Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.

Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.

 


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

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
    Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt ( Adam ) and a human rib ( Eve ) ?  If not why give credence to this equally ludicrous origin of humanity ?  
 yes..........list your own constituents.........you'll soon get the idea. 

  

Quote:
Following biblical tradition, have paleontologists discovered any human skeletons of "pre-flood" era that would verify the people were living hundreds and hundreds of years ( ie, Methuselah, 900+ years ) as part of their typical life span ?   Any forensic discoveries that have verified this utterly biblical assertion ?

The British Museum stores are stacked with 'em.

It's also stacked with evidence of an Egyptian civilization that, according to the Bible, should have been underwater.

"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
Atheist

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.

Possibly.

However, that's not what freeminer is doing.

Personally, I think "lack of belief in any gods" precludes "I'm a Christian but I still have questions".

I realize that Christianity doesn't like people asking questions but I wouldn't kick people out if they did. Shame on you if you would.

 

No, of course Christianity wouldn't kick someone out for doubting. But according to the creators of this site, one could by their definition be a Christian Atheist. I believe they did this to win "converts" by default and thus deserve to have that definition "mocked".


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.

Possibly.

However, that's not what freeminer is doing.

Personally, I think "lack of belief in any gods" precludes "I'm a Christian but I still have questions".

I realize that Christianity doesn't like people asking questions but I wouldn't kick people out if they did. Shame on you if you would.

 

No, of course Christianity wouldn't kick someone out for doubting. But according to the creators of this site, one could by their definition be a Christian Atheist. I believe they did this to win "converts" by default and thus deserve to have that definition "mocked".

Are you getting hung up on agnostic v. atheist?

Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism.

I think that agnostic atheist and agnostic theist are the extremes of the scale. I don't believe anyone can really know for sure one way or the other.

Knowledge eliminates the need for belief. It can also be articulated so it is understood by all.

"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
China and the West...

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for" class="xref">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of" class="xref">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And" class="xref">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And" class="xref">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22" class="xref">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation," class="xref">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—" class="xref">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction" class="xref">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does," class="xref">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25" class="xref">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind" class="xref">(BI) he shall become great." class="xref">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he" class="xref">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of" class="xref">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told" class="xref">(BM) is true, but" class="xref">(BN) seal up the vision," class="xref">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation,">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does,">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind">(BI) he shall become great.">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told">(BM) is true, but">(BN) seal up the vision,">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

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


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for" class="xref">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of" class="xref">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And" class="xref">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And" class="xref">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22" class="xref">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation," class="xref">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—" class="xref">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction" class="xref">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does," class="xref">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25" class="xref">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind" class="xref">(BI) he shall become great." class="xref">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he" class="xref">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of" class="xref">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told" class="xref">(BM) is true, but" class="xref">(BN) seal up the vision," class="xref">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Still waiting for you to even attempt its use.

gramster wrote:

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational.

Are you suggesting the god of the Jews had no idea there was more to the world?

gramster wrote:

Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson.

If these "prophecies " are only relevant to the Jews, then it is inappropriate to stretch them to include the rest of the world and try to puzzle piece fit them to the "end times" or latter days which include it. 

If you attempt to interpolate these "prophecies" to include the rest of the world outside of the world of the Jews later on as in the "end times" you do so in contradiction to your stated assumption they only apply to the Jews.

gramster wrote:

Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Making excuses for your god's inadequacies now?

Funny the Hindus managed to hand down extremely long versions of their stories.

gramster wrote:

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

If the rest of the world isn't in these prophecies, how can you suddenly conclude they should be and stretch it to include the rest of the world in the end times scenario it supposedly sets up?

Are you being inconsistent in order to promote your interpretation?

gramster wrote:

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Have I made comments in regards to your level of intelligence? When you start name calling it doesn't help your case. Do you throw out courtesy suddenly when you have no answer and resort to desperate statements?
 

Yes or no, do you construe these Daniel prophecies to set up the "end times" scenario that includes all 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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Fine, I'll just reply to you

Fine, I'll just reply to you the same way and let you sift through the maze too. I was hoping you'd want to try to be a bit more organized, but that's too much to ask I guess.

Quote:

 

you can always tell when you nail an atheist because he starts whining about irrelevancies, trying to create diversions and looking for an escape route!

Does this mean we won't be treated to your own paradigms backed by "evidence"? What a shame! I'm sure gramps was looking forward to it as much as I was.

Quote:
My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country.

the other thing the atheist does is to flail around using terms like "goat herders", "insignificant", "bronze age" "ignorant" and "illiterate".........in short, they suddenly develop an inexplicable enthusiasm for demonstrating their own ignorance of history! You probably haven't noticed, but the world doesn't currently regard Israel as "an insignificant country"! This is just as well since it is presently engaged in an attempt [as prophesied - I can give references] to "divide the land". This process has implications because unfortunately God has a territorial side to him and has voiced certain objections which those purporting to do it don't appear to have noticed.

No, it just means you'll have to sift through the maze yourself.

Actually, I do recognize they also were a major center for olive oil production as well.

Who has more nuclear weapons today, China or Israel?

If you think the State of Israel of today has any resemblance to the land mentioned in the ancient writing you are quoting you are mistaken.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride.

ok, we could take a serious look at the "scam" hypothesis, since the OT is claimed to be the history of the Jewish nation. Let's start by establishing the detail of your idea. Are you saying Jews have no genuine history at all or that only 'bits' are true? I think we need you to delineate "the scam" before we start. Presumably Moses is your prime suspect..........it would be good to nail him because Jesus said, "if you don't believe the words of Moses, how will you believe my words?" Presumably Joshua and all the subsequent judges of Israel were in on this as well ! So they were all liars to a man, whether or not they were Levites and had anything to gain! So, huge swathes [at least] of Jewish history are fabrication and they couldn't find one honest cove [like your good self] to challenge the deluded nation! Please set out your argument.

Please feel free to support from secular sources (meaning other than the Bible)  the Moses' stories and all the details. You did mention you believe in all the "fun things".

Please also show that Ezra didn't do for the Jews as Homer did for the Greeks.

Quote:

Quote:
My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance.

you see?..........I just knew the word "ignorance" would crop up before very long! It would appear that Daniel evinced certain administrative skills since he was apparently trusted in this role. A reasonable inference would be that he possessed an average or above level of intelligence. "Ignorance" is about knowledge. The theme of the book is that God gave Daniel certain knowledge which we wouldn't possess otherwise. The claim is that it does indeed encompass more than the immediate events around Babylon; that it covers events up to the present day and beyond which affect all mankind. I thought it was the very scope claimed which is at the heart of your objection!

Daniel probably also had ignorance in regard to the masking of substrates in multiple layer ICs. So, yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge to properly design a custom hybrid IC. And yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge in regard to what the "entire world" encompassed.

You and Gramps have taken the position that the prophecies of Daniel were aimed at the Jews. That being so, interpolating them to include the rsst of the world for the "end times" is unrealistic as events elsewhere in history are ignored as they aren't pertinent to the Jews. But suddenly y'all want to apply the prophecies to include all the world after y'all claim it is only for the Jews. Apparently the rest of the world is just pawns to be used by the god.

Quote:

Quote:
If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out.

ah! "ancient"..........yes, I forgot that.......yes, along with "fable"... ....that's another. Atheists seem to exist on a diet of cliches. I thought the purpose of the exercise was, by the application of the "rationality" so much vaunted on this site, to elucidate who is being "scammed" and by whom. However, such reasoning powers as you possessed appear  to have formed a gelatinous blob on the floor.

In the above case I refer to the larger group of the people who followed the lead of the priests. It can also be said of the ancient pagans that consided Zeus, Enki, Ra, or Odin as gods. Though the Vikings weren't "goat herders".

Quote:

 

Quote:
Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless.

did you know that the last words of every deluded fool disappearing into Hell are, "I consider"? I think both you and I would be unable to prove the precise extent of Daniel's geographical knowledge. My own opinion, based on a Biblical take on anthropology, is that knowledge was far more extensive than is given credit for. However, you appear not to have grasped the nature of the book. Firstly, the Biblical claim is not that these are Daniel's ideas but were given by God. You might at least have the sense to assess it on the basis of the actual claim it makes rather than claims you make up for it. Secondly, the prophecies were, as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel. I'm sorry that it doesn't fulfill your appetite for things Chinese but that's because China doesn't have a role until the 'last days' and we haven't got there yet.

Preaching gets no answer.

Again, taking prophecies of the Jews, that in your words " as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel." then using them to include the rest of the world which is ignored in the assumption is inappropriate. It assumes the rest of the world was of no importance until the "end times" when they are used to fufill the "god's" desires.

 

Quote:

Quote:
If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

we await the elucidation of your "scam" case. The vastness of the earth is indeed included.

Funny, I missed it in Daniel, but wait you said it wasn't included, "as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel."

 

 

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

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


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.

Possibly.

However, that's not what freeminer is doing.

Personally, I think "lack of belief in any gods" precludes "I'm a Christian but I still have questions".

I realize that Christianity doesn't like people asking questions but I wouldn't kick people out if they did. Shame on you if you would.

 

No, of course Christianity wouldn't kick someone out for doubting.

Well maybe not currently, but the Church did burn, torture or otherwise dispose of anyone in the past that doubted the "true doctrine" of the "Church".

Oh yeah, that was the Catholics, they clearly weren't Christian like you were they?

And of course, the Church never did torture, burn or execute anyone, it was the secular authoriities that did, right?

gramster wrote:

But according to the creators of this site, one could by their definition be a Christian Atheist. I believe they did this to win "converts" by default and thus deserve to have that definition "mocked".

You had a personal interview with one of the founders of RRS?

Please detail that conversation.

Otherwise, what is posted on this site under this thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

suggests that is not so.

Am I agnostic or atheist wrote:

 

 

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition

 

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

  1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
  2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
  3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
  4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In the above case I refer to the larger group of the people who followed the lead of the priests. It can also be said of the ancient pagans that consided Zeus, Enki, Ra, or Odin as gods. Though the Vikings weren't "goat herders".

 

You could stretch the point......

 

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/Villages.htm wrote:

Other livestock raised on Viking age farms included goats and pigs. Goats could be grazed year round in areas of brushwood, but evidence from Hofstaðir suggests that goats were penned and fed high quality fodder. Goats were kept for their milk and their meat.

 

But it is a stretch since cattle were their livestock of choice.

I was the one who probably started the goat herder thing.  It was not intended as a put down, but rather a statement of reality.  Olive, onion, grain and grape farmers, goat herders, my point was this society could not understand geology, ecology, evolution, astronomy, genetics, physics, chemistry, and all the other pieces that make up our understanding of the world.  They didn't have the tools - microscopes, telescopes mounted on satellites, and so on and so forth. 

God: "Hey Joshua, I want you to write the history of my creation.  13 billion years ago..."

Joshua: "Excuse me.  How many is a billion?"

God: "Never mind.  I started with abiogenesis and created proteins, RNA, DNA, prions, viruses, then bacteria...."

Joshua: "Excuse me.  What?"

God:  "Never mind.  I created the heavens and earth in six days.  Okay?"

Joshua: "Got it."

It's not that Joshua was stupid or that he was unsophisticated or uneducated for his time.  But when discussing what the bible says, what it means, we need to never forget what was known in that time and place about the world around them.  And to never assume that what was an adequate explanation of the world for those farmers and goat herders can be applied to our world today.  There may be bits that are applicable, there may be some that has some vague connection to history.  You may find some of the passages comforting or beautiful.  But the people who wrote the bible had no idea of the real size of their world and basic science.  And that goes for the New Testament as well as the old.

-- 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.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's not that Joshua

Quote:
It's not that Joshua was stupid or that he was unsophisticated or uneducated for his time.  But when discussing what the bible says, what it means, we need to never forget what was known in that time and place about the world around them.  And to never assume that what was an adequate explanation of the world for those farmers and goat herders can be applied to our world today.  There may be bits that are applicable, there may be some that has some vague connection to history.  You may find some of the passages comforting or beautiful.  But the people who wrote the bible had no idea of the real size of their world and basic science.  And that goes for the New Testament as well as the old.

the "goat- herder" thing is common across forums. The Bible does not set out to be a scientific text book. Why would it? It deals with the totality of human experience ......something atheists conspicuously avoid when they come on forums. The issue is whether it is accurate when it touches on those things which science is concerned with. Thus you must make up your own mind how those goat-herders knew about the 'fountains of the deep' or the 'circle of the earth' or that God, 'stretched out the heavens like fabric'.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:with evidence of an

Quote:
with evidence of an Egyptian civilization that, according to the Bible, should have been underwater.

back this with evidence.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Fine, I'll just reply

Quote:

Fine, I'll just reply to you the same way and let you sift through the maze too. I was hoping you'd want to try to be a bit more organized, but that's too much to ask I guess.

 I have replied to pertinent points in order. We await your scenarios.

Does this mean we won't be treated to your own paradigms backed by "evidence"? What a shame! I'm sure gramps was looking forward to it as much as I was.

Quote:
sift through the maze yourself.

well gramps and I are gonna be really glum if you aren't forthcoming!

Quote:
Actually, I do recognize they also were a major center for olive oil production as well.

Who has more nuclear weapons today, China or Israel?

what has this got to do with the price of eggs? We all have enough.......and anyway Israel doesn't have any.......remember?!

 

Quote:
If you think the State of Israel of today has any resemblance to the land mentioned in the ancient writing you are quoting you are mistaken.

did I even imply this?..........do you have reason to suspect that God isn't up to speed?

 

Quote:
 Please feel free to support from secular sources (meaning other than the Bible)  the Moses' stories and all the details. You did mention you believe in all the "fun things".

please feel free to explain on what rational basis you draw a dichotomy between Biblical and other history.

Quote:
Please also show that Ezra didn't do for the Jews as Homer did for the Greeks.
please show that Homer existed.

