard to :Demetrius, Heliodorus, and Seleucus IV's infant son.

And what does Gramps see in his fantasy self-deception, 3 tribes he selectively chose. And why these 3 and not others?

gramster wrote:

We are now looking for a power that would arise out of the remnants of the Roman Empire. It would come up after the other 10 kings or kingdoms, and would have a hand in the destruction of 3 of these powers.

Justinian, who had ties to the "papacy" made war against the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths, and these three powers were destroyed.

This is your justification for 3 selectively picked tribes to be kingdoms versus 3 kings? What about the others I mentioned?

Justinian had nothing to do with the Heruli being destroyed and subjugated - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruli

It was in fact the Ostrogoths and later the Huns. In 493 Justinan was 10 years old. His reign began in 527 CE.

In regard to the Vandals, Byzantine Emperor Justinian I declared war, with the stated intention of restoring Hilderic to the Vandal throne. see -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

The Gramps claimed - "Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538" in fact it took to 554 CE  see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogothic_Italy

and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_%28535%E2%80%93554%29

And the result to the Byzantines was a weaked state with much resources expended. Italy was devastated and the Byzantine Empire could not hold on to Italy and Rome.

Normally you ignore the Byzantine Empire in your misconstrued reality, but here you used it incorrectly.

 

gramster wrote:

 

25. "He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and a half a time."

As the papacy gained in power and influence it became increasingly more and more "arrogant". Claiming to have authority only God can have. As Paul John previously pointed out, the Catholic Church was responsible for massive persecutions and the deaths of scores of Christians during the middle ages.

The text is indicating an individual so who did this?

gramster wrote:

This power would rise slowly and "reign" for 3 1/2 literal years, or 1260 prophetic years. The papal powers and the Roman Catholic Church grew up out of the territories of the Roman Empire, and it's power and influence lasted for about 1260 literal years which I demonstrated earlier. I will go into this further later.

Only out of the Eastern part in the end. The East and West broke apart beginning in the 700s, and further in the 1000s, and any possibility of it coming back together ended after the Sack of Constantinoble by the Crusaders.

The RCC has never had power over the entire world and they still don't.

gramster wrote:

Verse 26 "But the court shall be seated, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it forever. 27. Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.; His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him."

We are again back at the end of this old earths history, when God will set up a kingdom and give it to the saints to enjoy forever.

28. "This is the end of the account. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my countenance changed; but I kept the matter in my heart."

This was quite an experience for Daniel, and a lot to take in.

This chapter is obviously about relevant kingdoms down to the coming of the Lord. 

This is just the writer's view of the Jews ruling after Antiochus IV. Which did not last.

It is still Apocalyptic writing and still has nothing to do with the Jesus and the end of the world.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Skewed Facts, Deceptions, Mistakes and False Assumptions

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

pjts wrote:

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.

"Most probable?" A view that does not even fit the prophecy, or make sense is hardly the "most probable" view.

pjts wrote:

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".

More of Paul Johns many errors and distortions of fact.

First, the view that the little horn and the acknowledgment that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for a tremendous amount of persecution in the middle ages does not make one an "RCC Hating Denomination".

If that were true Paul John would himself be guilty of being a "RCC hater" due to his acknowledgment of these horrific acts. History is History, and to acknowledge it does not make one hateful or bigoted.

Secondly, John Paul errs in calling Shea a JW. This is just plain not true.

Now regarding the interpretation of the text in v 9, winds is argued as the best fit due to word gender commonly used in the Hebrew language. I cede that it is possible, but not likely that the reference (out of one of them) could be to horns. My interpretation does not rely entirely upon this one text.

pjts wrote:

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.

There is just as much basis for the claim that the little horn comes from the 4 winds as there is that it comes out of one of the 4 horns. Here Paul John once again errs, and tries to mislead the reader. Unfortunately this is a common  tactic he uses throughout this discussion.

pjts wrote:


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:

No error has been shown to exist. Only unsupported accusations, based upon erroneous facts.


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."

pjts wrote:


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

It looks like Alzheimer's has really set in, and Paul John has completely lost his memory. I have repeatedly shown that the words used for kings and kingdoms are used interchangeable throughout the Book of Daniel. And the same word used for kings here was used for kingdoms earlier in the book.

This text can just as properly read "a fierce kingdom". Paul John knows this, but still continues to bring up this argument to try to deceive the reader.

pjts wrote:

Gramps continues in his claim that the power comes from the 4 winds in post 842.I again argue against it in Post 881.

Yup!

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.

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either. 

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns. 

pjts wrote:

 
The little horn became great, something Antiochus IV did.

Interesting how you conveniently left out the word "exceedingly". No, Antiochus was never "great" nearly on the scale of the other powers mentioned. And he was certainly not "exceedingly great". Once again you err and deceive.

pjts wrote:

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.


 

No, once again you err. Antiochus had some initial successes, but fell far short of becoming "exceedingly great" in any direction. Rome however, without question, become exceedingly great. Rome was great even in comparison to the other powers mentioned. That being The Persian Empire, and Alexander the Greats Empire.

No Antiochus was not ever "Great". Wrong answer!

Interesting that Paul John uses the argument that "most Christians" who he himself sees as deluded and confused, and believers of myths, do not share my view. This does nothing to further his arguments.

Paul John often does this when logic fails him. He uses the faulty assumption that the majority view must be right, or if he can find a "scholar" to agree with him, it makes his view valid. This is pure nonsense, and deception. This is much easier than simply coming up with a rational argument. Unless of course there is none.

pjts wrote:

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.

pjts wrote:


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.

Once again Paul John makes another attempt at deception by cleverly implying that my interpretation is not reasonable, because it does not fit into his unproven assumptions. That is nothing more than thinly disguised circular reasoning.

My argument included the belief in the existence of God, and upon the belief in the Jewish Messiah, and the validity of the Christian faith. For my arguments to be valid they need to fit into these parameters, not John Paul's assertions that God does not exist, The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and that Christianity is a Myth.

Arguments and deceptions like the one above do nothing to help Paul Johns case, but do call into question his basic values and principles when it come to debating an issue.

 

pjts wrote:

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.

See above. Just more "smoke" to throw the readers off of the trail of the real facts of the case.


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.

pjts wrote:

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.

Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this.

This is just one more attempt to confuse or deceive the reader.

pjts wrote:


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.

Paul Johns sarcasm is duly noted.

pjts wrote:


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.

No wrong again! If it were referring to sacrifices the term would be "mornings and evenings". See above.

pjts wrote:


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.

If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

pjts wrote:


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.

As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

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.

pjts wrote:

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 do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I do not

gramster wrote:

I do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

 

Funny.  People thought it was the end times in the year 1000 CE.  And it has only gotten more "certain" we are in the end times since then.  People thought traveling around the world in ocean liners was "running to and fro".  They thought knowledge gained about germ theory, or electricity, or pick most any other scientific advance was "knowledge shall increase".  Personally, I hope knowledge continues to increase and running even further could be exciting.  Alpha Centauri anyone?  Maybe the overall population will finally let go of ancient "prophecies" and get on with dealing with the problems we need to solve in this world.

 

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

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

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:gramster wrote:I do

cj wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

 

Funny.  People thought it was the end times in the year 1000 CE.  And it has only gotten more "certain" we are in the end times since then.  People thought traveling around the world in ocean liners was "running to and fro".  They thought knowledge gained about germ theory, or electricity, or pick most any other scientific advance was "knowledge shall increase".  Personally, I hope knowledge continues to increase and running even further could be exciting.  Alpha Centauri anyone?  Maybe the overall population will finally let go of ancient "prophecies" and get on with dealing with the problems we need to solve in this world.

 

For thousands of years the fastest that man could travel, was about the speed of a horse, and just about all there was to know about a subject could be contained in a couple of books.

With the invention of the internal combustion engine, airplanes, rockets etc, travel has increased exponentially. And with the computer age, knowledge continues to increase at an exponential rate as well.

 


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

gramster wrote:

cj wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

 

Funny.  People thought it was the end times in the year 1000 CE.  And it has only gotten more "certain" we are in the end times since then.  People thought traveling around the world in ocean liners was "running to and fro".  They thought knowledge gained about germ theory, or electricity, or pick most any other scientific advance was "knowledge shall increase".  Personally, I hope knowledge continues to increase and running even further could be exciting.  Alpha Centauri anyone?  Maybe the overall population will finally let go of ancient "prophecies" and get on with dealing with the problems we need to solve in this world.

 

For thousands of years the fastest that man could travel, was about the speed of a horse, and just about all there was to know about a subject could be contained in a couple of books.

With the invention of the internal combustion engine, airplanes, rockets etc, travel has increased exponentially. And with the computer age, knowledge continues to increase at an exponential rate as well.

 

Yeah, yeah.  My point was every generation thinks this is the big one.  <yawn>

 

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

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

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


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

cj wrote:

gramster wrote:

cj wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

 

Funny.  People thought it was the end times in the year 1000 CE.  And it has only gotten more "certain" we are in the end times since then.  People thought traveling around the world in ocean liners was "running to and fro".  They thought knowledge gained about germ theory, or electricity, or pick most any other scientific advance was "knowledge shall increase".  Personally, I hope knowledge continues to increase and running even further could be exciting.  Alpha Centauri anyone?  Maybe the overall population will finally let go of ancient "prophecies" and get on with dealing with the problems we need to solve in this world.

 

For thousands of years the fastest that man could travel, was about the speed of a horse, and just about all there was to know about a subject could be contained in a couple of books.

With the invention of the internal combustion engine, airplanes, rockets etc, travel has increased exponentially. And with the computer age, knowledge continues to increase at an exponential rate as well.

 

Yeah, yeah.  My point was every generation thinks this is the big one.  <yawn>

 

I agree. People are way too eager and make that mistake way too often.


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

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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.

"Most probable?" A view that does not even fit the prophecy, or make sense is hardly the "most probable" view.

Another difference, you see a prophecy and I do not. Fortunetellers are most generally con artists. The content of Daniel is not a prophecy, it is Apocalyptic writing.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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".

More of Paul Johns many errors and distortions of fact.

First, the view that the little horn and the acknowledgment that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for a tremendous amount of persecution in the middle ages does not make one an "RCC Hating Denomination".

If that were true Paul John would himself be guilty of being a "RCC hater" due to his acknowledgment of these horrific acts. History is History, and to acknowledge it does not make one hateful or bigoted.

Secondly, John Paul errs in calling Shea a JW. This is just plain not true.

Now regarding the interpretation of the text in v 9, winds is argued as the best fit due to word gender commonly used in the Hebrew language. I cede that it is possible, but not likely that the reference (out of one of them) could be to horns. My interpretation does not rely entirely upon this one text.

Unlike Christians that speak violently in regard to those of beliefs differing from theirs, I don't bother to hate. Their religion I can do without.

I know of the RCC's actions, I know of the actions of the German people who after my ancestors left followed a madman.

Do I hate them for their stupidity, no. I consider many of them to have been evil and many to have been deceived.

One would think that torturing people as the RCC did or killing them as the Germans did would have set off severe questioning of the validity of the commands.

Did the god or the Jesus really will it? What part of killing innocent people or looking the other way when they were detained and hauled to concentration camps did they not get.

My error, he's a 7th Day Adventist, I confused the Christian groups that hate the evil Church of Satan aka the RCC.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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.

