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
It's cool that you and pjts

It's cool that you and pjts agree on this. It leaves you on shaky ground with Daniel.

1. Daniel claims Darius was king of the Medes. You say he wasn't. If he were simply a governor, why call him a king?

2. You claim Nabonidus was Belshazzar's father (I think - looks like quoting got screwed up) but Daniel 5 refers to "Nebuchadnezzar his father".

If it's prophecy, shouldn't it get things right? Looks like you're the one bending the needle.

"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:What

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
What you detect is my recognition that you exist in a world of your own where your perceptions are altered by your erroneous beliefs in that which is not.

"my world" is shared by sufficient numbers to provide sufficient assurance that my logic is not peculiar to me.

An appeal to an "argument from the masses" - If you go this route, there are more Muslims than those that buy your scenario and more Catholics that are taught that Daniel's prophecies we are discussing are RE: Antiochus IV.

Of course the masses can be wrong, demonstrated time and time again.

Try again.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
You are welcome to follow the path of self deception and fantasy that you have chosen.

you rightly imply here that what is ultimately at stake in this discussion is the issue of which party is departing from rationality. Well let's take a look at this:

1] We are examining a text which is available to all parties. So far you have engaged in a mind-numbing debate regarding the identity of the four earthly kingdoms dealt with by Daniel. You have maintained this in total disregard for the fact that the text itself makes their identity clear. In order to do this, you have to treat the three main prophecies given to Daniel as entirely unrelated. You do this despite the fact that the text itself makes their inter-relatedness clear.

So, while claiming the irrationality of scripture, you simultaneously refuse to accord it a presumption of rationality yourself!!!! 

2] Without any rational basis, you arbitrarily declare that there is no onus upon you to put forward your own alternative rational paradigm. You apparently fail to notice that without one, any critque of scripture by yourself has no basis whatsoever, the exercise sinks into the realms of absurdity. 

3] You insist on a re-writing of history in the face of the facts.

4] You then resort to blaming your debating opponents and attributing to them characteristics which you are entirely unable to verify.......as here:

Quote:
You somehow think that you can infect others with this same affliction by trickery, misconstrued interpretation, blatant assertions, and distortion.

supplemented with wild, irrational statements of the  most bizarre kind as here:

Quote:
You are not in the employ of the Grand Inquisitor Conrad of Marburg in the Middle Ages.

Perhaps you think you are in some way using a metaphorical rack that you can tighten to inflict pain or acceptance of your misconceived interpretations of ancient writing. You're not.

Those that think you are in someway presenting a realistic interpretation are welcome to join you.

I do not require your acceptance of my position where I reject the fantasy, misconceptions,  poor interpretations, and trickery you spin nor that of those who wish to be swayed by you. 

I would add that whether others "join me" is dependent upon whether they are prepared to seek the truth regardless of the implications for their own autonomy. That is what evinces the mindset of a person. If a man fears the implications of truth, his natural reaction is to collude with his own deception. That is why I have no great hopes for your eternal future.

What part of "I do realize that this entire discussion will not have any effect on you or that which you believe. That was never my point. I am not trying to save you from yourself. You can believe and accept whatever it is that works for you, which I have said to you more than once." don't you understand?

You can try to beat me to death with your errant misconceived views all you like. Shout it from the rooftops. Stand up in your mega-church. You have stepped out of reality from your 1st claims in this thread that the "supernatural" claims of this writing has any more possibility of being true than any other from antiquity. You presented nothing as evidence to refute the challenge to these events. What you did was claim the Sci-Fi events are true because you claim the Daniel prophecies you have interpreted to a pre-determined end are true.

You have not presented anything to discredit a writing in the 2nd century. You think you have, but you leave unanswered the challenges to those claims as well.

Start answering those challenges.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I do realize that this entire discussion will not have any effect on you or that which you believe. That was never my point. I am not trying to save you from yourself. You can believe and accept whatever it is that works for you, which I have said to you more than once.