 

isn't Ezra a bit late for you to start propping up your thesis? Do you mean Ezra wrote a fictional history and no-one noticed? Don't you think the existence of the Second Temple would have been a bit of a giveaway?!

 

Quote:
Daniel probably also had ignorance in regard to the masking of substrates in multiple layer ICs. So, yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge to properly design a custom hybrid IC. And yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge in regard to what the "entire world" encompassed.

aaah!..........so to you everyone is "ignorant" who is not also omniscient! And where do you stand in all this?! Do we have reason to think that Daniel's world encompassed any ICs?..........don't you think the abacus might have fallen out of favour?!

4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

Quote:
You and Gramps have taken the position that the prophecies of Daniel were aimed at the Jews.

no we haven't. I used the word "initially" 

Quote:
That being so, interpolating them to include the rsst of the world for the "end times" is unrealistic as events elsewhere in history are ignored as they aren't pertinent to the Jews.

except that the Bible itself tells you that prophecy has the end times in view.

 

Quote:
But suddenly y'all want to apply the prophecies to include all the world after y'all claim it is only for the Jews.

where did either of us claim this? 

Quote:
Apparently the rest of the world is just pawns to be used by the god.

no, you have a choice........remember?

Quote:
If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out.

 

Quote:
In the above case I refer to the larger group of the people who followed the lead of the priests. It can also be said of the ancient pagans that consided Zeus, Enki, Ra, or Odin as gods. Though the Vikings weren't "goat herders".

except that you use the term as an attempted put down. You see God doesn't deride our sophistication, he just has no particular reason to be overly impressed.

 

Quote:
Preaching gets no answer.

neither does reasoned argument apparently!

Quote:
Again, taking prophecies of the Jews, that in your words " as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel." then using them to include the rest of the world which is ignored in the assumption is inappropriate. It assumes the rest of the world was of no importance until the "end times" when they are used to fufill the "god's" desires.

 

God used a nation of his choosing to bring the opportunity of salvation to a world which had alienated itself from him. Sorry that doesn't seem inclusive to you.

Quote:

we await the elucidation of your "scam" case. The vastness of the earth is indeed included.

Funny, I missed it in Daniel, but wait you said it wasn't included, "as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel."

well, one minute you're complaining that God used a single nation and the next you're trying to argue that the end times shouldn't include the whole world! The Bible says what it says whether we like it or not.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Oh, just looking at

Quote:
Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

for precisely the same reason you don't like the idea.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:Oh,

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

for precisely the same reason you don't like the idea.

Because Rome as the last kingdom is incorrect? Because it doesn't fit the prophecy?

Because of a reason in your head?

"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
Prophecy

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for" class="xref">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of" class="xref">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And" class="xref">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And" class="xref">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22" class="xref">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation," class="xref">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—" class="xref">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction" class="xref">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does," class="xref">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25" class="xref">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind" class="xref">(BI) he shall become great." class="xref">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he" class="xref">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of" class="xref">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told" class="xref">(BM) is true, but" class="xref">(BN) seal up the vision," class="xref">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.

Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.

Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.

As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation,">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does,">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind">(BI) he shall become great.">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told">(BM) is true, but">(BN) seal up the vision,">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Still waiting for you to even attempt its use.

gramster wrote:

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational.

Are you suggesting the god of the Jews had no idea there was more to the world?

gramster wrote:

Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson.

If these "prophecies " are only relevant to the Jews, then it is inappropriate to stretch them to include the rest of the world and try to puzzle piece fit them to the "end times" or latter days which include it. 

If you attempt to interpolate these "prophecies" to include the rest of the world outside of the world of the Jews later on as in the "end times" you do so in contradiction to your stated assumption they only apply to the Jews.

gramster wrote:

Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Making excuses for your god's inadequacies now?

Funny the Hindus managed to hand down extremely long versions of their stories.

gramster wrote:

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

If the rest of the world isn't in these prophecies, how can you suddenly conclude they should be and stretch it to include the rest of the world in the end times scenario it supposedly sets up?

Are you being inconsistent in order to promote your interpretation?

gramster wrote:

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Have I made comments in regards to your level of intelligence? When you start name calling it doesn't help your case. Do you throw out courtesy suddenly when you have no answer and resort to desperate statements?
 

Yes or no, do you construe these Daniel prophecies to set up the "end times" scenario that includes all of the world?

 

First, of course I am not suggesting that God had no knowledge about the rest of the world. I can find no logical reason why God would be revealing events in China to the Jews of the 6th or even 3rd century BC. If you have one please let me know.

As for trying to make the later prophecies include the rest of the world, I have not. Once again you are arguing with yourself. Not with me.

As for keeping these prophecies short, it just makes sense. I'm sure God knew that people like you would go way out on a limb to try to twist and distort these for their own purposes. I wouldn't suppose He would have wanted to give you more to do that with than necessary. I guess the ancient Hindus were not quite as wise as God in this respect.

Once again, how can I be inconsistent in my interpretation by saying something that I have not said?

As far as statements about intelligence, and name calling, that is simply a means of pointing out the absurdity of your argument. You know how I feel about people just "farting around" in the middle of a discussion. Nobody has disputed that the world is a very big place. So far, you are only arguing with yourself.

If you can make an intelligent case that China and the Western Hemisphere should be included in the first four kingdoms than I will offer an apology. If not we will assume you were just "farting around", and my assertions will be justified.


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for" class="xref">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of" class="xref">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And" class="xref">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And" class="xref">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22" class="xref">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation," class="xref">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—" class="xref">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction" class="xref">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does," class="xref">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25" class="xref">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind" class="xref">(BI) he shall become great." class="xref">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he" class="xref">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of" class="xref">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told" class="xref">(BM) is true, but" class="xref">(BN) seal up the vision," class="xref">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.

Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.

Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.

As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.

So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?

PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.

As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?

The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire"  are common to Christian aoplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges on your interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:the "goat-

freeminer wrote:

the "goat- herder" thing is common across forums. The Bible does not set out to be a scientific text book. Why would it? It deals with the totality of human experience ......something atheists conspicuously avoid when they come on forums. The issue is whether it is accurate when it touches on those things which science is concerned with. Thus you must make up your own mind how those goat-herders knew about the 'fountains of the deep' or the 'circle of the earth' or that God, 'stretched out the heavens like fabric'.

 

"Fountains of the deep" == wells.  In the desert, your life revolves around water - where, how much, purity.  I know, I grew up in Yuma AZ.  Google it, Yuma is real close to being as empty as the Empty Quarter.  3+ inches (8cm) of rain per year.  Of course they knew about and were knowledgeable about wells.  We have many archeological examples of wells.  Water is life.  And it is no wonder so many of the OT metaphors revolve around water.

"Circle of the earth" == curvature.  When people started going to sea, they knew the earth was a sphere.  They didn't know the exact size or geography, but they knew it was round.  How?  By watching ships sail away, gradually losing sight of first the bottom of the ship or boat, and finally the very topmost of the topmost mast.  You get the same when you travel long distances with long views.  Why do you think you can not see the Rocky Mountains from central Kansas but you can see them from west Kansas?  No one said or implied said goat herders were stupid.

"Stretched out the heavens like a fabric"? - very poetic.  What is your point?  That you can see stars from anywhere on the earth?  So?

Give me an example where the bible states some scientific fact that the people of the times could not have known.  Like the definition of a billion perhaps.  Not a statement about "many", "lots" or some other vague number, but a real concept of what 1,000,000,000 really means.  Or perhaps geologic knowledge of their area - as in did they know where to dig those wells based on evidence of underground rivers or aquifers?  Or did they just dig where ever artesian wells already surfaced?  Biology - did they know about blue-green algae and that it was what made some water poisonous?  (Hint - it is not always visible through coloration of the water.)  Did they know what was in pond scum?  Did they have a clue as to why entire tribes would come down with some illness?  Goddidit?  Not very scientific, I would say.  Though if you insist god created the viruses and bacteria that caused the illness, I guess you could stretch it there, but still not scientific.

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

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

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


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

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

Fine, I'll just reply to you the same way and let you sift through the maze too. I was hoping you'd want to try to be a bit more organized, but that's too much to ask I guess.

 I have replied to pertinent points in order. We await your scenarios.

Does this mean we won't be treated to your own paradigms backed by "evidence"? What a shame! I'm sure gramps was looking forward to it as much as I was.

Quote:
sift through the maze yourself.

well gramps and I are gonna be really glum if you aren't forthcoming!

Quote:
Actually, I do recognize they also were a major center for olive oil production as well.

Who has more nuclear weapons today, China or Israel?

what has this got to do with the price of eggs? We all have enough.......and anyway Israel doesn't have any.......remember?!

 

Quote:
If you think the State of Israel of today has any resemblance to the land mentioned in the ancient writing you are quoting you are mistaken.

did I even imply this?..........do you have reason to suspect that God isn't up to speed?

 

Quote:
 Please feel free to support from secular sources (meaning other than the Bible)  the Moses' stories and all the details. You did mention you believe in all the "fun things".

please feel free to explain on what rational basis you draw a dichotomy between Biblical and other history.

Quote:
Please also show that Ezra didn't do for the Jews as Homer did for the Greeks.
please show that Homer existed.

 

isn't Ezra a bit late for you to start propping up your thesis? Do you mean Ezra wrote a fictional history and no-one noticed? Don't you think the existence of the Second Temple would have been a bit of a giveaway?!

 

Quote:
Daniel probably also had ignorance in regard to the masking of substrates in multiple layer ICs. So, yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge to properly design a custom hybrid IC. And yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge in regard to what the "entire world" encompassed.

aaah!..........so to you everyone is "ignorant" who is not also omniscient! And where do you stand in all this?! Do we have reason to think that Daniel's world encompassed any ICs?..........don't you think the abacus might have fallen out of favour?!

4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

Quote:
You and Gramps have taken the position that the prophecies of Daniel were aimed at the Jews.

no we haven't. I used the word "initially" 

Quote:
That being so, interpolating them to include the rsst of the world for the "end times" is unrealistic as events elsewhere in history are ignored as they aren't pertinent to the Jews.

except that the Bible itself tells you that prophecy has the end times in view.

 

Quote:
But suddenly y'all want to apply the prophecies to include all the world after y'all claim it is only for the Jews.

where did either of us claim this? 

Quote:
Apparently the rest of the world is just pawns to be used by the god.

no, you have a choice........remember?

Quote:
If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out.

 

Quote:
In the above case I refer to the larger group of the people who followed the lead of the priests. It can also be said of the ancient pagans that consided Zeus, Enki, Ra, or Odin as gods. Though the Vikings weren't "goat herders".

except that you use the term as an attempted put down. You see God doesn't deride our sophistication, he just has no particular reason to be overly impressed.

 

Quote:
Preaching gets no answer.

neither does reasoned argument apparently!

Quote:
Again, taking prophecies of the Jews, that in your words " as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel." then using them to include the rest of the world which is ignored in the assumption is inappropriate. It assumes the rest of the world was of no importance until the "end times" when they are used to fufill the "god's" desires.

 

God used a nation of his choosing to bring the opportunity of salvation to a world which had alienated itself from him. Sorry that doesn't seem inclusive to you.

Quote:

we await the elucidation of your "scam" case. The vastness of the earth is indeed included.

Funny, I missed it in Daniel, but wait you said it wasn't included, "as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel."

well, one minute you're complaining that God used a single nation and the next you're trying to argue that the end times shouldn't include the whole world! The Bible says what it says whether we like it or not.

You reply to that which you choose, not necessarily pertinent points.

This thread is supposedly about Gramps dispelling common myths and such in regard to Christian beliefs. As such, it is on Gramps and you as his sidekick to prove your claimed interpretations are based in reality. It is not required I provide you an analytic theory or model  as an alternative, only that I show your basis is suspect and unrealistic. Questions in that regard have been asked and your answers are avoidance. 

Since you didn't like the goatherder label, I also mentioned their major product in the ancient world, olives.

Israel was claimed as the reason for the prophecies by you -

post 302 wrote:
 Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews - what's  it got to do with China? The significance of the empires dealt with are that they impact on the land and nationhood of Israel!

post 316 wrote:
Isaid:

 

"Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews"

ie sequentially........but also "primarily" until the Church Age.

Is there something in Daniel that suggests that these prophecies "ie sequentially.... but also primarily until the Church Age." Which I suppose means the establishment of the "Church"? So what did Daniel say about the establishment of the "Church"?

 

Then you decide to be confusing in exactly what scripture is:

post 332 wrote:
 Do you see what you've done here? You've started by presupposing that the concepts of scripture are Jewish concepts.

So, you claim the scripture is aimed "firstly" at the Jews, then you waffle and say you can't presuppose scripture are Jewish concepts. Can you make up your mind?

post 444 wrote:
 since the OT is claimed to be the history of the Jewish nation

You do say that the OT is the history of the Jews. So, what I expect is something that indicates this "history of the Jews" has any relevance to the rest of the world if it is used as "prophecy" as you claim. My problem is how do you interpolate "history of the Jews"who don't indicate any knowledge of the Western Hemisphere and the Chinese to include them in "end times" and "latter days"? One would think that the discovery of the world being far more vast with kingdoms just as powerful as Rome, even at the same time period should cause a questioning. Ignoring them as you do is your method of rationaling, which is your choice. But it is not a reasoned argument.

Reasoned arguments have not been presented by you.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that reasoned argument from you that your Yahweh is something more than a construct of man. 

There are many things in the Bible that are claimed, assuming they are true without question as you are doing once again is the problem. 

Quote:
The Bible says what it says whether we like it or 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.


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

jcgadfly wrote:

 

So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?

PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.

As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?

The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire"  are common to Christian aoplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges on your interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.

Exactly!

Gramps and the Miner both are wearing rose colored welding helmets when they look at these supposed prophecies. 