There is just as much basis for the claim that the little horn comes from the 4 winds as there is that it comes out of one of the 4 horns. Here Paul John once again errs, and tries to mislead the reader. Unfortunately this is a common  tactic he uses throughout this discussion.

Nope.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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:

No error has been shown to exist. Only unsupported accusations, based upon erroneous facts.

See. He searched hard and wide to find a way to justify Rome being pulled out of thin air. And he found it with Shea.

 

gramster wrote:


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."

pjts wrote:


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

It looks like Alzheimer's has really set in, and Paul John has completely lost his memory. I have repeatedly shown that the words used for kings and kingdoms are used interchangeable throughout the Book of Daniel. And the same word used for kings here was used for kingdoms earlier in the book.

This text can just as properly read "a fierce kingdom". Paul John knows this, but still continues to bring up this argument to try to deceive the reader.

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.

So, what do you do.

gramster wrote:

 

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.

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either. 

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

 
The little horn became great, something Antiochus IV did.

Interesting how you conveniently left out the word "exceedingly". No, Antiochus was never "great" nearly on the scale of the other powers mentioned. And he was certainly not "exceedingly great". Once again you err and deceive.

pjts wrote:

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.


 

No, once again you err. Antiochus had some initial successes, but fell far short of becoming "exceedingly great" in any direction. Rome however, without question, become exceedingly great. Rome was great even in comparison to the other powers mentioned. That being The Persian Empire, and Alexander the Greats Empire.

No Antiochus was not ever "Great". Wrong answer!

As far as the Jews in the 2nd century BCE he was great.

gramster wrote:

Interesting that Paul John uses the argument that "most Christians" who he himself sees as deluded and confused, and believers of myths, do not share my view. This does nothing to further his arguments.

Paul John often does this when logic fails him. He uses the faulty assumption that the majority view must be right, or if he can find a "scholar" to agree with him, it makes his view valid. This is pure nonsense, and deception. This is much easier than simply coming up with a rational argument. Unless of course there is none.

I said they were mostly Christian web sites, I did not say most Christians.

Having trouble with those spectacles again?

Did the smoke you make get in your own eyes again?

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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 are 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.

Once again Paul John makes another attempt at deception by cleverly implying that my interpretation is not reasonable, because it does not fit into his unproven assumptions. That is nothing more than thinly disguised circular reasoning.

My argument included the belief in the existence of God, and upon the belief in the Jewish Messiah, and the validity of the Christian faith. For my arguments to be valid they need to fit into these parameters, not John Paul's assertions that God does not exist, The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and that Christianity is a Myth.

Arguments and deceptions like the one above do nothing to help Paul Johns case, but do call into question his basic values and principles when it come to debating an issue.

You rely on more myths and legends for your interpretation, such as the Jesus, the story telling of Stephen and assertions in regard to James.

You would know a Jewish mashiach if he fell from the sky on top of you.

And duh, of course for your assertions to be valid you have to include further myths and legends. Though you will have to prove them as well.

Christianity is not a myth, it is developed from myths and legends.

Arguing against your assertions calls in question my values and principles?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 10.......

I tried to chill however...

You're the one that keeps tossing more into the mix, Paul, James, and Stephen came from you, not me.

If you inject it, you have to be willing to prove it. You dodged this completely.

Whenever something comes up you dislike you either ignore it or resort to using the power of legitimacy, which you don't have anyway.

As to your values and principles they are far from honest. You follow Ambrose and Augustine's lead in that.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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.

See above. Just more "smoke" to throw the readers off of the trail of the real facts of the case.

Just more dodging the issue on the part of Gramps.

 

gramster wrote:

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.

pjts wrote:

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.

Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this.

This is just one more attempt to confuse or deceive the reader.

One more attempt by Gramps to deceive. The words were plural for one.

He wants it his way.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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.

Paul Johns sarcasm is duly noted.

Well since you believe in fantasy and Sci-Fi as real I thought it to be appropriate.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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.

If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

 

If you had gotten chapter 1 right you'd not be lost by this part. You missed the boat there and have been wandering in the land of never was ever since.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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.

As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

Much creativity required to make this be 2300 years. You have shown throughout you are creative.

gramster wrote:


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.

pjts wrote:

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 do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

Believers in the Jesus have been looking for the end of the world since Paul. He thought it would come during his life.

Trying to use writing that was addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century BCE that was Apocalyptic is one of the errors made by you.

It has nothing to do with the end of the world, it meant the "time of the end" of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.

I give you extra stars for trying though.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Paul John "Flunks out" once again

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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.

"Most probable?" A view that does not even fit the prophecy, or make sense is hardly the "most probable" view.

pjts wrote:

Another difference, you see a prophecy and I do not. Fortunetellers are most generally con artists. The content of Daniel is not a prophecy, it is Apocalyptic writing.

This bias of Paul John's is precisely the reason he cannot see the real meanings of the texts being discussed.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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".

More of Paul Johns many errors and distortions of fact.

First, the view that the little horn and the acknowledgment that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for a tremendous amount of persecution in the middle ages does not make one an "RCC Hating Denomination".

If that were true Paul John would himself be guilty of being a "RCC hater" due to his acknowledgment of these horrific acts. History is History, and to acknowledge it does not make one hateful or bigoted.

Secondly, John Paul errs in calling Shea a JW. This is just plain not true.

Now regarding the interpretation of the text in v 9, winds is argued as the best fit due to word gender commonly used in the Hebrew language. I cede that it is possible, but not likely that the reference (out of one of them) could be to horns. My interpretation does not rely entirely upon this one text.

pjts wrote:

Unlike Christians that speak violently in regard to those of beliefs differing from theirs, I don't bother to hate. Their religion I can do without.

I know of the RCC's actions, I know of the actions of the German people who after my ancestors left followed a madman.

Do I hate them for their stupidity, no. I consider many of them to have been evil and many to have been deceived.

One would think that torturing people as the RCC did or killing them as the Germans did would have set off severe questioning of the validity of the commands.

Did the god or the Jesus really will it? What part of killing innocent people or looking the other way when they were detained and hauled to concentration camps did they not get.

My error, he's a 7th Day Adventist, I confused the Christian groups that hate the evil Church of Satan aka the RCC.

Once again Paul John repeats his "smoke and deception" attempt.

He is once again projecting that "Christian Groups" that acknowledge the horrific acts of the Catholic Church during the middle ages are "Catholic Haters". He is however using a double standard since his own acknowledgment of the same acts does not make him one.

Paul John uses these tactics to divert attention away from the fact that his own arguments have been shown to be erroneous, and without basis.

Nice try!

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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.

There is just as much basis for the claim that the little horn comes from the 4 winds as there is that it comes out of one of the 4 horns. Here Paul John once again errs, and tries to mislead the reader. Unfortunately this is a common  tactic he uses throughout this discussion.

pjts wrote:

Nope.

Now here's an argument that one can hardly debate.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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:

No error has been shown to exist. Only unsupported accusations, based upon erroneous facts.

pjts wrote:

See. He searched hard and wide to find a way to justify Rome being pulled out of thin air. And he found it with Shea.

Once again Paul John is attempting to avoid actually discussing the text by making accusations, and implying that my interpretation is thereby invalid.

As Paul John will recall. This point actually came from a careful inspection of the actual text. Something I still have yet to see him do.

 

gramster wrote:


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."

pjts wrote:


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

It looks like Alzheimer's has really set in, and Paul John has completely lost his memory. I have repeatedly shown that the words used for kings and kingdoms are used interchangeable throughout the Book of Daniel. And the same word used for kings here was used for kingdoms earlier in the book.

This text can just as properly read "a fierce kingdom". Paul John knows this, but still continues to bring up this argument to try to deceive the reader.

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.

So, what do you do.  

Sorry, wrong again. Paul John repeatedly makes this mistake. He fails to realize that this document was not written in English. Words like "he, she, him, and his" are not in the original.

I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.

Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

Once again Paul John's bias has obscured his vision.

gramster wrote:

 

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.

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either. 

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.

pjts wrote:

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

I guess Paul John can't seem to get anything right. Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.

Sorry, wrong again.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

 
The little horn became great, something Antiochus IV did.

Interesting how you conveniently left out the word "exceedingly". No, Antiochus was never "great" nearly on the scale of the other powers mentioned. And he was certainly not "exceedingly great". Once again you err and deceive.

pjts wrote:

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.


 

No, once again you err. Antiochus had some initial successes, but fell far short of becoming "exceedingly great" in any direction. Rome however, without question, become exceedingly great. Rome was great even in comparison to the other powers mentioned. That being The Persian Empire, and Alexander the Greats Empire.

No Antiochus was not ever "Great". Wrong answer!

pjts wrote:

As far as the Jews in the 2nd century BCE he was great.

Even to the Jews in the 2nd century it does not appear that Antiochus seemed to ge that great. Evil, yes. Great, probably not. Definitely not greater that the mighty empires of "Medo Persia", or "Greece".

gramster wrote:

Interesting that Paul John uses the argument that "most Christians" who he himself sees as deluded and confused, and believers of myths, do not share my view. This does nothing to further his arguments.

Paul John often does this when logic fails him. He uses the faulty assumption that the majority view must be right, or if he can find a "scholar" to agree with him, it makes his view valid. This is pure nonsense, and deception. This is much easier than simply coming up with a rational argument. Unless of course there is none.

pjts wrote:

I said they were mostly Christian web sites, I did not say most Christians.

Having trouble with those spectacles again?

Did the smoke you make get in your own eyes again?

"Most Christians", "Mostly Christian Websites". His point??? It does not look Paul John has one. He is still just attempting to distract and deceive rather than come up with a rational argument.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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 are 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.

Once again Paul John makes another attempt at deception by cleverly implying that my interpretation is not reasonable, because it does not fit into his unproven assumptions. That is nothing more than thinly disguised circular reasoning.

My argument included the belief in the existence of God, and upon the belief in the Jewish Messiah, and the validity of the Christian faith. For my arguments to be valid they need to fit into these parameters, not John Paul's assertions that God does not exist, The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and that Christianity is a Myth.

Arguments and deceptions like the one above do nothing to help Paul Johns case, but do call into question his basic values and principles when it come to debating an issue.

pjts wrote:

You rely on more myths and legends for your interpretation, such as the Jesus, the story telling of Stephen and assertions in regard to James.

You would know a Jewish mashiach if he fell from the sky on top of you.

And duh, of course for your assertions to be valid you have to include further myths and legends. Though you will have to prove them as well.

Christianity is not a myth, it is developed from myths and legends.

Arguing against your assertions calls in question my values and principles?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 10.......

I tried to chill however...

You're the one that keeps tossing more into the mix, Paul, James, and Stephen came from you, not me.

If you inject it, you have to be willing to prove it. You dodged this completely.

Whenever something comes up you dislike you either ignore it or resort to using the power of legitimacy, which you don't have anyway.

As to your values and principles they are far from honest. You follow Ambrose and Augustine's lead in that.

Wrong again. I guess I will have to give poor little Paul John an F on this essay. He has failed to get even one answer correct.

I simply have shown that the text here in Daniel fits hand in glove with the Jesus/Messiah as portrayed in the New Testament Scriptures. And that it does not fit into the Antiochus IV theory presented by Paul John.

The myth, legend, and sci fi lingo spewed out incessantly by Paul John are just further attempts to avoid the real issues.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

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.

See above. Just more "smoke" to throw the readers off of the trail of the real facts of the case.

pjts wrote:

Just more dodging the issue on the part of Gramps.

