Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline under that rock is no position from which to be speaking of "avoidance"!
Which rock is that?
the one you're hiding under
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?
ok, so you have a comprehension problem.
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?
it amazes me that, after so much discussion, the actual implications of the facts are apparently only just sinking in.
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.
So you have no reasoned argument then.
you've been given one. The historical facts support the view that the Book of Daniel comprises authentic foretelling.
No, I don't know if you are tempted.
if you know the point of the debate, why did you question it?
The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.
since when has "convenience" been the issue?
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.
all sorts of historical detail is not in Daniel..........so what?
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.
do you not understand the term "co-regent"? Is English not your first language?
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]
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.
I think my above quote clarifies the situation.
experiments in dream science have been unable to duplicate this claim. See dream science.It is a problem from your acceptance of fantasy.
ah! you've recognised that the claims of the Bible do not concur with naturalism...........could this be progress?!
Preaching is not helpful to your cause.
what do you suppose that is?
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!
you are desperately slow to recognise the straightforward implications of the Biblical framework. For some odd reason you consider that rationality is confined to naturalism. Were this so the Bible would not be true. You won't find truth by clinging to your own irrational preconceptions.
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.
not so. Our position was that Daniel was aimed initially the Jews. The fact that prophecy was given to Nebuchadnezzer indicates that Gentiles are in the frame. The prophecies relating to the fourth kingdom and the final kingdom are clearly worldwide. This correlates with other prophecy throughout scripture.
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.
oh dear..........I wasn't around. Could you retain some element of maturity to the debate?
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus.
please reference where I said this.
No relationship has been shown to exist between Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar - George Roux - Ancient Iraq.
I've answered this.........see the Aramaic.
Big surprise, you buy into magic and fantasy.Your acceptance of fantasy is 'hot air'.
"magic" is just another atheist cliche............could do better
I did, see above, you claim magic and fantasy are real.
on which rational basis do you presuppose the cosmological uniformity of cause and effect and if your presupposition is correct, why is quantum unpredictability a mystery?
'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.
- Login to post comments
Offline
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:That was the idea wasn't it.1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.
gramster wrote:Quote: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.
This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!
20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.
gramster wrote:Quote:3. We have the belly and thighs of bronze - which I believe is Greece.Quote: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).not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:
20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
and this:
5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.
makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.
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.
Quote: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.only in your delusion.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
Quote: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.are you reading a different book?
Quote: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.Russia is mentioned and the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon nations which came from it.
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.
Quote:Probably.gramster wrote:2. We have a bear raised up on on side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.
Quote:Again, only the Medes for the reason given above.a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.
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.
the next says:
17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.
4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.
5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.
6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
thus the third kingdom is the leopard.
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.
'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.
- Login to post comments
Offline freeminer, here is a detailed article describing what is currently understood to be the evolutionary history of whales, which didn't evolve form cows, of course. Cows as such weren't around at the time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
An early ancestor is thought to be a wolf-like creature, described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinonyx_jiashanensis
Of course I don't expect you to believe or understand this, but just making sure you can't honestly claim you haven't been shown.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. We have the head of gold - which we know is Babylon.
2. We have the chest and arms of silver - which I believe is Medo-Persia.
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.
This is a really dumb argument! For the third time..........Daniel itself tells you which kingdom is being referred to!!!!!!!
20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia.
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).
not so...........after the ram of Media and Persia comes the goat of Greece.........as follows:
20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
and this:
5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 He came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7 I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.
makes it clear that the goat of Greece follows immediately from the ram of Media and Persia and is the kingdom which is broken into four.
]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.
only in your delusion.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
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.
are you reading a different book?
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.
Russia is mentioned and the British Empire and Anglo-Saxon nations which came from it.
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.
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.
a rather feeble attempt to re-write the text.
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.
the text says:
17 'The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.
4 "The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle.
5 "And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear.
6 "After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
thus the third kingdom is the leopard. The third kingdom is Greece.
4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.
Which I don't think the writer intended to be seen as Rome, which I will also discuss later with your comment.
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.
but we're not discussing Jewish tradition. Scholars believe that Daniel was completed circa 530 BC. Your statement thus supports its prophetic authenticity.
-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.
there is no indication whatsoever that Daniel thought this. He was told:
14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline freeminer, here is a detailed article describing what is currently understood to be the evolutionary history of whales, which didn't evolve form cows, of course. Cows as such weren't around at the time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
An early ancestor is thought to be a wolf-like creature, described here:
oh!? is it wolves this week?...........even more bizarre!