Clearly the Jews had no idea of the size of the Han Empire in China that had as large a population as Rome at its height of power. This was 1/3 of the world's population. I don't see how 1/3 of the world's population should be dismissed so easily as Gramps and the Miner do.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Reply to China

 

~ ripped~ a lot of repetative quotes

gramster wrote:

First, of course I am not suggesting that God had no knowledge about the rest of the world. I can find no logical reason why God would be revealing events in China to the Jews of the 6th or even 3rd century BC. If you have one please let me know.

As for trying to make the later prophecies include the rest of the world, I have not. Once again you are arguing with yourself. Not with me.

As for keeping these prophecies short, it just makes sense. I'm sure God knew that people like you would go way out on a limb to try to twist and distort these for their own purposes. I wouldn't suppose He would have wanted to give you more to do that with than necessary. I guess the ancient Hindus were not quite as wise as God in this respect.

Once again, how can I be inconsistent in my interpretation by saying something that I have not said?

As far as statements about intelligence, and name calling, that is simply a means of pointing out the absurdity of your argument. You know how I feel about people just "farting around" in the middle of a discussion. Nobody has disputed that the world is a very big place. So far, you are only arguing with yourself.

If you can make an intelligent case that China and the Western Hemisphere should be included in the first four kingdoms than I will offer an apology. If not we will assume you were just "farting around", and my assertions will be justified.

See previous posts, Chinese Empire of the Zhou dynasty was larger than Babylon. The Han Empire around 1 CE was equal in size and population of the Roman Empire, including 1/3 of the world's population.

If you think 1/3 of the world's population is insignificant admit it. You will be reminded of your choices at a later time.

The writing in Daniel which you have said was aimed at the Jews does not indicate any such knowledge. The OT in general does not acknowledge the world beyond the immediate area of the Jews. this is no better actually in the NT. Since Daniel makes claims about powerful empires neglecting Eastern Asia is inappropriate when they are as powerful and even more so in later times.

If you take a Jewish originated prophecy and attempt to construe it to the rest of the world, you are. 

Do you consider the Daniel prophecies to be the basis for the messiah and the claims in Revelation or not?

If you are not taking this to include the rest of the world all of us in North & South America and those in Eastern and Northern Asia, and Australia are not included at all in the "end days" mentioned and it is only the Jews and those involved with them or those inferred by you to be pertinent.

Perhaps I got ahead of you thinking you bought into the Revelation scenario and "end times". If so, and you think the "end times" are only for the limited set who are supposedly discussed in this interpolated prophecy then you are right, I'm taking this further than you. If you however take this further than the supposed characters in play in Daniel than you are discussing the rest of the world and my criticism is appropriate.

What say you?

What you may see as "farting around" may be valid objections to your interpretations.

Short prophecies have the advantage of what you are doing as well. You can stretch and twist them in your own interpretative angles.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You reply to that

Quote:
You reply to that which you choose, not necessarily pertinent points.

I am not aware of having avoided any point raised by you.......not a point on which you are able to reciprocate. This is an open debate; if you have an unanswered question, ask it.

Quote:
This thread is supposedly about Gramps dispelling common myths and such in regard to Christian beliefs. As such, it is on Gramps and you as his sidekick to prove your claimed interpretations are based in reality.

Discussion of the nature of 'reality' could open up a whole new discussion. The case has to date been history based. Given your arbitrary approach to history it is difficult to know how you relate it to "reality".

Quote:
It is not required I provide you an analytic theory or model  as an alternative,

"it is not required" by whom? Do you mean that rationality does not demand that rejection of the authenticity of Biblical prophecy does not demand some rational alternative explanation? I see no basis for such a claim. Are you able to provide one?

Quote:
only that I show your basis is suspect and unrealistic.

I thought you were the one making a plea for "neutrality"! Of course you will suspect it. This is because you are not engaged in anything even approximating to an objective search for truth but in an effort to console yourself that you are not answerable to God. Our case to date has been rooted in historical reality.  

 

Quote:
Questions in that regard have been asked and your answers are avoidance.

example please. 

Quote:
Since you didn't like the goatherder label, I also mentioned their major product in the ancient world, olives.

this is a reasonable historical extrapolation - I don't have production statistics for the period in question - what is your point?..........was it that olive production calls into question the veracity of Biblical prophecy?!

Quote:
Israel was claimed as the reason for the prophecies by you -

 Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews - what's  it got to do with China? The significance of the empires dealt with are that they impact on the land and nationhood of Israel!

post 316 wrote:
Isaid:

 

"Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews"

ie sequentially........but also "primarily" until the Church Age.

Quote:
Is there something in Daniel that suggests that these prophecies "ie sequentially.... but also primarily until the Church Age." Which I suppose means the establishment of the "Church"? So what did Daniel say about the establishment of the "Church"?

The Church was a mystery hidden from the OT patriarchs and prophets including Daniel. Daniel had as much explained to him as he needed to know. There is no indication that he was given the historical explanation I've given for example. The Church's place in  prophesy may become clearer if this discussion ever gets that far.

 

Quote:
Then you decide to be confusing in exactly what scripture is:

post 332 wrote:
 Do you see what you've done here? You've started by presupposing that the concepts of scripture are Jewish concepts.

So, you claim the scripture is aimed "firstly" at the Jews, then you waffle and say you can't presuppose scripture are Jewish concepts. Can you make up your mind?

the issue in question is the question of what the Bible is. ie. whether it is or is not the communication of the creator to his creation and thus inspired by him as it claims . The quote from post 332 above, was pointing out that you start by presupposing that it is not. That's fine, that is your prerogative, as long as you are aware that:

1] it is not very scientific of you and

2] God promises to be found by those who seek him.

 

post 444 wrote:
 since the OT is claimed to be the history of the Jewish nation

Quote:
You do say that the OT is the history of the Jews. So, what I expect is something that indicates this "history of the Jews" has any relevance to the rest of the world if it is used as "prophecy" as you claim.

the claim is that it is a history which contains prophesy, not which comprises it, of course. Well historically, I can point out that the history of the Jews has had a tremendous relevance, not only culturally but in establishing Christianity. Your question of the relevance specifically where prophecy is involved brings us to its relevance today   and in this I should defer to gramps, at least initially.

 

Quote:
My problem is how do you interpolate "history of the Jews"who don't indicate any knowledge of the Western Hemisphere and the Chinese to include them in "end times" and "latter days"? One would think that the discovery of the world being far more vast with kingdoms just as powerful as Rome, even at the same time period should cause a questioning. Ignoring them as you do is your method of rationaling, which is your choice. But it is not a reasoned argument.

no, I'm not ignoring anything, we simply haven't got around to discussion of the fourth kingdom or of timescale yet. I suggest we do so asap. The reason prophesy centres on Rome has nothing to do with size and power but relevance. Your question may as easily be applied to the USA in the modern era.......my view is that it is mentioned but only extremely obliquely and for good reason.

 

Quote:
Reasoned arguments have not been presented by you.

but you have to keep telling yourself this! On the contrary, I have given you the scholarly consensus on the dating of Daniel and an outline of the reasons for that conclusion. I then gave you my own rationale based on the known dates of the LXX. I have then backed gramps' argument with the alignment of Daniel's prophesy with history.

The sum total of your response is, "I don't believe it"!........not a very impressive rebuttal! 

 

Quote:
By the way, I'm still waiting for that reasoned argument from you that your Yahweh is something more than a construct of man.

well I rather thought that this was the point at the heart  of the whole debate! You appear to be trying to tempt me into providing you with a diversion! 

Quote:
There are many things in the Bible that are claimed, assuming they are true without question as you are doing once again is the problem.

yes, the Bible never doubts its own veracity. Would you expect it to? Do you doubt yours? You are entitled to question it just as I have to point out  where you depart from rationality. 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

So when I die, I will stop existing?

 

How is this a problem?

when we die no one ceases to exist... trust me on this... reality is so much greater than all this petty comments... 

even the most self convinced atheist will be alive and confused after his physical body faded away... I will be there to give all you guys a hug 

Almost no one would want to cease to exist.

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:"Fountains of the

 

Quote:
"Fountains of the deep" == wells.  In the desert, your life revolves around water - where, how much, purity.  I know, I grew up in Yuma AZ.  Google it, Yuma is real close to being as empty as the Empty Quarter.  3+ inches (8cm) of rain per year.  Of course they knew about and were knowledgeable about wells.  We have many archeological examples of wells.  Water is life.  And it is no wonder so many of the OT metaphors revolve around water.

you will never find wells referred to in scripture as "the deep"..........only the sea.

 

Quote:
"Circle of the earth" == curvature.  When people started going to sea, they knew the earth was a sphere.  They didn't know the exact size or geography, but they knew it was round.  How?  By watching ships sail away, gradually losing sight of first the bottom of the ship or boat, and finally the very topmost of the topmost mast.  You get the same when you travel long distances with long views.  Why do you think you can not see the Rocky Mountains from central Kansas but you can see them from west Kansas?  No one said or implied said goat herders were stupid.

on the contrary, it is implied constantly. Regarding the circle of the earth, I agree with you entirely.........and the next time an atheist tells me the Jews believed the earth is flat, I'll refer them to you. 

Quote:
"Stretched out the heavens like a fabric"? - very poetic.  What is your point?  That you can see stars from anywhere on the earth?  So?

why like fabric or like a tent?.......what's that got to do with seeing stars? Doesn't it occur to you that this is precisely our conceptual terminology?

 

Quote:
Give me an example where the bible states some scientific fact that the people of the times could not have known. 

see above.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Your still hiding under the same rock

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation,">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does,">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind">(BI) he shall become great.">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told">(BM) is true, but">(BN) seal up the vision,">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.

Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.

Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.

As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.

So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?

PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.

As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?

The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire"  are common to Christian aplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges only our interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Job 9:8

Just a quick point about Job 9:8. The passage "who alone stretches out the heavens", is present tense no-teh. This infers that God is currently stretching out the heavens. One would have thought a goat herder would have used past tense refering to creation, but that is not the case. For God to be stretching out the heavens present tense would have to mean that the universe is expanding. Now that's quite a concept for an ancient goat herder.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Answers in

Teralek wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

So when I die, I will stop existing?

 

How is this a problem?

when we die no one ceases to exist... trust me on this... reality is so much greater than all this petty comments... 

even the most self convinced atheist will be alive and confused after his physical body faded away... I will be there to give all you guys a hug 

Almost no one would want to cease to exist.

What evidence do you have to back this claim up? Really so far one should trust you on your statement without any evidence to back up your claim? Most people do not want to cease to exist, however once we die, that's it, we are dead. No soul, no afterlife, just then end of our existence.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.

Possibly.

However, that's not what freeminer is doing.

Personally, I think "lack of belief in any gods" precludes "I'm a Christian but I still have questions".

I realize that Christianity doesn't like people asking questions but I wouldn't kick people out if they did. Shame on you if you would.

 

No, of course Christianity wouldn't kick someone out for doubting.

Well maybe not currently, but the Church did burn, torture or otherwise dispose of anyone in the past that doubted the "true doctrine" of the "Church".

Oh yeah, that was the Catholics, they clearly weren't Christian like you were they?

And of course, the Church never did torture, burn or execute anyone, it was the secular authoriities that did, right?

gramster wrote:

But according to the creators of this site, one could by their definition be a Christian Atheist. I believe they did this to win "converts" by default and thus deserve to have that definition "mocked".

You had a personal interview with one of the founders of RRS?

Please detail that conversation.

Otherwise, what is posted on this site under this thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

suggests that is not so.

Am I agnostic or atheist wrote:

 

 

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition

 

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

  1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
  2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
  3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
  4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

 

 

you claim that the church (including the Catholic church) tortured, burned and executed people. Please back this claim.


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Teralek

latincanuck wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

So when I die, I will stop existing?

 

How is this a problem?

when we die no one ceases to exist... trust me on this... reality is so much greater than all this petty comments... 

even the most self convinced atheist will be alive and confused after his physical body faded away... I will be there to give all you guys a hug 

Almost no one would want to cease to exist.

What evidence do you have to back this claim up? Really so far one should trust you on your statement without any evidence to back up your claim? Most people do not want to cease to exist, however once we die, that's it, we are dead. No soul, no afterlife, just then end of our existence.

I have no hard evidence of course. If I did I would not be discussing it here. From my studies on NDE research there is substancial circumstancial evidence that something doesn't quite fit... One should at least be suspicious and sugest that more research is needed. For me the reports of the people who had NDE that don't corroborate any religious thought is evidence enough. Not to mention the fact that the circumstances envolving these experiences point to them occuring during a flat EEG.

Plus the fact that I have an inner knowledge and personal experience that indicates that life must continue somehow

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:latincanuck

Teralek wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

So when I die, I will stop existing?

 

How is this a problem?

when we die no one ceases to exist... trust me on this... reality is so much greater than all this petty comments... 

even the most self convinced atheist will be alive and confused after his physical body faded away... I will be there to give all you guys a hug 

Almost no one would want to cease to exist.

 

What evidence do you have to back this claim up? Really so far one should trust you on your statement without any evidence to back up your claim? Most people do not want to cease to exist, however once we die, that's it, we are dead. No soul, no afterlife, just then end of our existence.

I have no hard evidence of course. If I did I would not be discussing it here. From my studies on NDE research there is substancial circumstancial evidence that something doesn't quite fit... One should at least be suspicious and sugest that more research is needed. For me the reports of the people who had NDE that don't corroborate any religious thought is evidence enough. Not to mention the fact that the circumstances envolving these experiences point to them occuring during a flat EEG.

Plus the fact that I have an inner knowledge and personal experience that indicates that life must continue somehow

I say the same thing, my personal experience (being dead on the operating table for 5 minutes)_tells me there is no afterlife at all. NDE have no real evidence or ways to back up the so called test results. However the default position is no afterlife, no evidence that it occurs and no way to prove it.