I am not the one that has been continually trying to divert attention from the real discussion of the text. As I have shown, that is about all that Paul John has to offer.

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.

pjts wrote:

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.

Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this.

This is just one more attempt to confuse or deceive the reader.

pjts wrote:

One more attempt by Gramps to deceive. The words were plural for one.

He wants it his way.

Wrong Again! I will rejoyce to see that day when Paul John gets just one answer right.

In the Hebrew, this is not plural. I must repeat. Maybe it will eventually sink in. This was not written in English!

Any Jew would readily understand "evening and morning" to mean one day, as in the creation account in Genesis. And any Jew would know that the "morning and evening" sacrifices are ALWAYS referred to as "morning and evening", and not "evening and morning". That is "ereb boqer" ve "boqer ereb".

Biblical texts for the sacrifices include 1 Ch 16:40, 2:4, 31:3, Ezr 3:3, 2 Ki 16:15, and 2 Ch 13:11.

Biblical texts for "evening and morning" include Gen 1:5,8, 13, 19, and 31. 

No, this clearly not referring to "evening and morning" sacrifices. This is just a desperate attempt to split this 2300 day prophecy in two so that it can be puzzle fitted to apply to Antiochus IV which it does not. 

The shoe does not fit. This can not be referring to Antiochus IV.  

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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.

Paul Johns sarcasm is duly noted.

pjts wrote:

Well since you believe in fantasy and Sci-Fi as real I thought it to be appropriate.

This still does not justify your puzzle fitting attempts that have completely failed to measure up to reason.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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.

If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

pjts wrote:

If you had gotten chapter 1 right you'd not be lost by this part. You missed the boat there and have been wandering in the land of never was ever since.

Obviously I got chapter 1 right. That is why my interpretation holds up and is consistent throughout the Book of Daniel, and Paul Johns falls flat in every chapter.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:


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.

As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

pjts wrote:

Much creativity required to make this be 2300 years. You have shown throughout you are creative.

Thorough yes. Creative no.

gramster wrote:


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.

pjts wrote:

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 do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.

Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

pjts wrote:

Believers in the Jesus have been looking for the end of the world since Paul. He thought it would come during his life.

Trying to use writing that was addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century BCE that was Apocalyptic is one of the errors made by you.

It has nothing to do with the end of the world, it meant the "time of the end" of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.

I give you extra stars for trying though.

It seems like Paul John cannot even wrap up a post without making a gross misstatement.

This book was not addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century. If Paul John thinks it was, let him show us where this if found.

Sorry Paul John. It looks like you have gotten a 0% score on this whole post.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The Time of the End Approacheth

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

 

gramster wrote:



gramster wrote:



pjts wrote:



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.



"Most probable?" A view that does not even fit the prophecy, or make sense is hardly the "most probable" view.



pjts wrote:



Another difference, you see a prophecy and I do not. Fortunetellers are most generally con artists. The content of Daniel is not a prophecy, it is Apocalyptic writing.



This bias of Paul John's is precisely the reason he cannot see the real meanings of the texts being discussed.

It's why you accept magic and fantasy as real and I do not.

We have discussed this throughout our look at Daniel. You accept the stories as real that defy the reality we occupy and I don't.

You are biased in buying into stories that have no basis in reality which have magic and events that don't happen in our world.

But they do occur in the dimension of never was and never will be that you live in.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:
pjts wrote:


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".

More of Paul Johns many errors and distortions of fact.

First, the view that the little horn and the acknowledgment that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for a tremendous amount of persecution in the middle ages does not make one an "RCC Hating Denomination".
If that were true Paul John would himself be guilty of being a "RCC hater" due to his acknowledgment of these horrific acts. History is History, and to acknowledge it does not make one hateful or bigoted.

Secondly, John Paul errs in calling Shea a JW. This is just plain not true.

Now regarding the interpretation of the text in v 9, winds is argued as the best fit due to word gender commonly used in the Hebrew language. I cede that it is possible, but not likely that the reference (out of one of them) could be to horns. My interpretation does not rely entirely upon this one text.


pjts wrote:


Unlike Christians that speak violently in regard to those of beliefs differing from theirs, I don't bother to hate. Their religion I can do without.

I know of the RCC's actions, I know of the actions of the German people who after my ancestors left followed a madman.

Do I hate them for their stupidity, no. I consider many of them to have been evil and many to have been deceived.

One would think that torturing people as the RCC did or killing them as the Germans did would have set off severe questioning of the validity of the commands.

Did the god or the Jesus really will it? What part of killing innocent people or looking the other way when they were detained and hauled to concentration camps did they not get.

My error, he's a 7th Day Adventist, I confused the Christian groups that hate the evil Church of Satan aka the RCC.


Once again Paul John repeats his "smoke and deception" attempt.
He is once again projecting that "Christian Groups" that acknowledge the horrific acts of the Catholic Church during the middle ages are "Catholic Haters". He is however using a double standard since his own acknowledgment of the same acts does not make him one.Paul John uses these tactics to divert attention away from the fact that his own arguments have been shown to be erroneous, and without basis.Nice try!


I think the actions of the militants speak for themselves. And I wasn't referring to their view of the RCC actions in the Middle Ages when I said "Unlike Christians that speak violently in regard to those of beliefs differing from theirs,"

But you see what you want in everything.

I'm not the one that sees the RCC and the popes as the "little horn". I'm not the one that accuses them of suppressing access to the Jesus, you are.

The Glass house you live in speaks for itself.

gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:
pjts wrote:

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.


There is just as much basis for the claim that the little horn comes from the 4 winds as there is that it comes out of one of the 4 horns. Here Paul John once again errs, and tries to mislead the reader. Unfortunately this is a common  tactic he uses throughout this discussion.


pjts wrote:


Nope.


Now here's an argument that one can hardly debate.


Yep! As this was discussed elsewhere in detail including later on in the post I felt no need to expand it.

gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:
pjts wrote:


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:


No error has been shown to exist. Only unsupported accusations, based upon erroneous facts.


pjts wrote:
See. He searched hard and wide to find a way to justify Rome being pulled out of thin air. And he found it with Shea.


Once again Paul John is attempting to avoid actually discussing the text by making accusations, and implying that my interpretation is thereby invalid.

As Paul John will recall. This point actually came from a careful inspection of the actual text. Something I still have yet to see him do.


It's not my fault you have early onset of Alzheimer's. This has been extensively discussed, go back and look for yourself.

 
gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:
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."


pjts wrote:


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


It looks like Alzheimer's has really set in, and Paul John has completely lost his memory. I have repeatedly shown that the words used for kings and kingdoms are used interchangeable throughout the Book of Daniel. And the same word used for kings here was used for kingdoms earlier in the book.

This text can just as properly read "a fierce kingdom". Paul John knows this, but still continues to bring up this argument to try to deceive the reader.


pjts wrote:


Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.

So, what do you do. 


Sorry, wrong again. Paul John repeatedly makes this mistake. He fails to realize that this document was not written in English. Words like "he, she, him, and his" are not in the original.

I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

Once again Paul John's bias has obscured his vision.


In Gramps case, it's words and sentences only mean what Gramps says. Toss out the context, if it doesn't match his fantasy beliefs.

And what original do you mean? You have an original copy of Daniel? Why then do you spend time here? You need to call a news conference you will become famous. Where did you find it?

And so he does. He insists on the Hebrew where Aramaic is more likely in many cases. But ignore that, as Gramps uses the GAVB (Gramps Authorized Version of the Bible) whenever he wants to make things be what they aren't.

gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:


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.

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either.

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.

pjts wrote:


And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.


I guess Paul John can't seem to get anything right. Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.


You actually ought to read what they had to say before you stick your entire leg in your mouth.

You claimed you did read Cowles back when we discussed this section, so you either lied about that then or you have extreme memory loss.

I gave you the reference back then, but since you have extreme Alzheimer's go to pp 374-375 to see what Cowles said. And go to pp 114 for SR Driver.

Cowles indicates,this in regard to the verse in question , "Thrace and Macedon were the nucleus of the European and Western section; Asia Minor, stretching to the Euxine and the Caspian, north as to Palestine, pushed its empire to India, and became really the eastern and great Asiatic portion; while Egypt became the center for the southern section, "towards the 4 winds of heaven" describes their location__Of these 4 the Jews stood in close relation to only Egypt on the south and Syria on the north. from pp 374-375.

If he agreed with you and your inaccurate deciphering, he'd not have said this.

There's more, in his writing you have claimed to have read, if you ever did. Though it could be your ancient age,  losing brain cells in an exponential manner every day.

gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:


Interesting that Paul John uses the argument that "most Christians" who he himself sees as deluded and confused, and believers of myths, do not share my view. This does nothing to further his arguments.

Paul John often does this when logic fails him. He uses the faulty assumption that the majority view must be right, or if he can find a "scholar" to agree with him, it makes his view valid. This is pure nonsense, and deception. This is much easier than simply coming up with a rational argument. Unless of course there is none.


pjts wrote:


I said they were mostly Christian web sites, I did not say most Christians.

Having trouble with those spectacles again?

Did the smoke you make get in your own eyes again?


"Most Christians", "Mostly Christian Websites". His point??? It does not look Paul John has one. He is still just attempting to distract and deceive rather than come up with a rational argument.


The point is you have reading comprehension issues.

I guess that's what happens when you slowly lose functionality and control.

 
gramps wrote:

gramster wrote:
pjts wrote:


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 are 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.


Once again Paul John makes another attempt at deception by cleverly implying that my interpretation is not reasonable, because it does not fit into his unproven assumptions. That is nothing more than thinly disguised circular reasoning.

My argument included the belief in the existence of God, and upon the belief in the Jewish Messiah, and the validity of the Christian faith. For my arguments to be valid they need to fit into these parameters, not John Paul's assertions that God does not exist, The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and that Christianity is a Myth.

Arguments and deceptions like the one above do nothing to help Paul Johns case, but do call into question his basic values and principles when it come to debating an issue.


pjts wrote:


You rely on more myths and legends for your interpretation, such as the Jesus, the story telling of Stephen and assertions in regard to James.

You wouldn't know a Jewish mashiach if he fell from the sky on top of you.

And duh, of course for your assertions to be valid you have to include further myths and legends. Though you will have to prove them as well.
Christianity is not a myth, it is developed from myths and legends.

Arguing against your assertions calls in question my values and principles?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 10.......I tried to chill however...

You're the one that keeps tossing more into the mix, Paul, James, and Stephen came from you, not me.

If you inject it, you have to be willing to prove it. You dodged this completely.

Whenever something comes up you dislike you either ignore it or resort to using the power of legitimacy, which you don't have anyway.

As to your values and principles they are far from honest. You follow Ambrose and Augustine's lead in that.


Wrong again. I guess I will have to give poor little Paul John an F on this essay. He has failed to get even one answer correct.

I simply have shown that the text here in Daniel fits hand in glove with the Jesus/Messiah as portrayed in the New Testament Scriptures. And that it does not fit into the Antiochus IV theory presented by Paul John.

The myth, legend, and sci fi lingo spewed out incessantly by Paul John are just further attempts to avoid the real issues.


You wouldn't know a correct answer no matter what.

You should have been aware by now that I consider the Jesus to be an unproved character from NT writing. That you assert the Jesus all the time means you would need to prove the Jesus was something other than storytelling, legends or myths. You don't, you just make unwarranted claims that further complicate your argument. And you offer nothing up to support your claim of the Jesus.