'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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:freeminer, here is a detailed article describing what is currently understood to be the evolutionary history of whales, which didn't evolve form cows, of course. Cows as such weren't around at the time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
An early ancestor is thought to be a wolf-like creature, described here:
oh!? is it wolves this week?...........even more bizarre!
Thank you for so clearly displaying your ignorant fuckwittedness, I couldn't have asked for a much better demonstration....
Pearls before swine...
You wouldn't know truth and logic if it bit you on the arse...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:the badge is attached to an obvious Christian, yes it implies that you (and you alone) are lying. But I think you understand that - your conscience is just seared to it.I'm glad you dig the joke - either you're a poe and a good one or you just dig lying for Jesus. That's Ok - the creator of your religion was good at it also.
I only give as good as I get. Since your prophecy argument is " It has to be a prophecy or my argument falls flat" fell flat before it started...
As for the badge, it's a question of honesty. You Christian types like to claim that Jesus is the truth you live. Time for you to "walk your talk". Does telling the truth really scare you that much?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline ~ 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.
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 -
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.
As for all the Sci-Fi stuff you keep referring to, we all know that what we are talking about is whether or not one believes in a God that is capable of doing things that people can not do or explain.
As for Germany, since it is not essential to either of our arguments I also will let this go for now.
As for discussions about prophecy being farting around, just the opposite is true. Off topic diversions and other meaningless avoidance tactics is what I refer to as farting around.
There is a big difference between analyzing identifying points and acknowledging the only power that fits, and puzzle fitting to make things fit ones own views. That is why I have made the challenge for you to come up with a substitute for Rome as the 4th power in Daniel 7. We will see if I am puzzle fitting.
I'm glad we are finally getting down to actually having something to examine.
Thank You.
- Login to post comments
Since you have a magnet next to your compass you are sailing the wrong direction.
So you quote the verses and don't discuss them. What's with that?
Plus, shouldn't these verses be from Daniel 7 not 8? You have 8:24 and it should be 7:24, 8:20 and it should be 7:20 .....
Instead how about:
1- It rose up out of the 4th beast - Yeah, the guy I'm thinking about was a Seleucid.
2-Yeah, he appeared after the 10 I mentioned.
3-He was the brother of the king and not directly in line for secession, but a little murder and intrigue was all it took.
4-Seleucus IV is poisoned by Heliodorus who had designs on the throne. He is killed by intrigue of Antiochus IV, the brother of Seleucus IV. The next heir would have been Demetrius but he is held hostage in Rome. The infant son of Seleucus was too young to rule and is killed in 170 BCE.
5-Antiochus IV was pretty much the "devil in disguise" as far as the Jews were concerned. He tried to Hellenize them. He set up an altar to Zeus in the Temple. He banned their religion.
6-Antiochus persecuted the Jews, he burned the Torah scrolls, sometimes with the offending Jew. He killed infants that had been circumcised along with their mothers, hanging the dead infant around the mothers neck. He killed priests including Onias which is what is described in Daniel 8:10-11, and in some verses in chap 9 as well as in chap 11.
7-Antiochus banned the practice of the Jewish religion, circumcision, banned the Torah scrolls, burning them and anyone found with them.
8-He was successful for a time.
You need to move that magnet away from your compass. Remove the pieces you jammed into the puzzle and remember Daniel was writing about the Jews and what influenced them, specifically in the 2nd century BCE.
I did try to steer you another direction by criticizing the "limited scope of Daniel" when applied as prophecy, but as a history it fits.
Please read the Books of 1& 2 Maccabees and Jospheus- book 1 The Jewish Wars and his history of the Jews books 12 & 13.
Daniel was written during the tumultuous times before the Maccabees War and not as prophecy in Babylon.
This is not interpreting a prophecy but is instead history written as it happened
____________________________________________________________
"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.
'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.
no you didn't...........you said:
"Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt"
to which I pointed out the obvious source of empirical evidence.
a restatement of my position does not advance your argument.
yes.
you could prove it for yourself
of course you do. The presumption that empirical evidence is the only sort will not help your quest but I've already pointed you to some.
if you were genetically stronger and lived in a hyperbaric chamber, you'd live longer too.
I'm still interested in seeing scientific evidence that a cow turned into a whale!
'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.