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for" class="xref">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of" class="xref">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And" class="xref">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And" class="xref">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22" class="xref">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation," class="xref">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—" class="xref">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction" class="xref">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does," class="xref">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25" class="xref">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind" class="xref">(BI) he shall become great." class="xref">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he" class="xref">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of" class="xref">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told" class="xref">(BM) is true, but" class="xref">(BN) seal up the vision," class="xref">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.

Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.

Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.

As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.

So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?

PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.

As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?

The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire"  are common to Christian aplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges only our interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

The scholastic interpretation wasn't good enough - now you want my "own interpretation"?

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts, son.

My interpretation of the whole book is pretty simple. It's fiction.

What is my evidence? The fact that the same dream can be interpreted multiple ways (none, any or all of them being correct).  Starving lions aren't selective (not mauling the good guy and ripping the bad guys to shreds before they hit. Fire is not selective on what it burns.

Beyond that, i base my claim on my opinion and belief. Just like you.

So quit screaming like a little bitch, m'kay?

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


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

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You reply to that which you choose, not necessarily pertinent points.

I am not aware of having avoided any point raised by you.......~rip~ if you have an unanswered question, ask it.

Time to go back to go and detail it all for you.

Quote:

Quote:
This thread is supposedly about Gramps dispelling common myths and such in regard to Christian beliefs. As such, it is on Gramps and you as his sidekick to prove your claimed interpretations are based in reality.

....... The case has to date been history based.

What channel are you watching??

Quote:
Given your arbitrary approach to history it is difficult to know how you relate it to "reality".

Good question? Is anything real? Are you something beyond electrons? Surely my mind didn't make this up. Is it all just an adventure program gone astray?

Quote:

Quote:
It is not required I provide you an analytic theory or model  as an alternative,

"it is not required" by whom? Do you mean that rationality does not demand that rejection of the authenticity of Biblical prophecy does not demand some rational alternative explanation?

Maybe no explanation is required as a book of Sci-Fi rants is nothing more than that.

Quote:
I see no basis for such a claim.

And who is surprised at that.

Quote:

Are you able to provide one?

I just did.

Quote:

Quote:
only that I show your basis is suspect and unrealistic.

I thought you were the one making a plea for "neutrality"!

Yeah, but it has fallen on deaf ears of those who see what they want in ancient writing that has issues.

Quote:
Of course you will suspect it. This is because you are not engaged in anything even approximating to an objective search for truth~rip~

So it's truth you want it is truth you will get. See end of this post for a complete summary of "your truth".

Quote:

but in an effort to console yourself that you are not answerable to God.

Excuse me! What? I'd first have to have a belief there was such a creature.

Quote:

Our case to date has been rooted in historical reality.  

You must have a problem with reception on your channel.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Questions in that regard have been asked and your answers are avoidance.

example please.

See above.

Quote:

Quote:
Since you didn't like the goatherder label, I also mentioned their major product in the ancient world, olives.

this is a reasonable historical extrapolation - I don't have production statistics for the period in question - what is your point?..........was it that olive production calls into question the veracity of Biblical prophecy?!

No you have sensitive ears.

Quote:

Quote:
Israel was claimed as the reason for the prophecies by you -

 Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews - what's  it got to do with China? The significance of the empires dealt with are that they impact on the land and nationhood of Israel!

post 316 wrote:
Isaid:

 

"Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews"

ie sequentially........but also "primarily" until the Church Age.

Quote:
Is there something in Daniel that suggests that these prophecies "ie sequentially.... but also primarily until the Church Age." Which I suppose means the establishment of the "Church"? So what did Daniel say about the establishment of the "Church"?

The Church was a mystery hidden from the OT patriarchs and prophets including Daniel. Daniel had as much explained to him as he needed to know. There is no indication that he was given the historical explanation I've given for example. The Church's place in  prophesy may become clearer if this discussion ever gets that far.

Oh, I see, the prophets and main characters in this plot don't get all the info but you as the wiseman of the future have been given a complete insight into the workings of the scenario.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Then you decide to be confusing in exactly what scripture is:

post 332 wrote:
 Do you see what you've done here? You've started by presupposing that the concepts of scripture are Jewish concepts.

So, you claim the scripture is aimed "firstly" at the Jews, then you waffle and say you can't presuppose scripture are Jewish concepts. Can you make up your mind?

the issue in question is the question of what the Bible is. ie. whether it is or is not the communication of the creator to his creation and thus inspired by him as it claims . The quote from post 332 above, was pointing out that you start by presupposing that it is not. That's fine, that is your prerogative, as long as you are aware that:

1] it is not very scientific of you and

2] God promises to be found by those who seek him.

Every culture has stories, god claims, and a search for "is there nothing more". You start in obvious conflict to your claim of objectivity assuming that the Bible is true and written/communicated by the god/creator/high tech alien/master computer programmer.

Now we both understand the starting position of the other.

Me - why would the Bible's stories be any more true than the stories, Sci-Fi and magic in other ancient stories.

You - The Bible is the written true communication of the god/high tech alien/programmer to his created playthings.

 

Quote:

post 444 wrote:
 since the OT is claimed to be the history of the Jewish nation

Quote:
You do say that the OT is the history of the Jews. So, what I expect is something that indicates this "history of the Jews" has any relevance to the rest of the world if it is used as "prophecy" as you claim.

the claim is that it is a history which contains prophesy, not which comprises it, of course. Well historically, I can point out that the history of the Jews has had a tremendous relevance, not only culturally but in establishing Christianity. Your question of the relevance specifically where prophecy is involved brings us to its relevance today   and in this I should defer to gramps, at least initially.

I suppose this would be a case of avoidance then.

 

Quote:

Quote:
My problem is how do you interpolate "history of the Jews"who don't indicate any knowledge of the Western Hemisphere and the Chinese to include them in "end times" and "latter days"? One would think that the discovery of the world being far more vast with kingdoms just as powerful as Rome, even at the same time period should cause a questioning. Ignoring them as you do is your method of rationalizing, which is your choice. But it is not a reasoned argument.

no, I'm not ignoring anything, we simply haven't got around to discussion of the fourth kingdom or of timescale yet. I suggest we do so asap. The reason prophesy centres on Rome has nothing to do with size and power but relevance. Your question may as easily be applied to the USA in the modern era.......my view is that it is mentioned but only extremely obliquely and for good reason.

Fine, I'll wait and see what you do to integrate your perceptions into relevance of only the known empires into a complete scenario,

Though, it smacks of avoidance once again.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Reasoned arguments have not been presented by you.

but you have to keep telling yourself this! On the contrary, I have given you the scholarly consensus on the dating of Daniel and an outline of the reasons for that conclusion. I then gave you my own rationale based on the known dates of the LXX. I have then backed gramps' argument with the alignment of Daniel's prophesy with history.

Sci-Fi can be written in any period and be dated to that period, So?

Quote:

The sum total of your response is, "I don't believe it"!........not a very impressive rebuttal!

No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.

Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.

 

Quote:

Quote:
By the way, I'm still waiting for that reasoned argument from you that your Yahweh is something more than a construct of man.

well I rather thought that this was the point at the heart  of the whole debate! You appear to be trying to tempt me into providing you with a diversion!

Is it?

Quote:

Quote:
There are many things in the Bible that are claimed, assuming they are true without question as you are doing once again is the problem.

yes, the Bible never doubts its own veracity. Would you expect it to? Do you doubt yours? You are entitled to question it just as I have to point out  where you depart from rationality. 

 

Avoidance once again.

Claiming the book does not doubt it's own quality of truth says nothing of your perspective does it?

 

Summary of the issue-

1- Daniel - claimed to be a real person in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus

Gramps & Miner - claim it is true

PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - claim it has problems

Problems are at minimum-

Babylonian & Nabonidus Chronicles do not indicate Belshalzzar was ever king. The festival of Marduk was not performed while Nabonidus was out of the city in Tayma by Belshalzzar. It was only performed on the return of Nabonidus to Babylon.

Nabonidus is not mentioned by Daniel.

Nabonidus was the king from 556 BCE to 539 BCE and was displaced by Cyrus II, and is mentioned in the Cyrus cylinder.

The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

2-Daniel not only interprets dreams but also knows exactly what the dream encompassed without being told.

Gramps & Miner - claim it is true.

PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - don't see how another person can know your dreams yet alone detail an interpretation. Based on present lab tests, this has not been shown to be likely.

Problem -  therefore requires the Miner & Gramps to substantiate this claim that flies in the face of observation.

Result - No proof has been provided a person can know another's dream and detail meticulous interpretations that are meaningful.

Conclusion - Miner & Gramps avoid this issue claiming the god can do anything and the proof is in the prophecy.

The prophecies in this dream are another matter to be argued separately as it matters little what is in them they are not explicit as well as I haven't even given Daniel the benefit of getting out of the land of Sci-Fi and Fantasy as of yet.  I have already stated these supposed prophecies are limited in scope, which both y'all agree. The scope of the nations you mention is those that affect the nation of Israel (or people as they really never have a country again until 1947).

3-The Fiery Furnace Scene

Gramps & Miner - have not taken a position that I recall. Though Miner has said he believes in all "the fun parts" he has not said so of this.

PJTS - Considers people walking around in a furnace to be unlikely. This appears to be fantasy based.

Though Gramps and Miner could provide a demonstration by walking into an open hearth furnace.

4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

5-Belshazzar called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5:18

Gramps or the Miner have stated that he was so or should be considered so due to relationship of some kind.

PJTS - I claim he was the son of Nabonidus who was the king and became so after a coup and had no relationship to Nebuchadnezzar.

Conclusion - Daniel errors.

6-Belshazzar & the handwriting Daniel 5:5-12.

Gramps & Miner - I don't recall a position.

PJTS - I consider this to be Sci-Fi & Fantasy. Errors in calling Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, it was Nabonidus. Errors in calling Belshazzar the king, he was only the crown prince or acting regent while daddy was in Tayma erecting shrines to Sin. A hand disembodied has yet to be demonstrated except by an illusionist scientifically. Pretend stage magic is not proof of anything.

Conclusion - Daniel errors.

7-Daniel & the Lions den

Gramps & Miner - no position has been mentioned.

PJTS - I have seen circus performers play with lions. Though this doesn't always work out favorable.

What say you?

 

 

 

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

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


William N Clarke (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
This is jcgadfly (aka Jeff

This is jcgadfly (aka Jeff Craft)

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The Atheists have FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation,">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does,">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind">(BI) he shall become great.">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told">(BM) is true, but">(BN) seal up the vision,">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.

Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.

Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.

As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.

So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?

PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.

As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?

The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire"  are common to Christian aplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges only our interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

The scholastic interpretation wasn't good enough - now you want my "own interpretation"?

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts, son.

My interpretation of the whole book is pretty simple. It's fiction.

What is my evidence? The fact that the same dream can be interpreted multiple ways (none, any or all of them being correct).  Starving lions aren't selective (not mauling the good guy and ripping the bad guys to shreds before they hit. Fire is not selective on what it burns.

Beyond that, i base my claim on my opinion and belief. Just like you.

So quit screaming like a little bitch, m'kay?

You haven't given me a scholastic alternate interpretation for Daniel 7. You claim that these prophecies can be interpreted multiple ways, but you fail to be able to give even one example.  In case you have forgotten, when one makes a claim in a thread they are expected to be capable of backing it up. You can not. I claim there is only one interpretation that fits this prophecy. You say there are many. Show me just one.

You want proof that God is not just a construct of man. I have given it. A 3rd century BC author would not have been able to predict the rise of The Roman Empire, and that it would not be conquered by another single power, but broken up and never reunited, and that 10 kingdom would arise from the Roman Empire that would endure until God sets up His kingdom.

A third century author would most likely predict that the kingdom following the "Macedonian" kingdom or "Greece", would be followed by another great power like all the ones before. But that was not the case.

I have made the challenge for one of you brilliant individuals to come up with just one alternative but you can not. You have failed. I have been proved right that there is only one interpretation to this. And it is not of man, but can only be of a God that can see into the future.

If you can come up with just one power that can possibly fit the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 other than the Roman Empire than you can back your empty claim for other interpretations. My challenge stands.

I am so terribly disappointed. I was hoping for a challenge. And I get nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 


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

gramster wrote:

 

you claim that the church (including the Catholic church) tortured, burned and executed people. Please back this claim.

Careful, this is an area I have spent a lot of time researching.

What I actually said above -

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Well maybe not currently, but the Church did burn, torture or otherwise dispose of anyone in the past that doubted the "true doctrine" of the "Church".

Oh yeah, that was the Catholics, they clearly weren't Christian like you were they?

And of course, the Church never did torture, burn or execute anyone, it was the secular authorities that did, right?

So you think it was only the secular authorities who did these actions?

Let's start with the 1st Crusade- It was called by Pope Urban II. Soon thereafter Jews were killed by crusaders en route to the Holy land especially in Germany. Though these killers were individuals they had taken up the cross and per se were acting under the Church. Others in the Roman Empire (Byzantine part) are killed by crusaders on the way to save god's land. On the pope's part he claimed "God wills it" in regard to saving the holy land. He as the prince of the Church is the responsible party for all mayhem that ensued thereafter.

See Trier, Mainz, Cologne, Belgrade, Peter the prelate (a priest) Peter the Hermit, Zemun Hungary, etc.

Not to mention Ma'arrat al Numan where the Crusader army became cannibals, killing Muslims, Jews, and Greek Christians and consuming their dead corpses.

Who to blame for this? Pope Urban II that authorized the endeavor.