You bring up the Jesus NT lingo to distort and distract. It however complicates things as you haven't shown the Jesus was something more than a character or legend.


 
gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:
pjts wrote:


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.


See above. Just more "smoke" to throw the readers off of the trail of the real facts of the case.


pjts wrote:


Just more dodging the issue on the part of Gramps.


I am not the one that has been continually trying to divert attention from the real discussion of the text. As I have shown, that is about all that Paul John has to offer.


All you have to offer is the Gramps asserted deceptions. None based in reality.

All you offer is it is true because you say it is. Smoke, mirrors and deception are your trade and you are a master of self-deception.

gramster wrote:
gramster wrote:
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.


pjts wrote:


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.


Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this.

This is just one more attempt to confuse or deceive the reader.
pjts wrote:


One more attempt by Gramps to deceive. The words were plural for one.

He wants it his way.


Wrong Again! I will rejoyce to see that day when Paul John gets just one answer right.

In the Hebrew, this is not plural. I must repeat. Maybe it will eventually sink in. This was not written in English!

Any Jew would readily understand "evening and morning" to mean one day, as in the creation account in Genesis. And any Jew would know that the "morning and evening" sacrifices are ALWAYS referred to as "morning and evening", and not "evening and morning". That is "ereb boqer" ve "boqer ereb".

Biblical texts for the sacrifices include 1 Ch 16:40, 2:4, 31:3, Ezr 3:3, 2 Ki 16:15, and 2 Ch 13:11.

Biblical texts for "evening and morning" include Gen 1:5,8, 13, 19, and 31.

No, this clearly not referring to "evening and morning" sacrifices. This is just a desperate attempt to split this 2300 day prophecy in two so that it can be puzzle fitted to apply to Antiochus IV which it does not.

The shoe does not fit. This can not be referring to Antiochus IV. 


As I pointed out many times, if you wish to twist the text to be that which it is not, nothing is clear or concise. That you see it that way is your problem, not mine.

And why do you think it was all written in Hebrew?

Oh yeah, you have the original copy.

Well don't just sit on it, get on Fox News with it. Headline : -  Gramps discovered the original copy of Daniel at a Garage Sale"

gramps wrote:


pjts wrote:


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.


If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

gramps wrote:


pjts wrote:


If you had gotten chapter 1 right you'd not be lost by this part. You missed the boat there and have been wandering in the land of never was ever since.


Obviously I got chapter 1 right. That is why my interpretation holds up and is consistent throughout the Book of Daniel, and Paul Johns falls flat in every chapter.



Not hardly, as you have been lost throughout. You started wrong and have duped yourself into believing something that is not true.

You are welcome to do that, enjoy your visit in the land of fantasy.



gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:



pjts wrote:




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.



As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

pjts wrote:


Much creativity required to make this be 2300 years. You have shown throughout you are creative.


Thorough yes. Creative no.


Well that was the only points I thought you deserved. Thorough self deception perhaps.



gramster wrote:



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.



pjts wrote:


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 do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.


Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

You have interpolated that which is not there starting with chapter 1. You only get worse as you go.

Skewing the facts would be too nice a word for the deceptions you promote.

JcGadfly had your number early on.

 

Gramps wrote:


pjts wrote:



Believers in the Jesus have been looking for the end of the world since Paul. He thought it would come during his life.


Trying to use writing that was addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century BCE that was Apocalyptic is one of the errors made by you.


It has nothing to do with the end of the world, it meant the "time of the end" of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.


I give you extra stars for trying though.



It seems like Paul John cannot even wrap up a post without making a gross misstatement.

This book was not addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century. If Paul John thinks it was, let him show us where this if found.

Sorry Paul John. It looks like you have gotten a 0% score on this whole post.




The content of the book of Daniel that you misunderstand makes it clear that it is addressed to the Jews.

I didn't know we were grading posts. If so, you have scored 0% in this entire threrad.

And Gramps, it looks like you get a 0% score on life. But that's none of my business, you are entitled to throw it away believing in fantasy.

Are you done yet with expounding how virtous and perfect you are?

If so continue to the rest of my comments on the other chapters.




 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

gramster wrote:

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.

 

A deity that sent good creatures to a place to be tortured for eternity sure would be evil.  The alternative of taking them out of existence for eternity, painlessly, is much better.  But why doesn't your deity enact compulsory salvation?  That would be the opposite of compulsory damnation, and better than your middle ground of compulsory unconsciousness.

I don't like the part of your post where you say that atheists have chosen to not have anything to do with God.  It misrepresents most atheists.  Most people are atheists because there's no evidence of any deities.  You're implying that atheists know that there is a God, and that they have chosen to reject Him.  That's false.

So if you found out that the real interpretation of Christian scripture is that Jesus intends to send non-followers to hell, you would become an atheist?  That wouldn't make sense.  You should remain a theist at that point and realize that you're following an evil dictator.  Better yet, you could re-examine your reasons for believing in a deity in the first place.  You could be wrong.


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

Philosophicus wrote:

gramster wrote:

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.

 

A deity that sent good creatures to a place to be tortured for eternity sure would be evil.  The alternative of taking them out of existence for eternity, painlessly, is much better.  But why doesn't your deity enact compulsory salvation?  That would be the opposite of compulsory damnation, and better than your middle ground of compulsory unconsciousness.

I don't like the part of your post where you say that atheists have chosen to not have anything to do with God.  It misrepresents most atheists.  Most people are atheists because there's no evidence of any deities.  You're implying that atheists know that there is a God, and that they have chosen to reject Him.  That's false.

So if you found out that the real interpretation of Christian scripture is that Jesus intends to send non-followers to hell, you would become an atheist?  That wouldn't make sense.  You should remain a theist at that point and realize that you're following an evil dictator.  Better yet, you could re-examine your reasons for believing in a deity in the first place.  You could be wrong.

Greetings Philosophicus

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I have been trying to get Paul John to stop "farting around", and discuss the actual issues.

First I will address the issue of "compulsory salvation".

I am not sure which you are promoting. 1. To admit everyone into heaven no matter how evil. Or 2. To design people in a way that they are not capable of doing evil.

I have a problem with either. The 1st would result in a badly corrupted heaven that would become much like what we have here on earth. What makes a place good or bad is the creatures that inhabit it. The 2nd would be much like the stepford wives. Maybe you are one of those guys who wish you had a stepford wife, but I really wouldn't want one.

It is much better to have a relationship with someone who can think and decide things for themselves. If we do not have the capability not to love and obey God, then we would be nothing more than living robots.

The reason I could not believe in God if He were to burn "anyone" in "hell fire" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity, is because there is no possible way for this to be either loving or just. And the God of the Bible is supposed to be both.

As to the last point, I continually examine my beliefs, and have found no reason whatsoever to become an atheist.

I hope this answers your questions.

I am planning to address the issue of whether or not God's existence makes sense down the road sometime after we wrap up the Daniel thing.

Gramps.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Let's discuss the text please

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

I tend to get "snarky" when people start consistently avoiding the discussion of the topic, and instead try to divert the discussion by making unrelated sidetracks like the "Catholic Haters", "God myth stuff", etc. If you can find it within

yourself to actually stick to the topic, and discuss the issues at hand, I will certainly be more amiable.

I have attempted to remove the snarky comments, and cut things back to the issue and discussions about the text. Here's the first part. Maybe we can start again, and stick to relevant discussion.


pjts wrote:

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.

gramster wrote:

There is just as much basis for the claim that the little horn comes from the 4 winds as there is that it comes out of one of the 4 horns. .

pjts wrote:


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:

gramster wrote:

No error has been shown to exist. Only unsupported accusations, based upon erroneous facts.


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."


pjts wrote:

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

 

gramster wrote:

I have repeatedly shown that the words used for kings and kingdoms are used interchangeable throughout the Book of Daniel. And the same word used for kings here was used for kingdoms earlier in the book.

This text can just as properly read "a fierce kingdom".


pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.
So, what do you do. 

Here we need some clarification. How does the "context argue against my view"? Please elaborate on this.


I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

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.

gramps wrote:

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either.

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.


pjts wrote:

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

gramps wrote:


Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.

pjts wrote:

You actually ought to read what they had to say before you stick your entire leg in your mouth.

You claimed you did read Cowles back when we discussed this section, so you either lied about that then or you have extreme memory loss.

I gave you the reference back then, but since you have extreme Alzheimer's go to pp 374-375 to see what Cowles said. And go to pp 114 for SR Driver.

Cowles indicates,this in regard to the verse in question , "Thrace and Macedon were the nucleus of the European and Western section; Asia Minor, stretching to the Euxine and the Caspian, north as to Palestine, pushed its empire to India, and became really the eastern and great Asiatic portion; while Egypt became the center for the southern section, "towards the 4 winds of heaven" describes their location__Of these 4 the Jews stood in close relation to only Egypt on the south and Syria on the north. from pp 374-375.

If he agreed with you and your inaccurate deciphering, he'd not have said this.

There's more, in his writing you have claimed to have read, if you ever did. Though it could be your ancient age,  losing brain cells in an exponential manner every day.

Yes, I have read this, and I am fully aware that they do not share my views on Daniel. But, the issue is whether they have addressed specifically the word gender issue relating to whether the text was referring to "winds or horns". And the answer is they did not.

All you have done here is find scholars that agree with you. Anyone can do that. That is not a valid argument. I am waiting for you to prove that this text does or can not refer to "winds".



Once again, we are not counting who agrees with us, but evaluating the text for ourselves. At least that is what I am doing. 

 
 


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

I am "cleaning up" the last half of this post. I will try not to be "snarky", if you will try to stick to the topic being discussed. 
 

pjts wrote:


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 are 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.


This is nothing more than thinly disguised circular reasoning.

My argument included the belief in the existence of God, and upon the belief in the Jewish Messiah, and the validity of the Christian faith. For my arguments to be valid they need to fit into these parameters, not John Paul's assertions that God does not exist, The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and that Christianity is a Myth.
 

Since it is my beliefs that the Book of Daniel predicts relevant powers down to the coming of the Lord, I will be presenting the evidence to show that this interpretation fits the text. I have already demonstrated several reasons why your interpretation does not work. If you do not believe my interpretation does not work, show where it fails, instead of side tracking into the "Jesus Myth" stuff.



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.


pjts wrote:


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.

gramps wrote:


Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this. [/quote[

pjts wrote:


One more attempt by Gramps to deceive. The words were plural for one.

He wants it his way.

gramps wrote:


Wrong. In the Hebrew, this is not plural. I must repeat. This was not written in English!

Any Jew would readily understand "evening and morning" to mean one day, as in the creation account in Genesis. And any Jew would know that the "morning and evening" sacrifices are ALWAYS referred to as "morning and evening", and not "evening and morning". That is "ereb boqer" vs "boqer ereb".

Biblical texts for the sacrifices include 1 Ch 16:40, 2:4, 31:3, Ezr 3:3, 2 Ki 16:15, and 2 Ch 13:11.

Biblical texts for "evening and morning" include Gen 1:5,8, 13, 19, and 31.

No, this clearly not referring to "evening and morning" sacrifices. This is just a desperate attempt to split this 2300 day prophecy in two so that it can be puzzle fitted to apply to Antiochus IV which it does not.

The shoe does not fit. This can not be referring to Antiochus IV. 

pjts wrote:


As I pointed out many times, if you wish to twist the text to be that which it is not, nothing is clear or concise. That you see it that way is your problem, not mine.

And why do you think it was all written in Hebrew?

Oh yeah, you have the original copy.