I think, as products of a liberal upbringing, we have this much in common. I assumed it from the outset. God gives you the right to co-operate in your own eternal destruction. There is no inherent reason for me to care about you more than any other stranger in the street. Neither my world-view nor my ego hang upon the perception of having 'won' some debate soon to be lost in cyber-space. Unfortunately I've been given a task, which is to ensure that you know the facts.......it simply seems to be a reasonable addendum to try to ensure that, where you depart from rationality in your apprehension of them, this is clearly pointed out to you. I am in fact doing you a dis-service........the man who lives in ignorance is less guilty.

Speak for yourself, I was brought up in a conservative environment.

You are not the first evangelical believer I have encountered in my life, I was one once. I also have many friends & acquaintances like you. Whatever their reason, ego, love, friendship, or the "task from Jesus".

Don't worry about doing me a disservice, my Lutheran schoolteacher mother took care of that a long time ago. As did Jesuit priests in grad school.

You say you were given a task, based on the "teach all nations" in the Gospels I assume. You should remember what Jesus said in regard to those who won't believe.

Unlike you, I wasn't given a task, I do this because of my own choice. Believers of various religions have done enough damage to the world.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
We can continue to play out our roles in this thread for as long as you like. You can call me names, claim whatever you wish if it unburdens your mind to do so. 

I am not aware of having launched a personal attack on you. I have made clear the points at which I regard you as having departed from rationality for the reason given above. The propensity of the atheist to indulge in self-delusion will always be a source of wonderment to a theist. One of the symptoms is that from time to time it presents as a lesser intelligence than one knows him to possess.

You are condescending and elitist in your replies which is unwarranted and unhelpful. You play games and twist comments. Your presentation is sloppy as is your use of quote attribution making your responses difficult to sift out. There's no reason for that as I have explained in the simplest terms how to use the site and its functions. That you don't suggests you don't want to or you are using a Mac.

The acceptance of ancient texts from one culture which has its origin in the mists similar to other ancient cultures with no evidence for it anymore than any other is a wonderment to atheists.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I leave you with these quotes from Eleanor Roosevelt:

"In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility."

well, even the religionist thinks this. He believes that his righteousness is entirely in his own hands..........Jesus said he didn't come for them. The man who believes he has the answer needs help from no-one. She was right about one thing, which is that God holds everyone ultimately responsible. That responsibility includes responsibility to use the rationality he has given us and to resist the temptation to dispense with it when we feel our autonomy threatened.

As I was once like you, propagating the message of the Gospel, door to door even when I was an evangelical Lutheran I do understand where you are. As time progresses in your life one can never tell where it will lead you and what answers you may find. Assuming I have not had help and understanding from many sources is a gross error on your part. I have been an evangelical, a Catholic, and now a non-believer.

One analogy I use, is your OS is corrupted. In this condition you can't recognize that you have errors and blue screens. If you see a blue screen you dismiss it and continue. The only way to correct this is a reboot and possibly a re-install. That however would take recognition there was a problem. There may be a point someday in your life when you grasp this, or not. Either way as long as you refrain from violence and imposition of your beliefs by force or suppression of minority views, it matters little to me in the long term.

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

 

so don't give it. God doesn't require you to. No-one has anything they weren't given.  Being made in his image is the ultimate claim.

I won't.

____________________________________________________________
"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:Some view this as



Quote:
Some view this as Daniel writing an actual prophecy that didn't happen as Antiochus IV died from an illness before he could do it.


we know how he died.......and where..........he obviously should have been in bed,.....Daniel is writing a prophecy which hasn't happened........yet!


Quote:
I'd thought you'd like a Faux News Style statement. Some people say . . .

There are many interpretations of Daniel, not just your Bible thumpers version.

of course.. ........our task is to discover the one which is rationally coherent.

 

Quote:
Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.
I'm not sure what a "perfect writer" would look like. The scriptural claim is that Daniel constitutes authentic prophecy confirmed by history and extending to the present day. You have raised objections which are common among secularists. I have supplied rational answers. If Daniel was a retrospective, calculated deception, why wasn't Nabonidus mentioned? What was the motive?


Quote:
1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

Quote:
2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?

 

Courtesy Daily Telegraph.

Quote:
The sound of unbridled joy seldom breaks the quiet of the British Museum's great Arched Room, which holds its collection of 130,000 Assyrian cuneiform tablets, dating back 5,000 years.

But Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, let out such a cry last Thursday. He had made what has been called the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years, a discovery that supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.

Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.

Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim.

Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city.