The crusade against the Cathars - aka Albigensian Crusade 1209-1229 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

How many deaths do you require to blame the Church - "The first phase of the crusade included some of the most brutal massacres. On July 22, 1209, the city of Béziers was sacked and thousands were slaughtered. When asked whether to kill both Catholic Christians and heretics, the legate Arnaud Amaury supposedly replied: "Kill them all; God will recognize his own." Whether or not he uttered those infamous words, Amaury reported succinctly to Innocent III that "neither age, nor sex, nor status had been spared, and nearly twenty thousand people perished." from - http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/cathars

May 13, 1239 in Mont-Wimer in Champagne. The assembled fans were the bishops of Orleans, Troyes, Meaux, Verdun, and Langres as well as all of the citizens of the towns nearby. The host of the marshmallow roast was the Inquisitor General of France Robert le Bougne. In this mass murder of Cathars 183 innocent people are burned at the stake. Their crime is only that they are Cathars and refuse to become practicing Roman Catholics. 

Or - ....multiple heresies persecuted out of existence from the 4th to 16th centuries The Arian controversy or Arianism was one such belief declared heretical.

Do you want statistics on it as well?

 

See also Conrad of Marburg aka "The Hammer of Heretics" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_of_Marburg

See Robert le Bourgne - http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/hunters/bougre.html

Then there is of course the execution of Giovanni Bruno aka Giordano Bruno burned on February 17, 1600 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Bruno has been considered a martyr to freethinkers and skeptics.

Need more, this is one of more favorite areas if you want to come play 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.


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for" class="xref">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of" class="xref">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And" class="xref">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And" class="xref">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22" class="xref">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation," class="xref">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—" class="xref">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction" class="xref">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does," class="xref">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25" class="xref">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind" class="xref">(BI) he shall become great." class="xref">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he" class="xref">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of" class="xref">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told" class="xref">(BM) is true, but" class="xref">(BN) seal up the vision," class="xref">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.

Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.

Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.

You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.

Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.

It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"

Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...

Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?

First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.

Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.

Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.

As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.

So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?

PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.

As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?

The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire"  are common to Christian aplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges only our interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

The scholastic interpretation wasn't good enough - now you want my "own interpretation"?

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts, son.

My interpretation of the whole book is pretty simple. It's fiction.

What is my evidence? The fact that the same dream can be interpreted multiple ways (none, any or all of them being correct).  Starving lions aren't selective (not mauling the good guy and ripping the bad guys to shreds before they hit. Fire is not selective on what it burns.

Beyond that, i base my claim on my opinion and belief. Just like you.

So quit screaming like a little bitch, m'kay?

You haven't given me a scholastic alternate interpretation for Daniel 7. You claim that these prophecies can be interpreted multiple ways, but you fail to be able to give even one example.  In case you have forgotten, when one makes a claim in a thread they are expected to be capable of backing it up. You can not. I claim there is only one interpretation that fits this prophecy. You say there are many. Show me just one.

You want proof that God is not just a construct of man. I have given it. A 3rd century BC author would not have been able to predict the rise of The Roman Empire, and that it would not be conquered by another single power, but broken up and never reunited, and that 10 kingdom would arise from the Roman Empire that would endure until God sets up His kingdom.

A third century author would most likely predict that the kingdom following the "Macedonian" kingdom or "Greece", would be followed by another great power like all the ones before. But that was not the case.

I have made the challenge for one of you brilliant individuals to come up with just one alternative but you can not. You have failed. I have been proved right that there is only one interpretation to this. And it is not of man, but can only be of a God that can see into the future.

If you can come up with just one power that can possibly fit the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 other than the Roman Empire than you can back your empty claim for other interpretations. My challenge stands.

I am so terribly disappointed. I was hoping for a challenge. And I get nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

You haven't gotten past the statue - why jump to another vision?

But all right - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_7 (no Romans here either)

A 3rd cent. BC author wouldn't have thought of Rome - must be why he didn't.

Your challenge is gone under scholastic scrutiny.

Don't be disappointed, little one.

"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
I'm so glad you took the bait

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

you claim that the church (including the Catholic church) tortured, burned and executed people. Please back this claim.

Careful, this is an area I have spent a lot of time researching.

What I actually said above -

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Well maybe not currently, but the Church did burn, torture or otherwise dispose of anyone in the past that doubted the "true doctrine" of the "Church".

Oh yeah, that was the Catholics, they clearly weren't Christian like you were they?

And of course, the Church never did torture, burn or execute anyone, it was the secular authorities that did, right?

So you think it was only the secular authorities who did these actions?

Let's start with the 1st Crusade- It was called by Pope Urban II. Soon thereafter Jews were killed by crusaders en route to the Holy land especially in Germany. Though these killers were individuals they had taken up the cross and per se were acting under the Church. Others in the Roman Empire (Byzantine part) are killed by crusaders on the way to save god's land. On the pope's part he claimed "God wills it" in regard to saving the holy land. He as the prince of the Church is the responsible party for all mayhem that ensued thereafter.

See Trier, Mainz, Cologne, Belgrade, Peter the prelate (a priest) Peter the Hermit, Zemun Hungary, etc.

Not to mention Ma'arrat al Numan where the Crusader army became cannibals, killing Muslims, Jews, and Greek Christians and consuming their dead corpses.

Who to blame for this? Pope Urban II that authorized the endeavor.

The crusade against the Cathars - aka Albigensian Crusade 1209-1229 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

How many deaths do you require to blame the Church - "The first phase of the crusade included some of the most brutal massacres. On July 22, 1209, the city of Béziers was sacked and thousands were slaughtered. When asked whether to kill both Catholic Christians and heretics, the legate Arnaud Amaury supposedly replied: "Kill them all; God will recognize his own." Whether or not he uttered those infamous words, Amaury reported succinctly to Innocent III that "neither age, nor sex, nor status had been spared, and nearly twenty thousand people perished." from - http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/cathars

May 13, 1239 in Mont-Wimer in Champagne. The assembled fans were the bishops of Orleans, Troyes, Meaux, Verdun, and Langres as well as all of the citizens of the towns nearby. The host of the marshmallow roast was the Inquisitor General of France Robert le Bougne. In this mass murder of Cathars 183 innocent people are burned at the stake. Their crime is only that they are Cathars and refuse to become practicing Roman Catholics. 

Or - ....multiple heresies persecuted out of existence from the 4th to 16th centuries The Arian controversy or Arianism was one such belief declared heretical.

Do you want statistics on it as well?

 

See also Conrad of Marburg aka "The Hammer of Heretics" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_of_Marburg

See Robert le Bourgne - http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/hunters/bougre.html

Then there is of course the execution of Giovanni Bruno aka Giordano Bruno burned on February 17, 1600 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Bruno has been considered a martyr to freethinkers and skeptics.

Need more, this is one of more favorite areas if you want to come play Gramps.

 

I'm so glad you took the bait. I do not disagree that the church in it's apostate form did a lot of horrible things in the name of God.

I just wanted to accomplish a couple of things. First, I wanted to find out if you were able to back any of your claims since you have FAILED SO MISERABLY in regards to the claim that there are many interpretations for Daniel 7.

I also wanted for YOU to make the case above so that your position on this will be crystal clear in future discussions.

Thank You Sincerely

Gramps

Now if I can only get you to crawl out from under the rock and give me just one alternative to the Roman Empire for the fourth beast in Daniel 7. I guess that's too much to ask.


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

gramster wrote:

~ripped out many quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

1- Yes you have been constant in your fervent beliefs.

2-I'll get to Daniel 7 eventually, but y'all make it difficult what with all y'all's avoidance of the credibility of the writer of Daniel. Tell me y'all buy into all of the Sci-Fi and why y'all do.

3-Your claim in regards to the kingdoms that are still around again leaves out many countries and I'll go back and grab it and show you a few problem and ask a few questions as to why some countries are bothered to be on the list and why others are not.

Gramps post #356 wrote:

 

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

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

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

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

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

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

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

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

1- England is composed of Celts, Anglo-Saxons & Normans

2-France is composed of Franks, Celts, Latins, and some Alamans

3- Switzerland is comprised of Burgandians, Celts, Franks, various Germanic tribes - Why do you bother with this one?

4- Spain is not only comprised of Visigoths but also Moors, and Basques 

5-Germany is not only of the Alamannis but also Franks, Saxons and other tribes

6-Portugal is comprised of not just Suevi but earlier by Celts, later by some Visigoths and of course the Moors - Please explain how this one has any importance?

7-Italy is a diversity not just Lombards obviously Latins, Ostrogoths, Greeks especially in the coastal city states.

8-I'm not even sure why you have the Heruli on the list at all. Can you explain?

9-Vandals were clearly not killed to the last person, and most integrated with the Berbers in Northern Algeria, though their kingdom did end. Many others were incorporated into the Byzantine Army. So what's the point of this one?

10-The Ostrogoths after their defeat in Italy mainly resettled in Austria. You don't list Austria but you mention the Ostrogoths, why?

So then the question is where are all of these countries:

1-Greece

2-Turkey (Ottoman Empire)

3-Austria

4-Hungary

5-Poland

6-The Scandinavian countries

7-Egypt

8-Saudi Arabia - surely the god would know about "black gold"

9-Russia - one of the largest & sometimes powerful countries

 

So, why have defunct tribes that assimilated into other territories and ignore places like Russia and Saudi Arabia? Doesn't work with you prophetic interpretation?

 

4- I haven't opened the door as of yet on the pope dictators yet. And I most definitely haven't said anything in regard to the EU

 

 

There is not a need to type in large letters unless you have lost your spectacles.

 

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

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


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

gramster wrote:

 

I'm so glad you took the bait. I do not disagree that the church in it's apostate form did a lot of horrible things in the name of God.

I just wanted to accomplish a couple of things. First, I wanted to find out if you were able to back any of your claims since you have FAILED SO MISERABLY in regards to the claim that there are many interpretations for Daniel 7.

I also wanted for YOU to make the case above so that your position on this will be crystal clear in future discussions.

Thank You Sincerely

Gramps

Now if I can only get you to crawl out from under the rock and give me just one alternative to the Roman Empire for the fourth beast in Daniel 7. I guess that's too much to ask.

Perhaps you should wonder if it was you that chomped on the lure I dangled out there sparkling so brightly.

I'll get to Daniel 7 after you attempt to explain why Daniel is credible with the issues I mentioned in Post # 482. It wasn't just for your sidekick

____________________________________________________________
"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.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:the claim is that it

Quote:
the claim is that it is a history which contains prophesy, not which comprises it, of course. Well historically, I can point out that the history of the Jews has had a tremendous relevance, not only culturally but in establishing Christianity. Your question of the relevance specifically where prophecy is involved brings us to its relevance today   and in this I should defer to gramps, at least initially.

Quote:
I suppose this would be a case of avoidance then.

no it's a case of politeness

Quote:
Fine, I'll wait and see what you do to integrate your perceptions into relevance of only the known empires into a complete scenario,

Though, it smacks of avoidance once again.

under that rock is no position from which to be speaking of  "avoidance"!
 

Quote:
Sci-Fi can be written in any period and be dated to that period, So?

this is mindless blather

 

Quote:
No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.

Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.

 

more mindless blather

Quote:

well I rather thought that this was the point at the heart  of the whole debate! You appear to be trying to tempt me into providing you with a diversion!

Quote:
Is it?

you mean you don't know?!

Quote:

Quote:
There are many things in the Bible that are claimed, assuming they are true without question as you are doing once again is the problem.

yes, the Bible never doubts its own veracity. Would you expect it to? Do you doubt yours? You are entitled to question it just as I have to point out  where you depart from rationality. 

 

Quote:
Avoidance once again.

Claiming the book does not doubt it's own quality of truth says nothing of your perspective does it?

having miserably failed to mount a rational rebuttal of any argument put up, you may find "avoidance" a particularly unfruitful approach. The reference to scripture was not a "claim" on my part but an observation of objective fact. If you can put up an example which refutes the statement, do so by all means.

 

Quote:
Summary of the issue-

1- Daniel - claimed to be a real person in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus

Gramps & Miner - claim it is true

PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - claim it has problems

Problems are at minimum-

Babylonian & Nabonidus Chronicles do not indicate Belshalzzar was ever king. The festival of Marduk was not performed while Nabonidus was out of the city in Tayma by Belshalzzar. It was only performed on the return of Nabonidus to Babylon.

Nabonidus is not mentioned by Daniel.

Nabonidus was the king from 556 BCE to 539 BCE and was displaced by Cyrus II, and is mentioned in the Cyrus cylinder.

I repeat the quote from Christian answers.net which you ignored:  

What the foundation deposit tablet, along with other subsequently found texts, revealed was that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and coregent with his father. While Nabonidus was away campaigning, which he loved to do, Belshazzar was left to run the country from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of “third highest ruler in the kingdom” if he would decipher the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:16). This was the highest available office in the kingdom, since Nabonidus was number one and his son Belshazzar was number two. Instead of being in error, the Bible precisely reflected the political situation that existed in ancient Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians.

 

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian Answers.net] 

 

Quote:
Hebrew: “Ko'resh”

This was the name of the celebrated “King of Persia” (Elam) who was conqueror of Babylon, and issued the decree of liberation to the Jews (Ezra 1:1, 2). He was the son of Cambyses, the prince of Persia, and was born about B.C. 599. In the year B.C. 559 he became king of Persia, the kingdom of Media being added to it partly by conquest. Cyrus was a great military leader, bent on universal conquest. Babylon fell before his army (B.C. 538) on the night of Belshazzar's feast (Dan. 5:30), and then the ancient dominion of Assyria was also added to his empire (cf., “Go up, O Elam”, Isa.21:2).

Hitherto the great kings of the earth had only oppressed the Jews. Cyrus was to them as a “shepherd” (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). God employed him in doing service to his ancient people. He may possibly have gained, through contact with the Jews, some knowledge of their religion.