Well don't just sit on it, get on Fox News with it. Headline : -  Gramps discovered the original copy of Daniel at a Garage Sale"

Please try to use reason and common sense. No, I do not have the "original copy", but copies in the original Hebrew, and Arabic do exist. It is from the Lexicons that provide the original words, and their literal meanings that I get my information.

If you can find a reputable language scholar that states that these words "evenings and mornings" are of the plural form in the original language please post a link. If you can find where the "morning and evening" sacrifices are referred to the "evening and morning" sacrifices please post the text. 

Really, I am trying to be nice about this. But I must insist that we discuss the issues in an adult and rational manner.  

gramps wrote:


pjts wrote:


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.


If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

gramps wrote:


pjts wrote:


If you had gotten chapter 1 right you'd not be lost by this part. You missed the boat there and have been wandering in the land of never was ever since.


Obviously I got chapter 1 right. That is why my interpretation holds up and is consistent throughout the Book of Daniel, and Paul Johns falls flat in every chapter.



Not hardly, as you have been lost throughout. You started wrong and have duped yourself into believing something that is not true.

You are welcome to do that, enjoy your visit in the land of fantasy.



gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:



pjts wrote:




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.



As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

pjts wrote:


Much creativity required to make this be 2300 years. You have shown throughout you are creative.


Thorough yes. Creative no.


Well that was the only points I thought you deserved. Thorough self deception perhaps.



gramster wrote:



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.



pjts wrote:


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 do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.


Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

You have interpolated that which is not there starting with chapter 1. You only get worse as you go.

Skewing the facts would be too nice a word for the deceptions you promote.

JcGadfly had your number early on.

 

Gramps wrote:


pjts wrote:



Believers in the Jesus have been looking for the end of the world since Paul. He thought it would come during his life.


Trying to use writing that was addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century BCE that was Apocalyptic is one of the errors made by you.


It has nothing to do with the end of the world, it meant the "time of the end" of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.


I give you extra stars for trying though.



This book was not addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century. If Paul John thinks it was, let him show us where this if found.




The content of the book of Daniel that you misunderstand makes it clear that it is addressed to the Jews.

I didn't know we were grading posts. If so, you have scored 0% in this entire threrad.

And Gramps, it looks like you get a 0% score on life. But that's none of my business, you are entitled to throw it away believing in fantasy.

Are you done yet with expounding how virtous and perfect you are?

If so continue to the rest of my comments on the other chapters

It is only your opinion that the "content of the book of Daniel" makes it clear that it was addressed to the Jews (only).

You have yet to make that case.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Please do stay on the subject - Let's get this over

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

I tend to get "snarky" when people start consistently avoiding the discussion of the topic, and instead try to divert the discussion by making unrelated sidetracks like the "Catholic Haters", "God myth stuff", etc. If you can find it within

yourself to actually stick to the topic, and discuss the issues at hand, I will certainly be more amiable.

I have attempted to remove the snarky comments, and cut things back to the issue and discussions about the text. Here's the first part. Maybe we can start again, and stick to relevant discussion.

So do I when someone injects unwarranted assertions such as you have been doing. That you don't see them that way is the problem.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.
So, what do you do. 

Here we need some clarification. How does the "context argue against my view"? Please elaborate on this.


I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

In my last post to you on this I told you to go on Fox News with the"Original".
What original? Please explain your claim.

As far as I know there is no such thing as an original for this text. As I indicated, if you found it you will be famous.

Please explain this first on what you mean.

It is not known for certain how much of Daniel was written in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original document by the author(s). There are claims that the 1st half was all in Aramaic, and there are claims it was all in Aramaic.

That you claim to "look up" in the "original" is not true. No one kinows what the "original" actually was.

gramster wrote:

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.

gramps wrote:

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either.

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.


pjts wrote:

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

gramps wrote:


Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.

pjts wrote:

You actually ought to read what they had to say before you stick your entire leg in your mouth.

You claimed you did read Cowles back when we discussed this section, so you either lied about that then or you have extreme memory loss.

I gave you the reference back then, but since you have extreme Alzheimer's go to pp 374-375 to see what Cowles said. And go to pp 114 for SR Driver.

Cowles indicates,this in regard to the verse in question , "Thrace and Macedon were the nucleus of the European and Western section; Asia Minor, stretching to the Euxine and the Caspian, north as to Palestine, pushed its empire to India, and became really the eastern and great Asiatic portion; while Egypt became the center for the southern section, "towards the 4 winds of heaven" describes their location__Of these 4 the Jews stood in close relation to only Egypt on the south and Syria on the north. from pp 374-375.

If he agreed with you and your inaccurate deciphering, he'd not have said this.

There's more, in his writing you have claimed to have read, if you ever did. Though it could be your ancient age,  losing brain cells in an exponential manner every day.

Yes, I have read this, and I am fully aware that they do not share my views on Daniel. But, the issue is whether they have addressed specifically the word gender issue relating to whether the text was referring to "winds or horns". And the answer is they did not.

All you have done here is find scholars that agree with you. Anyone can do that. That is not a valid argument. I am waiting for you to prove that this text does or can not refer to "winds".

As have you.

gramps wrote:




Once again, we are not counting who agrees with us, but evaluating the text for ourselves. At least that is what I am doing. 

 
 

You are certainly doing exactly that, using others views such as with Shea and your use of Strong's.

Since this is tax season and I'm an office manager for a tax prep company my responses may take longer right now.

 

 

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

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Smoke Screens and Distractions

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

I tend to get "snarky" when people start consistently avoiding the discussion of the topic, and instead try to divert the discussion by making unrelated sidetracks like the "Catholic Haters", "God myth stuff", etc. If you can find it within

yourself to actually stick to the topic, and discuss the issues at hand, I will certainly be more amiable.

I have attempted to remove the snarky comments, and cut things back to the issue and discussions about the text. Here's the first part. Maybe we can start again, and stick to relevant discussion.

pjts wrote:

So do I when someone injects unwarranted assertions such as you have been doing. That you don't see them that way is the problem.

My "unwarranted assertions" simply boil down to my "assertion" that this book is just what it claims to be. A book containing prophecy. That being relevant powers foretold before they came into existence. I do not find that it is unwarranted to interpret a book as being just what it claims to be. Unless of course you do not believe in God.

That is your problem. You are insisting upon using circular reasoning every time you object to my interpretation on the basis that you do not believe in God, therefore you don't believe in prophecy.

Your insistence upon using this invalid and deceptive tactic does nothing but waste time, and distract from the main issue under discussion.

I wish you would stop doing this. I am trying to be nice.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.
So, what do you do. 

Here we need some clarification. How does the "context argue against my view"? Please elaborate on this.


I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

pjts wrote:

In my last post to you on this I told you to go on Fox News with the"Original".
What original? Please explain your claim.

As far as I know there is no such thing as an original for this text. As I indicated, if you found it you will be famous.

Please explain this first on what you mean.

It is not known for certain how much of Daniel was written in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original document by the author(s). There are claims that the 1st half was all in Aramaic, and there are claims it was all in Aramaic.

That you claim to "look up" in the "original" is not true. No one knows what the "original" actually was.

If it makes you happy, "the earliest documents that are available for scholars of today to examine".

The translators of the Bibles that we have today relied upon these early documents. They also made many judgment calls based upon bias and assumptions. I find it best to go back to an actual word for word translation of these early texts to find out just what the author was saying.

Your "rant" about "the original" is nothing more than one more "smoke screen" in attempts to distract from the issues I bring up, and to avoid my arguments, and the problems with your own.

gramster wrote:

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.

gramps wrote:

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either.

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.


pjts wrote:

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

gramps wrote:


Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.

pjts wrote:

You actually ought to read what they had to say before you stick your entire leg in your mouth.

You claimed you did read Cowles back when we discussed this section, so you either lied about that then or you have extreme memory loss.

I gave you the reference back then, but since you have extreme Alzheimer's go to pp 374-375 to see what Cowles said. And go to pp 114 for SR Driver.

Cowles indicates,this in regard to the verse in question , "Thrace and Macedon were the nucleus of the European and Western section; Asia Minor, stretching to the Euxine and the Caspian, north as to Palestine, pushed its empire to India, and became really the eastern and great Asiatic portion; while Egypt became the center for the southern section, "towards the 4 winds of heaven" describes their location__Of these 4 the Jews stood in close relation to only Egypt on the south and Syria on the north. from pp 374-375.

If he agreed with you and your inaccurate deciphering, he'd not have said this.

There's more, in his writing you have claimed to have read, if you ever did. Though it could be your ancient age,  losing brain cells in an exponential manner every day.

Yes, I have read this, and I am fully aware that they do not share my views on Daniel. But, the issue is whether they have addressed specifically the word gender issue relating to whether the text was referring to "winds or horns". And the answer is they did not.

All you have done here is find scholars that agree with you. Anyone can do that. That is not a valid argument. I am waiting for you to prove that this text does or can not refer to "winds".

pjts wrote:

As have you.

The text in any of our English translations, as well as in the original language used in the earliest copies of Daniel in existence today can refer to either winds or horns. You have not made ANY logical argument to show that this is not the case. No NONE! You are still just "pooping around" on this issue.  

 

gramps wrote:




Once again, we are not counting who agrees with us, but evaluating the text for ourselves. At least that is what I am doing.  

pjts wrote:

You are certainly doing exactly that, using others views such as with Shea and your use of Strong's.

Since this is tax season and I'm an office manager for a tax prep company my responses may take longer right now.

I am going back to the earliest source available. Strong's is considered universally among language scholars to be a good and reliable source. If you have a better one please let me know. If you have any reputable source of information that casts doubt on the reliability or accuracy of Strong's please let me know.

I wish, just once, we could actually discuss an issue without having to spend a lot of time "blowing away the smoke" that is continually pouring out of your """"".

This is just one more unnecessary smoke screen to keep from having to actually address the content of the text.

If you really had an interpretation that made sense, you would not be reverting to such evasive tactics. It is obvious from your continuing to do this that you do not have anything that is supportable.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
CharliesGhost wrote:Every

CharliesGhost wrote:

Every creationist with talk circles and circles but all still come to a common dead end. They cannot prove anything in the bible to be true.

Until that time (which no doubt will never come), Jesus and God are the equivalent to leprechauns and unicorns. I don't even know why you

guys waste time arguing with these people. Use your energy to spread the word of truth, rationality and reality -  so that our future generations are

not controlled and abused by blind faith (to be nice) any longer.

I disagree with your vague assessment that "they cannot prove anything in the bible to be true". You are opening yourself up for a kidney punch because there are some factual things in the bible, unfortunately none of them have anything to do with proving their god exists.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
We don't see the subject of god(s) the same & never will

Our basic difference is that we don't see the subject of god(s) in the same way.

You make assumptions based on your Christian beliefs that you think are self evident. That you consider them to be true is based on your beliefs.

That I don't have your beliefs means I don't give them the acceptance that you do. That means when you take a belief of yours from Christianity and claim that Daniel somehow gives it credibility you ignore that I also don't accept that particular belief as well.

You have been trying to build a foundation using Daniel to show that the Jesus beliefs were somehow based in it. However, you ignore the questioning of the Jesus beliefs as you see them as self evident. They aren't self evident to one without the acceptance of the supernatural that you consider obvious. It is not obvious to one that has other explanations. That's why I challenge your Jesus beliefs when you assert them into the discussion. I see the stories of Jesus more as an unproved character but you see him as a real person/god.