The small tablet, the size of "a packet of 10 cigarettes" according to Irving Finkel, a British Museum expert, is a bill of receipt acknowledging Nabu-sharrussu-ukin's payment of 0.75 kg of gold to a temple in Babylon.

The tablet is dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, 595BC, 12 years before the siege of Jerusalem.

Evidence from non-Biblical sources of people named in the Bible is not unknown, but Nabu-sharrussu-ukin would have been a relatively insignificant figure.

"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," Dr Finkel said yesterday. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."

Cuneiform is the oldest known form of writing and was commonly used in the Middle East between 3,200 BC and the second century AD. It was created by pressing a wedge-shaped instrument, usually a cut reed, into moist clay.

The full translation of the tablet reads: (Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.



Quote:
3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

answered

Quote:
4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!!  

Quote:
5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.

Quote:
6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.

Quote:
7-Belshalzzar killed when the Persians bloodlessly take the City of Babylon under Cyrus, not Darius.

I have answered this..........again ignored by you.  Darius I, Darius II, Darius the Mede? 

28 So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus [a] the Persian.

Quote:
- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.

Quote:
This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

So feel free to ignore them. That's your choice.

how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.

Quote:
Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!

Quote:
I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

Quote:
Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.

see my answer on Baruch.


Quote:
In some ways this seems to have occurred though when you consider the wars with Parthia in the East and Egypt. In 168 BCE Rome pressured him to leave Egypt. Antiochus in disregard to the treaty of Apamea built a fleet of ships and powerful navy invading Cyprus.


 Cyprus is not Egypt.  Furthermore Egypt attacked him! Your eye for detail suddenly becomes  hazy! In fact, as I pointed out, his initial alliance with Ptolemy preceded a later attack on Egypt which was actually frustrated by Rome. He actually decided that it was not a good time to invade .......so you are indulging in revisionism here. As I said, the death of Antiochus is dealt with before v36. Here is the text of v36 et seq:


Quote:
Do you work at Faux?
is this supposed to be an argument?

Quote:
1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.



Quote:
Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI

thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?


  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. 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.





Quote:
I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.

you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts? 

Quote:
I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.

Quote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


Quote:
This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19


Quote:
Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

well spotted..........do you see the common theme?

because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:


Quote:
The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!



Quote:


Quote:
4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .
yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved. 

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.


Quote:
5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


Quote:
Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

Quote:
6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

Dan 11:40 does not say that.


Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"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."

42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?

 

Quote:
The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurrs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.
no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.
Quote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


Quote:
Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*

I didn't cite Daniel 11.

Quote:
Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV

Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)

25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 164 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem.........as you said.

 

Quote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.


Quote:
More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land) going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.
  wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia! 

Quote:
9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


Quote:
It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus?  

Quote:
It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.
you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!

Quote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


Quote:
While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

Quote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


Quote:
Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*

no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e] '

Quote:
Translations once again disagree.

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 

Quote:
I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 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."

 

 

'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.


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

gramster wrote:

Thanks, yes, now we are clear. Sorry for the delay on this.

You are right when you say that Media and Persia were actually separate kingdoms and should be viewed as such. Separate kingdoms that were represented together by individual beasts. I have looked into your interpretations carefully, and still have some pretty significant problems.

First, since we are separating out Media from Persia, Media never did follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Babylon was "conquered" by Cyrus. Now technically, Cyrus was the king of Persia and Media. When he rebelled against his grandfather Astyages and gained victory in 550 BC he became the king of Media. This made him the king of Media and Persia.

Under Persian rule the Mede's who were close kin to the Persians retained a prominent position in the kingdom. At the beginning the Geek historians were still calling it a Median Empire. History still considers Persia to be a successor state to Media.

Thus, it would not be correct to use two beasts or sections of a statue to represent Media and Persia. One would have to either represent Persia alone, or considering the Median role "Medo-Persia". The writer of Daniel chose to acknowledge the Median connection by including them in these beasts.

That being said, we have the bear raised up on one side that corresponds nicely with the Ram with one horn larger than the other. Both symbols representing a greater Persia with a Median connection.

Second, we have the leopard with four wings and four heads. This is a very poor symbol for Persia. Yes, Persia did have more than four kings, but was never viewed as having four distinct power centers. Heads being greater than horns would more than likely represent something more than individual kings in succession.