The “first year of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1) is not the year of his elevation to power over the Medes, nor over the Persians, nor the year of the fall of Babylon, but the year succeeding the two years during which “Darius the Mede” was viceroy in Babylon after its fall. At this time only (B.C. 536) Cyrus became actual king over Palestine, which became a part of his Babylonian empire. The edict of Cyrus for the rebuilding of Jerusalem marked a great epoch in the history of the Jewish people (2 Chr. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-4; 4:3; 5:13-17; 6:3-5).

Quote:
2-Daniel not only interprets dreams but also knows exactly what the dream encompassed without being told.

Gramps & Miner - claim it is true.

PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - don't see how another person can know your dreams yet alone detail an interpretation. Based on present lab tests, this has not been shown to be likely.

Problem -  therefore requires the Miner & Gramps to substantiate this claim that flies in the face of observation.

whose observation?  This is a problem arising from your lack of belief . The only way we can help is to pray for you and continue to provide rational evidence.

Quote:
Result - No proof has been provided a person can know another's dream and detail meticulous interpretations that are meaningful.

Conclusion - Miner & Gramps avoid this issue claiming the god can do anything and the proof is in the prophecy.

the proof of prophetic authenticity lies in fulfillment thereof. We have provided reams of historical proof.

Quote:
The prophecies in this dream are another matter to be argued separately as it matters little what is in them they are not explicit as well as I haven't even given Daniel the benefit of getting out of the land of Sci-Fi and Fantasy as of yet.
 

this only indicates the depth of your irrationality.

Quote:
 I have already stated these supposed prophecies are limited in scope, which both y'all agree. The scope of the nations you mention is those that affect the nation of Israel (or people as they really never have a country again until 1947).

your case appears to be that Biblical prophecy cannot be authentic because God wasn't incorporating the whole world in the story simultaneously. This is absurd by any measure......... now how many nations have been reborn after 2000yrs?

Quote:
3-The Fiery Furnace Scene

Gramps & Miner - have not taken a position that I recall. Though Miner has said he believes in all "the fun parts" he has not said so of this.

PJTS - Considers people walking around in a furnace to be unlikely. This appears to be fantasy based.

Though Gramps and Miner could provide a demonstration by walking into an open hearth furnace.

The Bible claims that God created the universe.........you find the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's central heating presented no problem for him, somehow remarkable!

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

you appear to be arguing with yourself.

Quote:
5-Belshazzar called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5:18

Gramps or the Miner have stated that he was so or should be considered so due to relationship of some kind.

PJTS - I claim he was the son of Nabonidus who was the king and became so after a coup and had no relationship to Nebuchadnezzar.

Conclusion - Daniel errors.

you are free to draw whatsoever false conclusions you desire but the Aramaic term may mean "grandson" or "descendant" or even "successor".

 

Quote:
6-Belshazzar & the handwriting Daniel 5:5-12.

Gramps & Miner - I don't recall a position.

PJTS - I consider this to be Sci-Fi & Fantasy. Errors in calling Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, it was Nabonidus. Errors in calling Belshazzar the king, he was only the crown prince or acting regent while daddy was in Tayma erecting shrines to Sin. A hand disembodied has yet to be demonstrated except by an illusionist scientifically. Pretend stage magic is not proof of anything.

Conclusion - Daniel errors.

this is just so much hot air...........all you are saying is that you don't believe the manifestations of God.........breaking news!!! The fact that you continue not to believe them in the face of historical verification of prophecy only illustrates your own irrationality.

Quote:
7-Daniel & the Lions den

Gramps & Miner - no position has been mentioned.

PJTS - I have seen circus performers play with lions. Though this doesn't always work out favorable.

What say you?

  I say, see above.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
      Below are set

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below are set out the passages of Daniel which are relevant to the fourth kingdom.

The time frame is critical to identifying the fourth kingdom and this is set out in chapter 9.

 

 

 

DANIEL 2

Quote:
33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands.

in the time of the Roman empire, which rock was cut out without human hands? 

Quote:
It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.
final destruction is aimed at the last period of this empire.

Quote:
35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

the Roman empire was divided into two ecclesiastical wings. The appearance is of a distinct latter period to the reconstituted Roman empire in which a confederation forms the basis.

 

Quote:
44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

 

 Jesus claimed kingship of a kingdom not, at that time nor yet, an earthly one. The prophecy is that it will become an earthly one. eg see Ezekiel, Zechariah, Revelation etc regarding the Millennium. See Daniel 7.

DANIEL 7

 

Quote:
7 "After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.

 8 "While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

 9 "As I looked,
       "thrones were set in place,
       and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
       His clothing was as white as snow;
       the hair of his head was white like wool.
       His throne was flaming with fire,
       and its wheels were all ablaze.

 10 A river of fire was flowing,
       coming out from before him.
       Thousands upon thousands attended him;
       ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
       The court was seated,
       and the books were opened.

 11 "Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

 13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Daniel 7 not only has the end of the fourth kingdom in view but divine judgement [see also v26].

 

  

Quote:
"So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'
see Revelation 19 et seq.

 

Quote:
19 "Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

 23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom.

Quote:
After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. [a]
the three and a half year 'Great Tribulation'

 26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

 

DANIEL 11:36 - 45.

 

Quote:
36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.
the Anitchrist. Time of wrath -the Tribulation.

37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e]

 40 "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. 45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

 

 

 

 

 

DANIEL 9 : 24-25

 

Quote:
24 "Seventy 'sevens' [c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish [d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. [e]

There are to be a total of seventy  periods of seven years [490 yrs] in which the following are to be accomplished:

1] to end transgression [of the law]

2] to put an end to sin

3] to provide atonement

4] to introduce righteousness

5] to seal up ie. to preserve and set aside vision and prophecy [of a general nature].

6] to anoint the most holy.

 

Quote:
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [f] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [g] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

From the decree authorising the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed one is to be 69 'sevens'.........483yrs. This brings us to the time of Jesus' ministry.

 

 

Quote:
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.

the 'sixty-two sevens' relates to the period beween the restoration and the 'Anointed One'. Then the latter will be killed. 

Quote:
[h] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The 'people' who destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary, the temple, were those of Titus in AD 70. We have the completion of 69 'sevens' and the diaspora.

We have the 70th 7yr period remaining and this remaining prophecy: 

Quote:
The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [i] In the middle of the 'seven' [j] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [k] " [l]

 and here we have the appearance of the remaining 'seven'. "He" [someone to be be identified], makes a covenant, a treaty with "many" in the middle of the seven year period he puts an end to sacrifice and offering. The "many" are clearly Jews since the 70 weeks are, "for your people" So the 70th week cannot take place unless the nation of Israel is restored. The nation was restored in 1947/48. The implication is that "he" will renege on the 7yr treaty. Currently, we are yet again in treaty negotiations.

Thus by the Bible's own timescale the relevant empire after the 69 weeks is Rome. The last seven year period has yet to come.

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ripped out many quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

1- Yes you have been constant in your fervent beliefs.

2-I'll get to Daniel 7 eventually, but y'all make it difficult what with all y'all's avoidance of the credibility of the writer of Daniel. Tell me y'all buy into all of the Sci-Fi and why y'all do.

3-Your claim in regards to the kingdoms that are still around again leaves out many countries and I'll go back and grab it and show you a few problem and ask a few questions as to why some countries are bothered to be on the list and why others are not.

Gramps post #356 wrote:

 

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

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

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

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

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

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

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

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

1- England is composed of Celts, Anglo-Saxons & Normans

2-France is composed of Franks, Celts, Latins, and some Alamans

3- Switzerland is comprised of Burgandians, Celts, Franks, various Germanic tribes - Why do you bother with this one?

4- Spain is not only comprised of Visigoths but also Moors, and Basques 

5-Germany is not only of the Alamannis but also Franks, Saxons and other tribes

6-Portugal is comprised of not just Suevi but earlier by Celts, later by some Visigoths and of course the Moors - Please explain how this one has any importance?

7-Italy is a diversity not just Lombards obviously Latins, Ostrogoths, Greeks especially in the coastal city states.

8-I'm not even sure why you have the Heruli on the list at all. Can you explain?

9-Vandals were clearly not killed to the last person, and most integrated with the Berbers in Northern Algeria, though their kingdom did end. Many others were incorporated into the Byzantine Army. So what's the point of this one?

10-The Ostrogoths after their defeat in Italy mainly resettled in Austria. You don't list Austria but you mention the Ostrogoths, why?

So then the question is where are all of these countries:

1-Greece

2-Turkey (Ottoman Empire)

3-Austria

4-Hungary

5-Poland

6-The Scandinavian countries

7-Egypt

8-Saudi Arabia - surely the god would know about "black gold"

9-Russia - one of the largest & sometimes powerful countries

 

So, why have defunct tribes that assimilated into other territories and ignore places like Russia and Saudi Arabia? Doesn't work with you prophetic interpretation?

 

4- I haven't opened the door as of yet on the pope dictators yet. And I most definitely haven't said anything in regard to the EU

 

 

There is not a need to type in large letters unless you have lost your spectacles.

 

Finally at last you are at least giving me something. Thank You! I don't like to have to get so unpleasant but it is that important. Now we can get back to discussing the prophecies.

As for the credibility of Daniel, it looks like freeminer is doing a good job with the history part. He has also pointed out, once again, as both of us have before, the credibility lies in the fulfillment of prophecy.

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

I mentioned the Heruli because they were a Gothic tribe that became a kingdom, and were destroyed. This fits into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The reason I chose those particular kingdoms will be apparent further along. The point I am making now is that the Roman Empire and no other fits this prophecy as the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7.

The Vandals existed in some form as a kingdom 335 to 534 AD. After that they completely disappeared as a distinct ethnic unit. The prophecy did not make any statement about not a single person surviving.

The Ostrogoth's kingdom existed  from about 493 to 553 AD. With some "rallies" after that. After their final defeat in about 562 AD the Ostrogoth name "wholly" died out. The survivors did go back and resettle in Austria, but their kingdom was no more.

The prophecy refers to a major power following "Greece" that would not be conquered by or followed by another single major power.  Once again I use the term "Greece" because it is the term used in the text. Out of this kingdom would arise 10 kingdoms specifically mentioned. Three of these kingdoms would be destroyed. The other 7 would endure until the coming of the kingdom of God. The territory of that kingdom (the Roman Empire) would not "ever" be united under one kingdom again.

It has been over 2300 years since that prophecy was given. This prophecy still stands. The Roman Empire, and it alone fits this description. Man could not have known this would happen. Only God could know that. Therefore the bible is not the construct of man. It is indeed divine.


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

It is more than obvious what you are attempting by referring to freeminer as my sidekick. You are trying to present him as somehow inferior to me and thus provoke him to break out of his admirable courteous stance in allowing me to present my views first. Freeminer is as we both know probably more capable than I in many areas of discussion.

Freeminer is no more a sidekick of mine than Gadfly is an illegitimate son of yours, so we can dispense with this as it only serves to make you look bad.


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

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
the claim is that it is a history which contains prophesy, not which comprises it, of course. Well historically, I can point out that the history of the Jews has had a tremendous relevance, not only culturally but in establishing Christianity. Your question of the relevance specifically where prophecy is involved brings us to its relevance today   and in this I should defer to gramps, at least initially.

Quote:
I suppose this would be a case of avoidance then.

no it's a case of politeness

I see.

Quote:

Quote:
Fine, I'll wait and see what you do to integrate your perceptions into relevance of only the known empires into a complete scenario,

Though, it smacks of avoidance once again.

under that rock is no position from which to be speaking of  "avoidance"!

Which rock is that?

Quote:

 

Quote:
Sci-Fi can be written in any period and be dated to that period, So?

this is mindless blather

Really now, we have unlikely events that are not possible to occur but can in  fantasy and Sci-Fi and it is mindless blather.

So Daniel's writing is mindless blather then is that what you claim?

Under any other circimstance, if someone claimed:

1-They could tell you the dream you can't remember.

2-Interpret it.

3-Told a story about 3 guys walking through a blast furnace and not getting injured.

4-Told a story about a hand writing on a wall with no body attached.

5-told a story about a guy that spent a night with a bunch of hungary lions and that don't eat him.

You'd buy it as real and not fantasy or BS?

 

Quote:

Quote:
No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.

Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.

 

more mindless blather

So you have no reasoned argument then.

Quote:

Quote:

well I rather thought that this was the point at the heart  of the whole debate! You appear to be trying to tempt me into providing you with a diversion!

Quote:
Is it?

you mean you don't know?!

No, I don't know if you are tempted.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
There are many things in the Bible that are claimed, assuming they are true without question as you are doing once again is the problem.

yes, the Bible never doubts its own veracity. Would you expect it to? Do you doubt yours? You are entitled to question it just as I have to point out  where you depart from rationality. 

 

Quote:
Avoidance once again.

Claiming the book does not doubt it's own quality of truth says nothing of your perspective does it?

having miserably failed to mount a rational rebuttal of any argument put up, you may find "avoidance" a particularly unfruitful approach. The reference to scripture was not a "claim" on my part but an observation of objective fact. If you can put up an example which refutes the statement, do so by all means.

The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Summary of the issue-

1- Daniel - claimed to be a real person in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus

Gramps & Miner - claim it is true

PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - claim it has problems

Problems are at minimum-

Babylonian & Nabonidus Chronicles do not indicate Belshalzzar was ever king. The festival of Marduk was not performed while Nabonidus was out of the city in Tayma by Belshalzzar. It was only performed on the return of Nabonidus to Babylon.

Nabonidus is not mentioned by Daniel.

Nabonidus was the king from 556 BCE to 539 BCE and was displaced by Cyrus II, and is mentioned in the Cyrus cylinder.

I repeat the quote from Christian answers.net which you ignored:  

What the foundation deposit tablet, along with other subsequently found texts, revealed was that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and coregent with his father. While Nabonidus was away campaigning, which he loved to do, Belshazzar was left to run the country from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of “third highest ruler in the kingdom” if he would decipher the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:16). This was the highest available office in the kingdom, since Nabonidus was number one and his son Belshazzar was number two. Instead of being in error, the Bible precisely reflected the political situation that existed in ancient Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians.