This means I see you arguing in circles. The Jesus stories have countless issues that one who does not have your faith does not dismiss. You use that faith to make assumptions that you see as a given. I don't see them as a given. When you take Daniel into prophecy of the Jesus I therefore ask for proof that the Jesus was more than a character. I use the words legends and myths to describe the stories of the Jesus or simply storytelling.

Thus our discussion goes back and forth as a result of far different perspectives. You should know by now I reject all the claims of supernatural events that I call "magic". "Magic" claims are found in all ancient religious texts. That the claims are from  unknown sources, have no objective way to verify, go against reality (or they wouldn't be "magic&quotEye-wink, and are not observed to occur in the reality we currently occupy suggests that they were from misunderstandings or legends. Ancient man was in ignorance of many things and so attributed them to the god(s). Whenever I encounter such claims, it is sufficient for me to set that aside as not likely and to be based in ignorance or lack of knowledge. It is clear however that you don't do this and consider such to be proof of the god(s) in question.

It is highly unlikely that we can ever discuss such subjects in any meaningful way as a result.

This thread is evidence that is the case. You use your beliefs as a basis as accepted fact whether unknowingly or not. Setting aside the god(s) beliefs is not a possibility for you while you examine the text. You take the text as true instead of holding it in question to be shown true. I take the text to be unproved based on prior failures of this particular religion (Hebrew or Jewish beliefs). The Christian part is already built on a foundation that has countless issues. That you wish to take it to new heights assumes that the earlier content has some kind of validity. I'm convinced that the Hebrew storytelling is faulty from the beginning based on extensive analysis and personal study.

It is into this environment we have discussed Daniel.

 

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

I tend to get "snarky" when people start consistently avoiding the discussion of the topic, and instead try to divert the discussion by making unrelated sidetracks like the "Catholic Haters", "God myth stuff", etc. If you can find it within

yourself to actually stick to the topic, and discuss the issues at hand, I will certainly be more amiable.

I have attempted to remove the snarky comments, and cut things back to the issue and discussions about the text. Here's the first part. Maybe we can start again, and stick to relevant discussion.

pjts wrote:

So do I when someone injects unwarranted assertions such as you have been doing. That you don't see them that way is the problem.

 

My "unwarranted assertions" simply boil down to my "assertion" that this book is just what it claims to be. A book containing prophecy. That being relevant powers foretold before they came into existence. I do not find that it is unwarranted to interpret a book as being just what it claims to be. Unless of course you do not believe in God.

That is your problem. You are insisting upon using circular reasoning every time you object to my interpretation on the basis that you do not believe in God, therefore you don't believe in prophecy.

Your insistence upon using this invalid and deceptive tactic does nothing but waste time, and distract from the main issue under discussion.

I wish you would stop doing this. I am trying to be nice.

I'm quite familar with your claim.

What you have failed to do especially in regard to Rome is in detail relate to the text specifically how 1st Rome and then papal Rome or the RCC actually fits each and every specific item in the text.

You may think you have, but not so. I did exactly that for Antiochus IV. You have not done this in response.

If you need further clarification on this I will detail for you each verse and description you have not related to Rome versus the text.

In my view, it is you that have avoided discussing the text in detail versus interpretation.

You have used vague generalities relating Rome, Papal Rome, Christian Europe, and tribes. The text however seems to be very specific. I related this in detail to Antiochus IV, events, people, places, and names.

You did not do so.

Take another look in Ch 7, Ch 8, Ch 11, and ch 12.

I realize you have only commented on my counter arguments to ch 8 and have not disscused anything passed that point. (Post 1408)

See my post 1428 where I discussed your 10 kingdoms and asked why not others?

See also post 1442 where I pont out holes in your Roman view and the specific individuals you actually did put forth.

 

You my friend are the one ignoring the text.

 

 

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.
So, what do you do. 

Here we need some clarification. How does the "context argue against my view"? Please elaborate on this.


I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

pjts wrote:

In my last post to you on this I told you to go on Fox News with the"Original".
What original? Please explain your claim.

As far as I know there is no such thing as an original for this text. As I indicated, if you found it you will be famous.

Please explain this first on what you mean.

It is not known for certain how much of Daniel was written in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original document by the author(s). There are claims that the 1st half was all in Aramaic, and there are claims it was all in Aramaic.

That you claim to "look up" in the "original" is not true. No one knows what the "original" actually was.

If it makes you happy, "the earliest documents that are available for scholars of today to examine".

 

Provide links to the text you claim as "Orginals" or the earliest documents available so I know what you are using.

 

gramster wrote:

The translators of the Bibles that we have today relied upon these early documents. They also made many judgment calls based upon bias and assumptions. I find it best to go back to an actual word for word translation of these early texts to find out just what the author was saying.

Your "rant" about "the original" is nothing more than one more "smoke screen" in attempts to distract from the issues I bring up, and to avoid my arguments, and the problems with your own.

My rant is about you making a false or misleading statement. The texts or documents are not the "originals".

 

gramster wrote:

 

The text in any of our English translations, as well as in the original language used in the earliest copies of Daniel in existence today can refer to either winds or horns. You have not made ANY logical argument to show that this is not the case. No NONE! You are still just "pooping around" on this issue. 

You assert that Hebrew was the original language, but that is not proven.

You assert that out of the 4 winds is the correct interpretation, but that is not generally accepted as what was in the text.

I do understand why. Cowles indicated in detail why he interpretated it the other way, as did SR Driver. As did Shea in his interpretation, and in his case wrongly as he ignores the context of the chapter in question.

I mentioned it did not fit context, Cowles detailed why the 4 winds comment and how it related. I agree with that.

 

 

gramster wrote:

gramps wrote:




Once again, we are not counting who agrees with us, but evaluating the text for ourselves. At least that is what I am doing.  

pjts wrote:

You are certainly doing exactly that, using others views such as with Shea and your use of Strong's.

Since this is tax season and I'm an office manager for a tax prep company my responses may take longer right now.

I am going back to the earliest source available. Strong's is considered universally among language scholars to be a good and reliable source. If you have a better one please let me know. If you have any reputable source of information that casts doubt on the reliability or accuracy of Strong's please let me know.

I wish, just once, we could actually discuss an issue without having to spend a lot of time "blowing away the smoke" that is continually pouring out of your """"".

This is just one more unnecessary smoke screen to keep from having to actually address the content of the text.

If you really had an interpretation that made sense, you would not be reverting to such evasive tactics. It is obvious from your continuing to do this that you do not have anything that is supportable. 

See my first comments in this post. I see you making assertions based on your beliefs without merit. That's what I see you doing here once more.

As to avoiding the content of the text, that's what I see you doing when you make claims and can't support them as in the case of Rome as it relates to the text. It has holes you have not addressed and avoid.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
OTOH

                         This post has been going on for 18 months,  and this is my first post.       DID YOU HERE      PATRIOTS   45   BRONCOS  10; no one is tebowing tonight.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
As a Bronco Fan I have Issues

Jeffrick wrote:

                         This post has been going on for 18 months,  and this is my first post.       DID YOU HERE      PATRIOTS   45   BRONCOS  10; no one is tebowing tonight.

 

I personally like Orton. Tebow causes me to make comments during the game.

Such as *%@#$%!.

I moved back to Denver from Orlando last year. I have been a Bronco fan since the 70s.

I worked Mile High Stadium when I went to college so I could see games.

Tebow can believe whatever he wants as long as he wins games.

He didn't. Will this sink into to him that the Jesus is a fantasy? Probably not.

If you think he isn't still "praising my Lord Jesus Christ" the 1st thing in his interviews you'd be wrong.

He is a true believer.

Good for war and sports.

The Broncos at least made it to the playoffs and won a game before they got sent home.

24 other teams sat home this week with no work as they were out.

Anyway, good luck to your Patriots

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Good for war and sports.

The Broncos at least made it to the playoffs and won a game before they got sent home.

24 other teams sat home this week with no work as they were out.

Anyway, good luck to your Patriots

I'm actually a fan of Tebow. I think he is a great athlete, but sucks as a QB.

I'm extremely happy that we won't be seeing a "Cinderella Bowl" this year. I'd rather see some really good teams play rather than a team getting lucky the last three weeks of the season.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The AFC West completely sucked this Year

digitalbeachbum wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Good for war and sports.

The Broncos at least made it to the playoffs and won a game before they got sent home.

24 other teams sat home this week with no work as they were out.

Anyway, good luck to your Patriots

I'm actually a fan of Tebow. I think he is a great athlete, but sucks as a QB.

I'm extremely happy that we won't be seeing a "Cinderella Bowl" this year. I'd rather see some really good teams play rather than a team getting lucky the last three weeks of the season.

 

I saw your other post on the Tebow.

Someone from the AFC West had to make it to the playoffs. 3 of them were 8-8. Raiders, Chargers and Broncos.

One of them had to go on and lose.

Actually, the Broncos lost the last 3 games of the season starting with the loss to NE on 12-18. No surprise they lost to them again.

All I can say about the AFC West, at least it was not like the NFC West last year (2010)  when Seattle went with a losing record of 7-9 to the playoffs to lose in the divisional playoff.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Dirty Tactice - No Fair Play?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Our basic difference is that we don't see the subject of god(s) in the same way.

You make assumptions based on your Christian beliefs that you think are self evident. That you consider them to be true is based on your beliefs.

That I don't have your beliefs means I don't give them the acceptance that you do. That means when you take a belief of yours from Christianity and claim that Daniel somehow gives it credibility you ignore that I also don't accept that particular belief as well.

You have been trying to build a foundation using Daniel to show that the Jesus beliefs were somehow based in it. However, you ignore the questioning of the Jesus beliefs as you see them as self evident. They aren't self evident to one without the acceptance of the supernatural that you consider obvious. It is not obvious to one that has other explanations. That's why I challenge your Jesus beliefs when you assert them into the discussion. I see the stories of Jesus more as an unproved character but you see him as a real person/god.

This means I see you arguing in circles. The Jesus stories have countless issues that one who does not have your faith does not dismiss. You use that faith to make assumptions that you see as a given. I don't see them as a given. When you take Daniel into prophecy of the Jesus I therefore ask for proof that the Jesus was more than a character. I use the words legends and myths to describe the stories of the Jesus or simply storytelling.

Thus our discussion goes back and forth as a result of far different perspectives. You should know by now I reject all the claims of supernatural events that I call "magic". "Magic" claims are found in all ancient religious texts. That the claims are from  unknown sources, have no objective way to verify, go against reality (or they wouldn't be "magic&quotEye-wink, and are not observed to occur in the reality we currently occupy suggests that they were from misunderstandings or legends. Ancient man was in ignorance of many things and so attributed them to the god(s). Whenever I encounter such claims, it is sufficient for me to set that aside as not likely and to be based in ignorance or lack of knowledge. It is clear however that you don't do this and consider such to be proof of the god(s) in question.

It is highly unlikely that we can ever discuss such subjects in any meaningful way as a result.

This thread is evidence that is the case. You use your beliefs as a basis as accepted fact whether unknowingly or not. Setting aside the god(s) beliefs is not a possibility for you while you examine the text. You take the text as true instead of holding it in question to be shown true. I take the text to be unproved based on prior failures of this particular religion (Hebrew or Jewish beliefs). The Christian part is already built on a foundation that has countless issues. That you wish to take it to new heights assumes that the earlier content has some kind of validity. I'm convinced that the Hebrew storytelling is faulty from the beginning based on extensive analysis and personal study.

