Prophecy is Testimony to God's actions...

upphouse
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-02-09
User is offlineOffline
Prophecy is Testimony to God's actions...

...provided it has a good chronological backbone to it.

 Biblical Chronology shows today that God exists, that He has been at work in the affairs of mankind especially in relationship to governments and His people Israel.  Athiests will commonly challenge Theists to produce "a reason" to believe that God exists, and I believe I can provide this "reason."  The only thing left is for athiests to leave open the possibility that there exists a reason that would convince them.

 Anyway, prophecy, which is God telling us things before they happen is a reason to believe that God is outside of time ordering the events of mankind.  The Jews have provided us with ancient texts that make outstanding claims of the future, and of God.  Let us examine them with candid minds.

 Daniel 8 is my first example.  (Please read all of Daniel 8 now; otherwise you will be lost.)  Daniel sees two empires at war with each other, beginning at a river.  The second empire beats the first and sweeps over the land.  This begins a time period that lasts for "2300 evenings and mornings."  This time period ends when "the sanctuary" is cleansed.

 Alexander the Great is understood to be the first Greek king.  He defeats Darius at the Hellespont River in 334 BCE, and then takes over the empire.  Big deal.  That's history after the fact, right?  Except that Jerusalem would be under Gentile rule for 2300 "days" until Israel is taken back.  

 A day equals a year often in prophecy.  Moses does this: 40 days for 40 years of wandering, referring to the reconniter of the land of Canaan.  Ezekiel does this too: chapter 4,  

From 334 BCE to 1967 is 2300 years, because there is no year zero.  1967 is the year that Jerusalem was taken back by the Jews and thus ending the prophecy.  This cannot be written after the fact.  

 The God of the Jews is controlling His Story.  And that includes Athiests!

 All of Daniel is precise like this.  All it takes is an open mind.  However, I suspect that anything proposed to be a "reason" will be rejected from the outset, thus setting up eternal security for any rational responder.  They can never be wrong!

 Yours, 

Upphouse 


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
upphouse

upphouse wrote:

...provided it has a good chronological backbone to it.

 Biblical Chronology shows today that God exists, that He has been at work in the affairs of mankind especially in relationship to governments and His people Israel.  Athiests will commonly challenge Theists to produce "a reason" to believe that God exists, and I believe I can provide this "reason."  The only thing left is for athiests to leave open the possibility that there exists a reason that would convince them.

Well, to tell you the proof, I'd be willing to accept that Biblical chronology shows everything BUT God existing. Let me give you some examples myself:

- (edit: moved them to the bottom, in order to avoid repetition)

 

Quote:
Anyway, prophecy, which is God telling us things before they happen is a reason to believe that God is outside of time ordering the events of mankind.  The Jews have provided us with ancient texts that make outstanding claims of the future, and of God.  Let us examine them with candid minds.

Depends on the clarity of the prophecies themselves. Why, for instance, doesn't God predict something like: "In a year that you will come to name 1940, a land which you will come to call Europe will be swept by war. Out of the two factions, one will have a man which you will call Adolf Hitler as a frontman..."

Frankly, I too can predict that one day people will not walk or run on great distances, but will use "chariots that eat the land as they go", and that someday, mankind will "cruise through the skies in chariots so fast and powerful, that they will leave a hot trail of myst behind them."

Quote:
Daniel 8 is my first example.  (Please read all of Daniel 8 now; otherwise you will be lost.)  Daniel sees two empires at war with each other, beginning at a river.  The second empire beats the first and sweeps over the land.  This begins a time period that lasts for "2300 evenings and mornings."  This time period ends when "the sanctuary" is cleansed.

 Alexander the Great is understood to be the first Greek king.  He defeats Darius at the Hellespont River in 334 BCE, and then takes over the empire.  Big deal.  That's history after the fact, right?  Except that Jerusalem would be under Gentile rule for 2300 "days" until Israel is taken back.

Actually, Alexander the Great, from my shabby knowledge of history, was Macedonian.

Furthermore: Daniel was written, by canon, somewhere around 300 BCE. Being also written in Arameic, and knowing that Arameic had only later become "official" language, it comes to mind that Daniel wasn't speaking BEFORE Alexander, but AFTER, and therefore Daniel's story is rather a historical metaphor than a prophecy, in relation to what you are suggesting.

Even further than that: The battle of Hellespont did take place in 334 BCE, but the Persians were only defeated in 333 BCE, after the battle of Issus.

Quote:
A day equals a year often in prophecy.  Moses does this: 40 days for 40 years of wandering, referring to the reconniter of the land of Canaan.

Honestly, I don't know how in the world would Jews travel 40 bloody years to Canaan, from Egypt, when that trip takes about five days, let's say 10 because they were many and had to get organized.

Simple calculus, just to show you what piece of crap that story is:

Length of the equator is approximated at 40,000 km. If you go round it for forty years, it would mean that you have to make 1,000 km per year. Considering that there are 365 days, it would mean that you have to do less than 3 km per day in order to finish it in that time.

And believe me, even a turtle moves faster than that.

Besides, let's accept that they had to wage wars onto many different people (only that I have no idea how the heck would so many types of people settle in that small area, that is freakin barren desert, by the way), but how the heck do you go to waging war when you know that there's an Egyptian army of charioteers that move about 20 times faster than you on your tail.

Quote:
Ezekiel does this too: chapter 4,  

From 334 BCE to 1967 is 2300 years, because there is no year zero.  1967 is the year that Jerusalem was taken back by the Jews and thus ending the prophecy.  This cannot be written after the fact.

This is actually false, because there have been periods when Jerusalem was back in the hands of the Jews (right before the conquest of Pompeii, in the interstitial period, etc.).

Besides, from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was half in the hands of Israel, as in many other periods. And that "half" is exactly the "old Jerusalem", that particular Jerusalem that was mentioned in the Bible.

You yourself just stated what those 2300 days mean, and I've just told you that they refer to an event that happened BEFORE Daniel. So why give it another meaning?

Also, why would prophets need to use "day" with the following meanings:

- millions of years (Genesis)

- days (Jesus staying in the desert)

- days (Daniel - note that Daniel states clearly: 2300 mornings and evenings, it doesn't state "days". Perhaps Daniel wanted people to be certain that he was referring to actual days, not metaphorical days)

- years (Ezekiel)

Can you explain that?

I'm certain that if we look at otherwars/conquests, we could find other similarities.

I'm going to go even further into proving that you are wrong:

Even if some historians accept that the date of the battle of Issus is uncertain, being possible to actually be 334 BCE, another question comes into mind: How in the world were Persians already in Israel at that time?

The first conquests of Jerusalem, actually, date back to 586 BCE. It is a known fact that generally, back then, battles were fought next to rivers, especially big ones, for two reasons: one, because there was watter supply and natural defense (advantage defenders), and two, because the opposing army could be circled more easily, having to circle only half of it because of the river (advantage attackers).

So, your story is simply a very convinving coincidence, which is historically doubtful.

Quote:
The God of the Jews is controlling His Story.  And that includes Athiests!

Are you a Jew? I'm not. Why would I adhere to their God?

Quote:
All of Daniel is precise like this.  All it takes is an open mind.  However, I suspect that anything proposed to be a "reason" will be rejected from the outset, thus setting up eternal security for any rational responder.  They can never be wrong!

Of course they can't. Let me prove you just how they can't (citing SAB):

- The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling.

- The author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk. In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar.

- Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus

Daniel is precise like this, of course...

I'm waiting. Any other "prophecies" you'd like to bring into discussion?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/