Greece now is a perfect fit. The four wings represent the swiftness with which Alexander conquered all of the vast areas of Persia. The four heads represent the four major divisions that came out of Alexanders kingdom. Now here's a perfect fit.

Than we have the little horn in Daniel 7 who's appearance was greater than his fellows. Antiochus VI was definitely not greater than his predecessors. Yes, he was a "nasty little bugger", but not great in the scheme of things.

If one just takes the book as what is claims (prophecy from God), and does not try to make something else out of it, everything works out just fine.

If one bends the needle of the compass 180 degrees to try to avoid acknowledging God, there are always problems.

Once again, we have a storyline "made up" that just does not work.

 

No problem on the delay, Freeminer and I have occupied ourselves with sparring.

The Medes and Persians were as we both agree separate kingdoms. After Cyrus conquered the Medes in 550 BCE they became vassals. The Medes were always inferior to Babylon as indicated by Daniel as well. The Persians on the other hand had a kingdom that lasted over 3 times longer and encompassed most of the known world thus being greater than Babylon. The Medes did not do so and so were inferior as Daniel indicated.  Thus the Persians do fit in the scenario as Daniel described. The little horn is explicitly stated as coming out of the Macedonian empire of Alexander from one of the 4 kingdoms. That being so, the Seleucid kings fit while Rome does not fit. None of the Greek Kingdoms included Rome or the Etruscans before them so it doesn't fit.

Since we cannot agree, it is pointless to beat each other senseless, that's already going on what with the sparring I have with Freeminer, so I suggest you go ahead and finish your interpretation.

When we get to the end, we can both summarize our views and critiques and let it be what it is. OK?

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

 


 

Quote:
Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.
I'm not sure what a "perfect writer" would look like. The scriptural claim is that Daniel constitutes authentic prophecy confirmed by history and extending to the present day. You have raised objections which are common among secularists. I have supplied rational answers. If Daniel was a retrospective, calculated deception, why wasn't Nabonidus mentioned? What was the motive?

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century without an Internet and a local library in a tumultous time with strife, violence, persecution under conditions where the writer could be executed for his work his accuracy in regard to ancient history could be less than perfect. Lo. that is what we find.

freemeiner wrote:


Quote:
1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

This differs with the babylonian Chronicles - see here - which mention no such adventure by Nebuchadnezzar that year against Hattiland or Judah. The taking of captives is in the 7th year of his reign per the Chronicles while 2 Kings claim it is in his 8th year. Jeremiah also agrees it was the 7th year. "The date in this Biblical story (the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar) is contradicted by this chronicle and the Biblical book of Jeremiah, which both state that it was the seventh year:"

Regrdless, only the Bible claims that captives were taken in 605 BCE.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?

 Babylonian records. See above.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

answered

Not answered.

 

This refers to the Chaldeans being desribed as astrologers or a priest caste not the people or population. I asked this in post #499 you had it in post #505 but made no comment in its regard.

So, no you never answered this. If you think you did, please refer to where.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!! 

Of course I do because the Bible is what we are analyzing here isn't it.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.

The Bible gives a situation in conflict with Babylonian records, the Nabonidus Chronicles. 2 claims differ. The tablets are the originals, the Book of Daniel who can say what it is for sure.

 

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.

Not ignored, discounted in favor of the Babylonian records.

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.

It was bloodless or it wasn't. Simple choice that.

 

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

So feel free to ignore them. That's your choice.

how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.

See above, no Internet. Walking to the library in Alexandria was a bit of a distance. Not to mention it was through a war zone. Writing in regard to the evils of your current dictator king might also be hazzardous, as might going on field trips for verification might just get you executed by Antiochus' soldiers.

 

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!

So, the question is why is Daniel when it has the same problems.

 

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

No. It isn't for Baruch.

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.

see my answer on Baruch.

There is no reason to doubt Sirach was written by ben Sira in about 180 BCE. Whether canon or not in the religious persuasion you accept,  Daniel is not mentioned which is the point.

You probably don't accept 1 & 2 Mac either but regrdless they have a lot of history in the 2nd century BCE. Oh, I see further down this response you also don't consider them to be worthwhile.


freeminer wrote:


Quote:
1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.