It is into this environment we have discussed Daniel. 

Likewise, I believe your belief that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC is nothing more than a man made fabrication. There certainly isn't any proof to support your claim. No none.

Unlike you however, I play FAIR. Since this is one of the fundamental issues we are debating, I do not continue to ask you to prove this while we are in the middle of these discussions. I evaluate your interpretation to see if your 2nd century claim of authorship is supported and compatible with a careful evaluation of the text.

You however do not play fair. You continue to insist that I prove things relating to the existence of God and Jesus all throughout this discussion. You refuse to wait and see if the text provides any compelling evidence. This is not a fair or reasonable debating practice.

Therefore we get nowhere. I can not be expected to prove anything when my debating opponent refuses to follow well established and reasonable rules for debating an issue.

I would have gotten to Rome, the Popes, and the Powers of Western Europe long ago, if you had simply played fair, and followed reasonable rules for debating.

Robert Blake made the statement during his lengthy murder trial "one is considered innocent until proven BROKE!".

Once the state depletes ones resources, and they have no more strength to fight, the state can then WIN!.

That seems to be your tactic. Since you can not come out on top by debating fairly, you seem to simply be attempting to wear me down. Is that what they teach in the "how to win every argument with a theist"?

I am beginning to believe that atheists probably don't "win" any arguments with theists, but simply wear them down to the point that they say the *!**!! with it, and "go away". Than all the atheists shout HOORAY! WE WON! WE WON!!

I will make one more request that you start playing fair, and following reasonable rules for debating.

Please at least make an attempt to do so!

Gramps

 

 


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

Jeffrick wrote:

                         This post has been going on for 18 months,  and this is my first post.       DID YOU HERE      PATRIOTS   45   BRONCOS  10; no one is tebowing tonight.

 

Greetings Jefferick

Yes, this post has been going on for 18 months.

It is likely to be ending soon, as I cannot find someone to discuss these issues that is capable and willing to address the issues being discussed in a straight forward and reasonable fair manner.

Feel free however to join in whenever you wish.

I agree with most atheists in one point however.

God is not likely to spend His time helping one team win over another. All teams have some Christian players and Christian fans, and they all want to win.

Gramps.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
You made the claim for Rome You needed to prove it

Play fair?

You made claims and showed no proof.

You make general statements in regard to Rome and don't support them.

You refuse to analyze your position by showing how each claim for Rome and the popes fit the details in the text.

Play fair?

Follow debate rules?

I wish you would when asked to show your proof and details.

Your claim that Rome fits is essential to your argument. You make general claims and refuse to show how they fit beyond a general way.

 

gramster wrote:

I would have gotten to Rome, the Popes, and the Powers of Western Europe long ago, if you had simply played fair, and followed reasonable rules for debating. 

You went through your presentation one chapter at a time. The first go through you didn't present the details in how Rome fit.

It is there you should have put up the supposed detailed evidence how each verse fit Rome and the popes.

You didn't.

The 2nd go through in your summaries, you still didn't present your detailed explanation.

You made claims and brought nothing forward to show they relate.

IOW, as related to your comparison to a court case, you made many charges and presented nothing at all related to them.

A court would dismiss the case.

It was on you as the one making the claim or the charge to bring forth proof.

You have not.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Circular Reasoning and Common Sense

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Play fair?

You made claims and showed no proof.

You make general statements in regard to Rome and don't support them.

You refuse to analyze your position by showing how each claim for Rome and the popes fit the details in the text.

Play fair?

Follow debate rules?

I wish you would when asked to show your proof and details.

Your claim that Rome fits is essential to your argument. You make general claims and refuse to show how they fit beyond a general way.

 

gramster wrote:

I would have gotten to Rome, the Popes, and the Powers of Western Europe long ago, if you had simply played fair, and followed reasonable rules for debating. 

You went through your presentation one chapter at a time. The first go through you didn't present the details in how Rome fit.

It is there you should have put up the supposed detailed evidence how each verse fit Rome and the popes.

You didn't.

The 2nd go through in your summaries, you still didn't present your detailed explanation.

You made claims and brought nothing forward to show they relate.

IOW, as related to your comparison to a court case, you made many charges and presented nothing at all related to them.

A court would dismiss the case.

It was on you as the one making the claim or the charge to bring forth proof.

You have not.

What would be the point of my trying to discuss the more complicated later chapters in Daniel with someone who is incapable of actually discussing the text, and addressing my arguments without injecting circular reasoning at every step along the way?

What would be the point of continuing to try to have a rational discussion with someone who even argues against the need for an interpretation to make sense.

I have demonstrated how the earlier chapters point to Rome as the 4th power. I have demonstrated the problems with trying to make them fit AE IV. And what do I get in response? Dodging of the arguments and issues, and repeated insistence upon the injection of circular reasoning in attempts to distract from the issues under discussion.

The earlier building blocks are necessary in proper interpretation of the later chapters.

I can clearly demonstrate to a reasonable and intellegent human being who actually believes in using their God given common sense that the book of Daniel portrays history down through the ages well past any possible date of authorship.

I cannot "prove" anything about anything to a "skeptic", because they do not "play fair". They do not believe in or use "common sense". And they will dismiss anything that points to or validates God without first examining the evidence.

I have come to this site for more than one reason. One purpose was to find out just what kind of arguments atheists actually have, and how they think. We'll I guess I have gotten my answer.

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Play fair?

You made claims and showed no proof.

You make general statements in regard to Rome and don't support them.

You refuse to analyze your position by showing how each claim for Rome and the popes fit the details in the text.

Play fair?

Follow debate rules?

I wish you would when asked to show your proof and details.

Your claim that Rome fits is essential to your argument. You make general claims and refuse to show how they fit beyond a general way.

 

gramster wrote:

I would have gotten to Rome, the Popes, and the Powers of Western Europe long ago, if you had simply played fair, and followed reasonable rules for debating. 

You went through your presentation one chapter at a time. The first go through you didn't present the details in how Rome fit.

It is there you should have put up the supposed detailed evidence how each verse fit Rome and the popes.

You didn't.

The 2nd go through in your summaries, you still didn't present your detailed explanation.

You made claims and brought nothing forward to show they relate.

IOW, as related to your comparison to a court case, you made many charges and presented nothing at all related to them.

A court would dismiss the case.

It was on you as the one making the claim or the charge to bring forth proof.

You have not.

What would be the point of my trying to discuss the more complicated later chapters in Daniel with someone who is incapable of actually discussing the text, and addressing my arguments without injecting circular reasoning at every step along the way?

What would be the point of continuing to try to have a rational discussion with someone who even argues against the need for an interpretation to make sense.

I have demonstrated how the earlier chapters point to Rome as the 4th power. I have demonstrated the problems with trying to make them fit AE IV. And what do I get in response? Dodging of the arguments and issues, and repeated insistence upon the injection of circular reasoning in attempts to distract from the issues under discussion.

The earlier building blocks are necessary in proper interpretation of the later chapters.

I can clearly demonstrate to a reasonable and intellegent human being who actually believes in using their God given common sense that the book of Daniel portrays history down through the ages well past any possible date of authorship.

I cannot "prove" anything about anything to a "skeptic", because they do not "play fair". They do not believe in or use "common sense". And they will dismiss anything that points to or validates God without first examining the evidence.

I have come to this site for more than one reason. One purpose was to find out just what kind of arguments atheists actually have, and how they think. We'll I guess I have gotten my answer.

 

People are not blind to your dodging throughout this thread.

Nothing is as complicated as you have tried to make it.

I originally allowed you to make your argument on Daniel and told you I would critique what you presented.

Do you remember that?

I went further and detailed from my perception what I saw as well as major scholars who have studied Daniel.

You have asserted that the earlier chapters point to Rome. I showed you holes in it that you won't address.

I showed how it fits Antiochus IV.

If by early building blocks you refer to the Yahweh beliefs in the early parts of the Hebrew Bible you may be right. If one buys into that storytelling, the rest may come easy.

Or not as Jews don't accept it your way either.

If you mean by this ch 2, 7, and 8, your failure to observe independent of you Jesus belief blinded you to what was really presented in the text.

And Gramps, making insinuations that a "God given" anything is rather pointless as I don't buy that your god exists, so how could a god of fantasy give anything.

You have once again proven how a theist thinks and reasons.

I take it you have decided to call it quits on this discussion.

No problem, it has been beat to pieces sufficiently.

I wish you well in your endeavors.

Live long and prosper Gramps.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Paul John Quits

It appears that Paul John is unwilling to discuss the Book of Daniel, or probably any other subject without being allowed to inject circular reasoning consistently into the discussion.

It also appears that is the only way that he can keep from having to face the obvious. Otherwise he would not have to revert to such dishonest debating practices.

It is very sad that he has made this choice. I would have enjoyed havingg this discussion with someone with his knowledge base if they were interested in fair and reasonable debating practices.

Since Paul John seems to be the best this site has to offer. And since he is incapable of disputing my claims without injecting circular reasoning, and other deceptive practices, I must conclude that there remains no viable alternative to my original assertion.

That being that the Book of Daniel is indeed just what it claims to be. It is prophecy written well before the events foretold.

On this site I have not "proved" definitively that. What I have proved is that nobody on this site is capable of demonstrating otherwise. No one on this site has been capable of coming up with a reasonable argument against my original claims.

What I consider to be a reasonable argument is one that "makes sense", and does not use "circular reasoning" in attempts to deceive the reader.

Gramps

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Paul John Quits

It appears that Paul John is unwilling to discuss the Book of Daniel, or probably any other subject without being allowed to inject circular reasoning consistently into the discussion.

It also appears that is the only way that he can keep from having to face the obvious. Otherwise he would not have to revert to such dishonest debating practices.

It is very sad that he has made this choice. I would have enjoyed havingg this discussion with someone with his knowledge base if they were interested in fair and reasonable debating practices.

Since Paul John seems to be the best this site has to offer. And since he is incapable of disputing my claims without injecting circular reasoning, and other deceptive practices, I must conclude that there remains no viable alternative to my original assertion.

That being that the Book of Daniel is indeed just what it claims to be. It is prophecy written well before the events foretold.

On this site I have not "proved" definitively that. What I have proved is that nobody on this site is capable of demonstrating otherwise. No one on this site has been capable of coming up with a reasonable argument against my original claims.

What I consider to be a reasonable argument is one that "makes sense", and does not use "circular reasoning" in attempts to deceive the reader.

Gramps

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Not so fast Gramps

You need to stop strutting in the arena.

You seem to have indicated you were done by saying:

Gramps wrote:
What would be the point of my trying to discuss the more complicated later chapters in Daniel with someone who is incapable of actually discussing the text, and addressing my arguments without injecting circular reasoning at every step along the way?

And:

gramps wrote:
What would be the point of continuing to try to have a rational discussion with someone who even argues against the need for an interpretation to make sense.

That your interpretation does not make sense may be a sign that you are in error. How can one know for sure what exactly supports your Rome theory if you won't bring the evidence forward to substantiate it.

I understand you don't see my interpretation as making sense. It goes against what you wish to believe. Even though I supported it with scholars that have far more expertise than either of us; that it actually fits the text; that you have never done so in regard to the questions and critique of your Roman theory claim; and continue to insist I capitulate to you on issues to which you don't agree with simply because you don't like the result it would seem;  and are incapable it would seem to provide evidence for your view in any event.