 

I didn't ignore it, I noted you claim it was true.

Is English not your first language?

You do agree that Nabonidus is not in Daniel.

Still he was not "King" Belshazzar as he did not perform the New Years ceronmony for Marduk or Bel a point you ignore. He still was but the Crown Prince and not the king.

 

Quote:

Quote:
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.

what's your problem?

I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian Answers.net] 

 

Quote:
Hebrew: “Ko'resh”

This was the name of the celebrated “King of Persia” (Elam) who was conqueror of Babylon, and issued the decree of liberation to the Jews (Ezra 1:1, 2). He was the son of Cambyses, the prince of Persia, and was born about B.C. 599. In the year B.C. 559 he became king of Persia, the kingdom of Media being added to it partly by conquest. Cyrus was a great military leader, bent on universal conquest. Babylon fell before his army (B.C. 538) on the night of Belshazzar's feast (Dan. 5:30), and then the ancient dominion of Assyria was also added to his empire (cf., “Go up, O Elam”, Isa.21:2).

Hitherto the great kings of the earth had only oppressed the Jews. Cyrus was to them as a “shepherd” (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). God employed him in doing service to his ancient people. He may possibly have gained, through contact with the Jews, some knowledge of their religion.

The “first year of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1) is not the year of his elevation to power over the Medes, nor over the Persians, nor the year of the fall of Babylon, but the year succeeding the two years during which “Darius the Mede” was viceroy in Babylon after its fall. At this time only (B.C. 536) Cyrus became actual king over Palestine, which became a part of his Babylonian empire. The edict of Cyrus for the rebuilding of Jerusalem marked a great epoch in the history of the Jewish people (2 Chr. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-4; 4:3; 5:13-17; 6:3-5).

My problem is the Darius claim in Daniel out of sequence with Cyrus. Gramps made the claim it was a general/governor though evidence is lacking and interpretations are made.

Quote:

Quote:
2-Daniel not only interprets dreams but also knows exactly what the dream encompassed without being told.

Gramps & Miner - claim it is true.

PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - don't see how another person can know your dreams yet alone detail an interpretation. Based on present lab tests, this has not been shown to be likely.

Problem -  therefore requires the Miner & Gramps to substantiate this claim that flies in the face of observation.

whose observation?  This is a problem arising from your lack of belief . The only way we can help is to pray for you and continue to provide rational evidence.

The observed experiments in dream science have been unable to duplicate this claim. See dream science.

It is a problem from your acceptance of fantasy.

Preaching is not helpful to your cause.

Quote:

Quote:
Result - No proof has been provided a person can know another's dream and detail meticulous interpretations that are meaningful.

Conclusion - Miner & Gramps avoid this issue claiming the god can do anything and the proof is in the prophecy.

the proof of prophetic authenticity lies in fulfillment thereof. We have provided reams of historical proof.

Quote:
The prophecies in this dream are another matter to be argued separately as it matters little what is in them they are not explicit as well as I haven't even given Daniel the benefit of getting out of the land of Sci-Fi and Fantasy as of yet.
 

this only indicates the depth of your irrationality.

It is irrational in your opinion to think one person cannot tell you your dreams which even you can't remember.

What twisted ideas you have!

Quote:

Quote:
 I have already stated these supposed prophecies are limited in scope, which both y'all agree. The scope of the nations you mention is those that affect the nation of Israel (or people as they really never have a country again until 1947).

your case appears to be that Biblical prophecy cannot be authentic because God wasn't incorporating the whole world in the story simultaneously. This is absurd by any measure......... now how many nations have been reborn after 2000yrs?

You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position. 

Quote:

Quote:
3-The Fiery Furnace Scene

Gramps & Miner - have not taken a position that I recall. Though Miner has said he believes in all "the fun parts" he has not said so of this.

PJTS - Considers people walking around in a furnace to be unlikely. This appears to be fantasy based.

Though Gramps and Miner could provide a demonstration by walking into an open hearth furnace.

The Bible claims that God created the universe.........you find the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's central heating presented no problem for him, somehow remarkable!

The Bible claims , , ,  and to prove it a man can walk into a furnace in another Bible claim, therefore proving the 1st claim.

I see you didn't volunteeer to try this out yourself.

Quote:

Quote:
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.

Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.

PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.

you appear to be arguing with yourself.

Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored  saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus. 

Quote:

Quote:
5-Belshazzar called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5:18

Gramps or the Miner have stated that he was so or should be considered so due to relationship of some kind.

PJTS - I claim he was the son of Nabonidus who was the king and became so after a coup and had no relationship to Nebuchadnezzar.

Conclusion - Daniel errors.

you are free to draw whatsoever false conclusions you desire but the Aramaic term may mean "grandson" or "descendant" or even "successor".

No relationship has been shown to exist between Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar - George Roux - Ancient Iraq.

 

Quote:

Quote:
6-Belshazzar & the handwriting Daniel 5:5-12.

Gramps & Miner - I don't recall a position.

PJTS - I consider this to be Sci-Fi & Fantasy. Errors in calling Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, it was Nabonidus. Errors in calling Belshazzar the king, he was only the crown prince or acting regent while daddy was in Tayma erecting shrines to Sin. A hand disembodied has yet to be demonstrated except by an illusionist scientifically. Pretend stage magic is not proof of anything.

Conclusion - Daniel errors.

this is just so much hot air...........all you are saying is that you don't believe the manifestations of God.........breaking news!!! The fact that you continue not to believe them in the face of historical verification of prophecy only illustrates your own irrationality.

Big surprise, you buy into magic and fantasy.

Your acceptance of fantasy is 'hot air'.

Quote:

Quote:
7-Daniel & the Lions den

Gramps & Miner - no position has been mentioned.

PJTS - I have seen circus performers play with lions. Though this doesn't always work out favorable.

What say you?

  I say, see above.

I did, see above, you claim magic and fantasy are real.

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

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


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ripped out many quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

1- Yes you have been constant in your fervent beliefs.

2-I'll get to Daniel 7 eventually, but y'all make it difficult what with all y'all's avoidance of the credibility of the writer of Daniel. Tell me y'all buy into all of the Sci-Fi and why y'all do.

3-Your claim in regards to the kingdoms that are still around again leaves out many countries and I'll go back and grab it and show you a few problem and ask a few questions as to why some countries are bothered to be on the list and why others are not.

Gramps post #356 wrote:

 

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

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

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

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

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

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

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

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

1- England is composed of Celts, Anglo-Saxons & Normans

2-France is composed of Franks, Celts, Latins, and some Alamans

3- Switzerland is comprised of Burgandians, Celts, Franks, various Germanic tribes - Why do you bother with this one?

4- Spain is not only comprised of Visigoths but also Moors, and Basques 

5-Germany is not only of the Alamannis but also Franks, Saxons and other tribes

6-Portugal is comprised of not just Suevi but earlier by Celts, later by some Visigoths and of course the Moors - Please explain how this one has any importance?

7-Italy is a diversity not just Lombards obviously Latins, Ostrogoths, Greeks especially in the coastal city states.

8-I'm not even sure why you have the Heruli on the list at all. Can you explain?

9-Vandals were clearly not killed to the last person, and most integrated with the Berbers in Northern Algeria, though their kingdom did end. Many others were incorporated into the Byzantine Army. So what's the point of this one?

10-The Ostrogoths after their defeat in Italy mainly resettled in Austria. You don't list Austria but you mention the Ostrogoths, why?

So then the question is where are all of these countries:

1-Greece

2-Turkey (Ottoman Empire)

3-Austria

4-Hungary

5-Poland

6-The Scandinavian countries

7-Egypt

8-Saudi Arabia - surely the god would know about "black gold"

9-Russia - one of the largest & sometimes powerful countries

 

So, why have defunct tribes that assimilated into other territories and ignore places like Russia and Saudi Arabia? Doesn't work with you prophetic interpretation?

 

4- I haven't opened the door as of yet on the pope dictators yet. And I most definitely haven't said anything in regard to the EU

 

 

There is not a need to type in large letters unless you have lost your spectacles.

 

Finally at last you are at least giving me something. Thank You! I don't like to have to get so unpleasant but it is that important. Now we can get back to discussing the prophecies.

I never really started as I was awaiting verification that y'all bought into the magic and Sci-fi. 

Gramps wrote:

As for the credibility of Daniel, it looks like freeminer is doing a good job with the history part. He has also pointed out, once again, as both of us have before, the credibility lies in the fulfillment of prophecy.

History does not prove fantasy and magic, though I note you agree with his opinions.

Gramps wrote:

Yes, many countries that were part of the Roman Empire, or arouse out of it were left out of this prophecy.

To say the least.

Gramps wrote:

The text seems to be referring to 10 kingdoms that arouse from this Empire for some particular reason. It would be logical in moving forward to keep this in mind and discover the reason for this.

I'm all ears.

Gramps wrote:

I mentioned the Heruli because they were a Gothic tribe that became a kingdom, and were destroyed. This fits into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The reason I chose those particular kingdoms will be apparent further along.

Please don't forget to show why you bothered with them and not others, further along.

Gramps wrote:

The point I am making now is that the Roman Empire and no other fits this prophecy as the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7.

You have been put on record you think the 4th kingdom is Rome.

Gramps wrote:

The Vandals existed in some form as a kingdom 335 to 534 AD. After that they completely disappeared as a distinct ethnic unit. The prophecy did not make any statement about not a single person surviving.

And you will also explain why you think this group has any merit too, right?

Gramps wrote:

The Ostrogoth's kingdom existed  from about 493 to 553 AD. With some "rallies" after that. After their final defeat in about 562 AD the Ostrogoth name "wholly" died out. The survivors did go back and resettle in Austria, but their kingdom was no more.

I know, that's what I said, don't trust me? Don't forget to include the reasons for including this one too.

Gramps wrote:

The prophecy refers to a major power following "Greece" that would not be conquered by or followed by another single major power.  Once again I use the term "Greece" because it is the term used in the text. Out of this kingdom would arise 10 kingdoms specifically mentioned. Three of these kingdoms would be destroyed. The other 7 would endure until the coming of the kingdom of God. The territory of that kingdom (the Roman Empire) would not "ever" be united under one kingdom again.

At what point do you define the territory of the Roman Empire? Pick a year or decade.

The 10 kingdoms you picked earlier then are based or them being current today.

An error has occured in your choice of Germany.

The territory of Germany was not in the Roman Empire. See - http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html

And see - http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t27.html

 

Gramps wrote:

It has been over 2300 years since that prophecy was given. This prophecy still stands. The Roman Empire, and it alone fits this description. Man could not have known this would happen. Only God could know that. Therefore the bible is not the construct of man. It is indeed divine.

Then god has made some errors.

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

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
It seems like this can be

It seems like this can be summed up in two statements.

Gramster, freeminer (and other apologists) - "The prophecy has to be about the Roman Empire. If it isn't, it's not a prophecy and we need it to be a prophecy"

pjts, myself and other scholars - "why does it have to be a prophecy at all?"

"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
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

~ripped out many quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.

I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.

You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.

As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.

As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.

As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.

As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.

SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.

YOUR CHOICE.

 

1- Yes you have been constant in your fervent beliefs.

2-I'll get to Daniel 7 eventually, but y'all make it difficult what with all y'all's avoidance of the credibility of the writer of Daniel. Tell me y'all buy into all of the Sci-Fi and why y'all do.

3-Your claim in regards to the kingdoms that are still around again leaves out many countries and I'll go back and grab it and show you a few problem and ask a few questions as to why some countries are bothered to be on the list and why others are not.

Gramps post #356 wrote:

 

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

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

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

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

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

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

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

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

1- England is composed of Celts, Anglo-Saxons & Normans

2-France is composed of Franks, Celts, Latins, and some Alamans

3- Switzerland is comprised of Burgandians, Celts, Franks, various Germanic tribes - Why do you bother with this one?

4- Spain is not only comprised of Visigoths but also Moors, and Basques 

5-Germany is not only of the Alamannis but also Franks, Saxons and other tribes

6-Portugal is comprised of not just Suevi but earlier by Celts, later by some Visigoths and of course the Moors - Please explain how this one has any importance?

7-Italy is a diversity not just Lombards obviously Latins, Ostrogoths, Greeks especially in the coastal city states.

8-I'm not even sure why you have the Heruli on the list at all. Can you explain?

9-Vandals were clearly not killed to the last person, and most integrated with the Berbers in Northern Algeria, though their kingdom did end. Many others were incorporated into the Byzantine Army. So what's the point of this one?

10-The Ostrogoths after their defeat in Italy mainly resettled in Austria. You don't list Austria but you mention the Ostrogoths, why?

So then the question is where are all of these countries:

1-Greece

2-Turkey (Ottoman Empire)

3-Austria

4-Hungary

5-Poland

6-The Scandinavian countries

7-Egypt

8-Saudi Arabia - surely the god would know about "black gold"

9-Russia - one of the largest & sometimes powerful countries

 

So, why have defunct tribes that assimilated into other territories and ignore places like Russia and Saudi Arabia? Doesn't work with you prophetic interpretation?

 

4- I haven't opened the door as of yet on the pope dictators yet. And I most definitely haven't said anything in regard to the EU

 

 

There is not a need to type in large letters unless you have lost your spectacles.

 

Finally at last you are at least giving me something. Thank You! I don't like to have to get so unpleasant but it is that important. Now we can get back to discussing the prophecies.

I never really started as I was awaiting verification that y'all bought into the magic and Sci-fi. 

Gramps wrote:

As for the credibility of Daniel, it looks like freeminer is doing a good job with the history part. He has also pointed out, once again, as both of us have before, the credibility lies in the fulfillment of prophecy.

History does not prove fantasy and magic, though I note you agree with his opinions.