 

And this appeared to be you giving up:

gramps wrote:
I have come to this site for more than one reason. One purpose was to find out just what kind of arguments atheists actually have, and how they think. We'll I guess I have gotten my answer.

So being the courteous person that I am I said:

PJTS wrote:

I take it you have decided to call it quits on this discussion.

No problem, it has been beat to pieces sufficiently.

I wish you well in your endeavors.

Live long and prosper Gramps.

If you wish to continue I will do so. This was not me calling it quits. this was me being courteous to you.

 

 

gramster wrote:

It appears that Paul John is unwilling to discuss the Book of Daniel, or probably any other subject without being allowed to inject circular reasoning consistently into the discussion.

Your own the rights to circular reasoning. It is found throughout your arguments.

gramster wrote:

It also appears that is the only way that he can keep from having to face the obvious.

This is a case of you projecting your own failure.

gramster wrote:

Otherwise he would not have to revert to such dishonest debating practices.

When did I ever agree to a debate?

I agreed to critique your interpretation.

I agreed to a discussion.

gramster wrote:

It is very sad that he has made this choice. I would have enjoyed havingg this discussion with someone with his knowledge base if they were interested in fair and reasonable debating practices.

Once more you delve into projection and misrepresentation.

gramster wrote:

Since Paul John seems to be the best this site has to offer. And since he is incapable of disputing my claims without injecting circular reasoning, and other deceptive practices, I must conclude that there remains no viable alternative to my original assertion.

I'd never claim to be the best this site has to offer.

You are welcome to your self deception that your original assertion is viable. The Earth is flat.

gramster wrote:

That being that the Book of Daniel is indeed just what it claims to be. It is prophecy written well before the events foretold.

On this site I have not "proved" definitively that.

 

No you haven't proven anything, yet you are doing victory laps.

gramster wrote:

What I have proved is that nobody on this site is capable of demonstrating otherwise. No one on this site has been capable of coming up with a reasonable argument against my original claims.

You have proved the extent a believer will go to in justifying their self deception.

That No one else has bothered with you does not equate to no one is capable of destroying your self deceiving arguments.

gramster wrote:

What I consider to be a reasonable argument is one that "makes sense", and does not use "circular reasoning" in attempts to deceive the reader.

Gramps

What makes sense to a believer is not necessarily in the realm of reality.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Part of the Problem I have with you is Hebrew & Aramaic

I hope you are aware that Daniel 2 - 7 were not originally written in Hebrew, but were written in Aramaic.

When you use Strong's to get meanings in these chapters you may not be getting the original intent of the writer, but the interpreted understanding of the translator who translated the Aramaic in to Hebrew.

Worse yet, it may be the Aramaic was translated first into Greek and then into Hebrew.

There are major differences in the MT text and the LXX. This has been discussed for years. Some of them change the entire meaning of the text in question.

 

So exactly how useful is Strong's in these cases? Not much.

The 4 winds question comes from chapter 8, supposedly written in Hebrew.

Apparently this is a major platform in your basis of construction so you can bring in Rome. Though you still have a plethora of problems to address.

 

 Here's a link to a very good refutation of your 4 winds misunderstanding that you use from Shea the SDA scholar - http://www.babylonforsaken.com/Hebrew.html

The following is a quote from it:

Is Daniel 8's Horn from Italy wrote:

In Hebrew, words can be feminine, masculine, or neutral. In Dan. 8:9, the word "them" is masculine. Since "horns" is feminine, and "winds" can be either masculine or feminine, SDA scholars have suggested the word "them" must refer to "winds". And they fervently contend, that the little horn arose out of one of the four winds, separate from the Grecian Kingdom. 

...rip...

 

Does Daniel 8:8 even use the word “Horns”?

Daniel 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

....rip....

 

The actual Hebrew uses the term  “four chazuwth” or four ‘appearances’, the word horns is “qeren” in the Hebrew and it is not used in reference to the four divisions. Chazuwth is the word that Daniel uses and it is a neutral word, this simply means the word ‘them’ could easily refer to the “Chazuwth”.

Also we must consider that the word "one" in Daniel 8:9 is feminine which would seem to link it back to the feminine "horns". Therefore, if we were to look only at linguistics, we cannot determine for certainty whether the little horn arose from the winds or the other horn; thus the reader would have to rely upon the context.

....rip....

The context teaches that it does not matter if the verse read “And out of one of the four winds came forth a little horn” or “And out of one of the four notable ones came forth a little horn”: Because it does not change the fact that the horn from littleness rose from one of the four Grecian provinces. Let me explain: The prophecy of Daniel 8 clearly teaches that at the death of the first king of Greece, the empire would be divided toward the four winds (in four directions); which simply means there would be a northern province, a southern province, an eastern province and a western province. And of course the prophecy was fulfilled exactly; After the death of Alexander, Greece was divided among his four generals. Ptolemy, began a dynasty in Egypt (South); and Seleucus did the same in Syria (North).  Lycemicus took over Asia Minor (east) and Cassander took Mesopotamia (West). 

Instead of referring to these provinces by name Daniel refers to them by their wind or direction. For example he refers to Syria and Egypt as the North and South in the following verses.

Daniel 11:4-6  "And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven… Also the king of the South shall become strong… the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement… The SDA Bible commentary will also agree that the ‘North’ is Syria, and the South is Egypt in these verses.  Thus we see that out of one of the four winds, would mean the same thing as out of one of the four horns; which would simply mean out of one of the four provinces of Greece.

This is essentially what Cowles and Driver also indicated that you ignored.

Perhaps this can help you see your plank is on sand and sinking.

 

 

 

 

gramster wrote:

 

I am going back to the earliest source available. Strong's is considered universally among language scholars to be a good and reliable source. If you have a better one please let me know. If you have any reputable source of information that casts doubt on the reliability or accuracy of Strong's please let me know.

 

 

Part of what I have tried to get across to you is that it is not clear and concise what we have today is anything like what may have been originally written.

I'm aware that the text was not written in modern English.

But it all was not written in Hebrew either. This creates problems especially in chapters 2 to 7 which were in Aramaic as the original language according to the best understanding of the experts.

But you would have it that all can be deciphered using just the Hebrew and the use of Strong's.

Use some of that common sense you claim to have to consider how that is not likely to result in something clear and concise.

See this book for some understanding of the differences - Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel by TJ Meadowcroft

An interesting article by R Glen Wooden titled "Changing Perceptions of Daniel: Reading chapter 4 and 5 in Context -

I  may have previously mentioned this article but here is a PDF and a link to it-  http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/Wooden_Changing.pdf

 You of course can keep claiming I don't play fair if you want, but your circular reasoning you deny that you do keeps coming up over and over. I at least give you interesting links and books to read whether or not you do.

I'm clearly convinced that the god of the Yahweh is a man-made god, you knew this coming into this discussion and critique. I have many reasons for this far beyond the not so clear and concise Book of Daniel. I have hardly discussed those in this thread at all, as it would be a very large sidetrack.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: Is the world an encoded world ?

I am curious if the Book of Revelation and the book of Daniel can be harmonized ?

 

Hi Gramps  I have a horrible cold, not knowing why I came over.  It makes it hard to think. From what I see, I feel you are getting battered and bruised. Can I ask a honestly kinder and gentler question ? A bit self-indulgent, maybe your empathic nature will allow it ?  No?  I am curious if the Book of Revelation and the book of Daniel can be harmonized ? I admitted ask this due to the fact you wish to speak on the book of Daniel which narrows the subject matter to a ridiculous tiny amount to information.

 Wanting to know the future is a very old desire. . The problem with man is he is 'too cleaver'. We all must be on guard against seeing patterns in things that might not be so.      Shermer defines patternicity as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise." The Believing Brain thesis also says that we have "the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency", Biblical texts contain a knowledge originally not spoken of outside of very limited circles. So, I dont think you know what a departure this thread is to most of the rest of the forum. Can you answer me in suggesting your thinking on what I posed to you. Whatever .. Thank you.  Oh, Do not forget my questions about the books .

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

 Wanting to know the future is a very old desire. . The problem with man is he is 'too cleaver'. We all must be on guard against seeing patterns in things that might not be so.      Shermer defines patternicity as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise." The Believing Brain thesis also says that we have "the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency" ...

Hey!  A fellow Shermer buff.  I haven't gotten around to The Believing Brain yet.  I saw a few of his lectures about it on YouTube.  He said that high dopamine levels have been linked to patternicity.  (You probably already knew that.)  It makes sense; people with schizophrenia have really high dopamine levels and people with Parkinson's have really low levels. 

I'm not saying gramps is schizophrenic, it's probably a normal case of human patternicity.  It happens to all of us.

====

By the way, Shermer's book The Science of Good & Evil started me down the path to atheism.  I was a Christian when I read it and was mad when he said he was an agnostic nontheist, and that there was probably a 2% chance that God exists.  Then I read How We Believe and that made me agnostic.  The atheism came a few years later.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel and Revelation

danatemporary wrote:

I am curious if the Book of Revelation and the book of Daniel can be harmonized ?

 

Hi Gramps  I have a horrible cold, not knowing why I came over.  It makes it hard to think. From what I see, I feel you are getting battered and bruised. Can I ask a honestly kinder and gentler question ? A bit self-indulgent, maybe your empathic nature will allow it ?  No?  I am curious if the Book of Revelation and the book of Daniel can be harmonized ? I admitted ask this due to the fact you wish to speak on the book of Daniel which narrows the subject matter to a ridiculous tiny amount to information.

 Wanting to know the future is a very old desire. . The problem with man is he is 'too cleaver'. We all must be on guard against seeing patterns in things that might not be so.      Shermer defines patternicity as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise." The Believing Brain thesis also says that we have "the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency", Biblical texts contain a knowledge originally not spoken of outside of very limited circles. So, I dont think you know what a departure this thread is to most of the rest of the forum. Can you answer me in suggesting your thinking on what I posed to you. Whatever .. Thank you.  Oh, Do not forget my questions about the books .

 

Hi Dana

You are right. Daniel and Revelation are interrelated and should be studied together. The relationship between the two books gives further evidence of divine inspiration.

I would like to do this. If I were discussing this with someone who could stick to the subjects at hand, and would do so in a direct and logical manner, I would. Unfortunately even the most basic and straight forward points I have to spend a great deal of unnecessary time on.

For example, if I point out how accurately the text fits the bible character of Jesus, instead of discussing if that is correct Paul John wants to side track into a whole new and complex discussion on the Jesus issue. He could, for the sake of argument, state that he does not believe in the biblical Jesus, but will discuss whether or not the text could actually apply to him whether he be fictional or real.

Every point we discuss is turned into a side trail or circus. I do not believe it would be possible to discuss both books in a logical or reasonable manner. It is likely not possible to do so with just Daniel alone, but I will make another attempt to do so. 

As for Shermer. He brings up a point that is obvious but does not necessarily apply to every situation. When evaluating ones beliefs it is good to keep things like this in mind. Otherwise one will easily fall into this trap. I know of several people I can think of right now who easily get caught up in "paternicity" and find patterns in everything. Both Christians and non Christians tend to do this.

Thanks for your questions.

Gramps


ntrl86
Posts: 6
Joined: 2012-01-23
User is offlineOffline
When the Books of the Bible were written

 Can we discuss the dates that the gospels of the bible were written and how that corresponds with how accurate third hand accounts of what happened can be? Or could we address the similarities of the stories of the bible to other books of faith written centuries before the bible was ever thought of?