Gramps wrote:

Yes, many countries that were part of the Roman Empire, or arouse out of it were left out of this prophecy.

To say the least.

Gramps wrote:

The text seems to be referring to 10 kingdoms that arouse from this Empire for some particular reason. It would be logical in moving forward to keep this in mind and discover the reason for this.

I'm all ears.

Gramps wrote:

I mentioned the Heruli because they were a Gothic tribe that became a kingdom, and were destroyed. This fits into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The reason I chose those particular kingdoms will be apparent further along.

Please don't forget to show why you bothered with them and not others, further along.

Gramps wrote:

The point I am making now is that the Roman Empire and no other fits this prophecy as the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7.

You have been put on record you think the 4th kingdom is Rome.

Gramps wrote:

The Vandals existed in some form as a kingdom 335 to 534 AD. After that they completely disappeared as a distinct ethnic unit. The prophecy did not make any statement about not a single person surviving.

And you will also explain why you think this group has any merit too, right?

Gramps wrote:

The Ostrogoth's kingdom existed  from about 493 to 553 AD. With some "rallies" after that. After their final defeat in about 562 AD the Ostrogoth name "wholly" died out. The survivors did go back and resettle in Austria, but their kingdom was no more.

I know, that's what I said, don't trust me? Don't forget to include the reasons for including this one too.

Gramps wrote:

The prophecy refers to a major power following "Greece" that would not be conquered by or followed by another single major power.  Once again I use the term "Greece" because it is the term used in the text. Out of this kingdom would arise 10 kingdoms specifically mentioned. Three of these kingdoms would be destroyed. The other 7 would endure until the coming of the kingdom of God. The territory of that kingdom (the Roman Empire) would not "ever" be united under one kingdom again.

At what point do you define the territory of the Roman Empire? Pick a year or decade.

The 10 kingdoms you picked earlier then are based or them being current today.

An error has occured in your choice of Germany.

The territory of Germany was not in the Roman Empire. See - http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html

And see - http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t27.html

 

Gramps wrote:

It has been over 2300 years since that prophecy was given. This prophecy still stands. The Roman Empire, and it alone fits this description. Man could not have known this would happen. Only God could know that. Therefore the bible is not the construct of man. It is indeed divine.

Then god has made some errors.

As for verification of the "sci-fi" stuff, I take it you are referring to the historicity of Daniel. We discussed that and found that there were some issues that were questionable, but not impossible to resolve. My position was that the proof of the authenticity of Daniel was in the fulfillment of prophecy. So that's where we are now. So let's keep the focus and not stray back until we finish examining the prophecies.

Technically, a country that arouse out of the territories of the Roman Empire could include any part of that Empire from any decade.

One of the criteria I used in picking those particular 10 is yes, they are still with us today.

Yes, my position in Daniel 7 is that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.

Germany? The first site states strongly that Germany was one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire. The second site talks about a 1st invasion of German territories?

Whether you use the countries that I have listed, or substitute others at this point it does not matter. The point I am making now is that Rome, and only Rome fits this prophecy. I am still waiting for your substitute.

In examining prophecy it is important to build a solid base methodically. One can not correctly identify a later power until the earlier ones are well established. For example Rome follows "Greece". Knowing which country Rome follows is very important. If we had no idea what Empire the Roman Empire followed it would be much harder to identify.

For this reason we are "hung up" on establishing the Roman Empire as you claim there are many interpretations but have not yet given me one.

I am still waiting.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Substitute no, Critique Yes

~ ripped out quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................

 

gramster wrote:

 

As for verification of the "sci-fi" stuff, I take it you are referring to the historicity of Daniel. We discussed that and found that there were some issues that were questionable, but not impossible to resolve. My position was that the proof of the authenticity of Daniel was in the fulfillment of prophecy. So that's where we are now. So let's keep the focus and not stray back until we finish examining the prophecies.

Gramps, do you not know the difference between Sci-Fi/Fantasy and historicity?

Sci-Fi/Fantasy or magic = events that are unlikely, defy observations, have no basis in the observed world, cannot be duplicated by any individual person using the same criteria.

Oxford dictionary Definitions-

Sci-Fi (science fiction)- a fiction based on imagined future worlds, showing scientific or technological changes

fantasy - n. 1. the imagining of improbable or impossible things. 2. a fanciful product of the imagination reflecting a person's desires. 3.a type of imaginative fiction involving magic & adventure.

magic - n. 1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. 2.conjuring tricks. 3. a mysterious or wonderful quality.

adj. 1. having supernatural powers. 2. informal very good.

v. 1. move or do by or as if by magic

historicity - historical actuality

historical - adj. 1. having to do with history. 2. belonging to or set in the past. 3. (of the study of a subject0 looking at its development over a period.

actuality - n. actual reality or fact, as opposed to what was intended or expected.

So Gramps when I say I don't get the Sci-Fi of Daniel in reference to claims in regard to actions, it is the action I refer to, walking into a furnace, telling a dream to someone who can't remember it, etc.

I suggest the action is improbable, magic, or fiction. You claim this equals historical actuality. Please show how.

Gramps wrote:
 

Technically, a country that arouse out of the territories of the Roman Empire could include any part of that Empire from any decade.

One of the criteria I used in picking those particular 10 is yes, they are still with us today.

Yes, my position in Daniel 7 is that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.

Germany? The first site states strongly that Germany was one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire. The second site talks about a 1st invasion of German territories?

My bad.

Germany is shown, though they were never subdued and were dropped from it by 17 CE

So, if the Romans invaded and left as they couldn't conquer & control it you still consider that part to be part of the Empire? This might also apply to areas in the far east too.

You error in including Germany as they eventually retreat and give up after several attempts to subdue the Germans, in 17 CE they finally mark the border as the Rhine. Though, it's not essential to my criticism.

See - http://www.white-history.com/hwr15.htm

How about if  they only considered an invasion but didn't as in the case of Ireland, except of course in the TV history according to Xena & Hercules where they tried.

Gramps wrote:

Whether you use the countries that I have listed, or substitute others at this point it does not matter. The point I am making now is that Rome, and only Rome fits this prophecy. I am still waiting for your substitute.

Why do I need a substitute? If the entire episode is "farting around" or meaningless why would there be a need for one?

Gramps wrote:

In examining prophecy it is important to build a solid base methodically. One can not correctly identify a later power until the earlier ones are well established. For example Rome follows "Greece". Knowing which country Rome follows is very important. If we had no idea what Empire the Roman Empire followed it would be much harder to identify.

I call this technique "puzzle piece fitting". Attempts to jam events into your perceived requirements to achieve an end you have already determined.

Gramps wrote:

For this reason we are "hung up" on establishing the Roman Empire as you claim there are many interpretations but have not yet given me one.

I am still waiting.

I'll have to go back and review this entire thread now, to see if I said this as it not something I would normally say.

1- I said the following, which only says many people interpret Daniel in various ways. I didn't say I had a substitute interpretation. As I consider it to be Apocalyptic doom saying and opinionated preaching by a fervent religious zealot intermixed with fantasy/magic claims I don't see a need to see prophecy in it. I will shortly point out more errors and misconstrued ideas though, time permitting.

PJTS post#317 wrote:

The truth is. Daniel wrote many things which are clearly open to interpretations. In your case, you accept them as they are part of the foundation that builds Christianity. The Jews however see this in a very different perspective than you. Others, whether it be atheists or believers in other religious persuasions don't see what you claim either.

2- Then I said you were banging pieces into a puzzle -

PJTS post#420 wrote:

The problem with ancient texts is translation and understanding. What you are doing is "puzzle piece fitting", as was mentioned by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword" in regard to the "healing circle". All you are showing is you can take vague descriptions which have no names associated with them and bang them into a puzzle to build your constructed proof or interpretation.

That's all I can find that even relates.

I have never claimed I hold an interpretation for the "prophecies" of Daniel other than they are not so.

I will meticulously detail and dissect your claim they are "prophecies" but you won't get a substitute interpretation, only a critique.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Critique of Your Daniel 2/7 Interpretation

 

gramster wrote:

 

Daniel 2. This prophecy must foretell as it says "what will be in the latter days". Since it starts with Babylon and ends in the later days it stands to reason that it refers to major players along the way. Kingdoms relevant to God's people starting with the first kingdom to follow Babylon. So we will start there.

Minor issues-

1-This alleged prophecy takes place in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year, and Daniel who was recently relocated as a POW or hostage is already in a trusted position. Promotion must have been very quick in those days.

2-The writer of Daniel used Chaldeans to mean the Babylonian priestly caste, though that term didn't become used that way until well into the Persian period. It was originally the group that produced Napolassar Nebuchadnezzar's daddy. It then came to mean anyone in the Babylonian Kingdom.

3-Daniel is not mentioned in any Babylonian records (or his supposed Babylonian name). They kept great records and so far nothing.

gramster wrote:

1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.

That was the idea wasn't it.

gramster wrote:

2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.

Which is not likely as there was no such Empire.

There were the Medes who were conquered by the Persians. Taking this approach, we are at the Medes.

Is this supported, yes as this kingdom was actually inferior to Babylon and was conquered by Cyrus, who then called his kingdom the Persian Kingdom.

gramster wrote:

3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.

You are now off count and out of sequence, as this should be the Persians. What is said here, is also supported by the writing. The Persian kingdom lasted much longer than Babylon and did rule the "whole world" (that they knew).

gramster wrote:

4. We have the legs of Iron - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this kingdom we get a divided kingdom which shall last until God sets up His kingdom, which is still in the future.

Since we still have some debate to the identity of these kingdoms we will hold open the possibility I may be wrong. We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Since the next most powerful kingdom looking at this writing this way would now be Alexander. And he truly did conquer their known world and beyond (India too). And his kingdom was split 4 ways. 

So, what if you are right and Rome becomes the 4th kingdom? Then there is the problem of neglecting all the other World Powers, such as the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, and even the US empire (that's what foreigners think of us anyway) not to mention all the others you don't want to discuss, such as the USSR, Japan, Hitler's 3rd Reich who did conquer most of the Roman Empire. If we go your way, why did the writer not discuss them? Hitler certainly had an impact on the Jews.

gramster wrote:

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

1. We have a lion with eagles wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

Probably.

gramster wrote:

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

Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.

gramster wrote:

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

Probably not. It would be the Persians. The Bible only mentions 4 kings of Persia, there were 9 actually. These 4 kings are represented as the leopard with 4 wings & heads according to most scholars that are not Bible believers.

gramster wrote:

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

Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.

gramster wrote:

Daniel 8 gives further details.

Minor issues -

1-Supposedly the angel Gabriel explains the vision to Daniel. Most mainstream religious scholars concur that angels who are specifically named did not enter into Jewish traditions until well into the Persian period. 

2-Daniel is told to keep the prophecy to himself since it dealt with the end times. The writer has the perception these end times were near, if it was in the 2nd century,he may have had cause to think so.

 

gramster wrote:

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

I don't know where you get this was given in the end of Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom as verse 1 says it was in the 3rd year of Belshazzar's reign (a reign I don't agree happened but not pertinent to your error) 

You error with this statement.

gramster wrote:

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".

Yes, it is. But only one becomes larger then the other. If the empire in the 2nd kingdom you claimed was both, why have 2 horns here symbolically showing it was separate? How can a single empire be 2 different sizes? This also fits in with the 2nd empire earlier mentioned being inferior to Babylon, smaller horn. Thus this Ram represents 2 empires separately but coming from the same geographic area.

gramster wrote:

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.

The goat can be Alexander's empire as the writer does say it is a king of Greece. The 4 horns are a representation by the writer of the 4 way split of his empire.

 

gramster wrote:

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

Oh, you want to wait to discuss it later.

However, I'll give you an opening for you to take a shot against.

The little horn is actually Antiochus IV. Which fits perfectly with Daniel being a prophecy written after the fact, or a history.

 

Onward to search for more of your conjecture in another one of your posts.

Have fun 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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Continued Critique of Your Interpretation of Dan 7

gramster wrote:

 

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

If you claim as you did the 4th beast was Rome earlier in your post # 351, and you now say it resembles Greece in Daniel 8 aren't you in conflict with yourself?

 

gramster wrote:

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

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

Which I say is the Seleucid Empire.

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...eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words".

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

He does, but you don't see it as you have jammed the wrong pieces in the puzzle.

gramster wrote:

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

Identifying points of the 4th beast:

1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.

2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.

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

Since you so emphatically pointed out to me this alleged "prophecy" is aimed at the Jews, why then do you take it to levels the Jews have no interest, Europe specifically? Instead, if you consider a 2nd century perception as a Jew, what would you write that was affecting your people?

In fact, the writer would have seen it more like this:

The Seleucid Empire was the 4th Beast, as it was exceedingly powerful, at least to them.

The 10 horns that rose up in this empire were: 

1- Seleucus

2- Antiochus I

3- Antiochus II

4- Seleucus II

5- Seleucus III

6- Antiochus III

7- Seleucus IV

8- Demetrius

9- Heliodorus

10-Seleucus IV's infant son

gramster wrote:

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

Anglo-Saxons became England

Franks became France

Burgundians became Switzerland

Visigoths became Spain

Alamanni became Germany

Suevi became Portugal

Lombards became Italy

Heruli destroyed completely AD 493

Vandals destroyed completely AD 534

Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538

This is all pieces you wrongly jammed in the puzzle when you misidentified the Seleucid Empire as Rome.

You need to keep your perspective and see the world as the 2nd century BCE writer did so you can piece the puzzle together. These tribes had no meaning to the Jews.

gramster wrote:

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

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

  

The 3 that are subdued were Demetrius, Heliodorus, and the infant son of Seleucus IV, not misapplied tribes that had no bearing on the Jews. 

As you stopped here, so will I.

I will go in search of your next post where hopefully you identify your view of who or what was the little horn. 

 

 

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

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