Spin . . whee...

Perhaps we have some sort of communication problem between us or so it seems. After one of us chops and rips it becomes tough to grasp what was what. Also true of grabbing a piece of discussion and commenting.

My best guess here is this is what you mean:

Antiochus fits v25-27 as described in the 1 Mac quote therefore it's not in the v36?

If you mean something else then be straight forward about it.




freeminer wrote:


Quote:
Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI

thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?

You asked this: "Cyprus is not Egypt.  Furthermore Egypt attacked him! Your eye for detail suddenly becomes  hazy! In fact, as I pointed out, his initial alliance with Ptolemy preceded a later attack on Egypt which was actually frustrated by Rome. He actually decided that it was not a good time to invade .......so you are indulging in revisionism here. As I said, the death of Antiochus is dealt with before v36. Here is the text of v36 et seq:"

I detailed it as to why it wasn't a good time to invade. How many times he visited Egypt with intent of violence (or attack), and how he gained riches etc.

 

freeminer wrote:



Quote:
I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.

you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts?

Bible scholars have an agenda as well as believers such as you and predetermine the meaning as has been shown throughout this thread. These non-experts are historians, linguists, archeaologists, literary scholars.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.

What do you want to make stick? His view? Your statement he's a liberal? Have you read his book on the link I posted or not? He's was a Christian, date of this book was 1870.

freeminer wrote:


Quote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


Quote:
This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19


Quote:
Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

well spotted..........do you see the common theme?

If you refer to previous vendettas by the god then yes. The Jews claims to have been abandoned as claimed throughout the OT is simply their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions and blaming it on the god, not on the situation in which they are involved.

freeminer wrote:


because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:


Quote:
The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!

Whee - spin ....

I said, "This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god.." = time of wrath.

The time of the end is the end of the persecution.
 

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?
Quote:


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .
yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved. 

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.

What is it you want? You want me to see it your way? I don't. I was clear with what I said: "
What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . ."

You can interpret 3 parties in this if you'd like, I don't.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


Quote:
Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

What part of rebellion don't you understand?

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

Dan 11:40 does not say that.


Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"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."

42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?

 

Quote:
The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurrs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.
no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.

Yes it does. NIV Dan 12:1 - "At that time...." That time means the same time as the other events in chapter 11, occuring at, during and after Antiochus IV.

Further - see Cowles pp 447-458. Great explanation. though he still is one of you in Jesus belief.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


Quote:
Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*

I didn't cite Daniel 11.

Quote:
Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV

Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)

25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 164 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem.........as you said.

 

Spin... Whee...

I said no such thing that the man in question dies in Jerusalem. I said it does not indicate where.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.


Quote:
More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land) going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.
  wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia!

What it says - "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." His tents are his armies, does not mean he's in one of them.

He was as is said - " 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. "

Which is where Antiochus was, East.

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


Quote:
It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus? 

Since you consider the DRO to be erronous what does it matter? Submission can be mercenaries, or they can be giving tribute which is a form of submission.

freeminer wrote:


Quote:
It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.
you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!

See above, he went East, he divided his army, his tents per se were in Judea as well as in Persia.

freeminer wrote:


Quote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


Quote:
While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

During this period Parthia under Mithridates I seized territory from Antiochus, circa 167-64. Antiochus was suppressing the worship of gods elsewhere and seizing or trying anyway the treasures from their temples. He also suppressed rebellion in Armenia. I'm sure you are capable of looking these up yourself.

freeminer wrote:


Quote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


Quote:
Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*

no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e] '

Which is what selling the high priest's office did in effect.

As I pointed out translations differ on this -

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Translations once again disagree.

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 

You read and speak Greek then? Ancient Greek that is?

How does this particular verse translate in  the DSS??

JPS, the MT - "And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price." easily can mean he took bribes for the high priest's office as mentioned.

But don't get hung up on this, I don't need to show everything in Daniel perfectly matches what Antiochus IV did or didn't, reporters today with far better resources screw up. Imagine if you had to be stealthy in your research, had only fragmentary information, No Internet, and the nearest Library was in another country.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 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."

  

I commented on this above in regards to "At that time", and how this relates. See the link to Cowles and read his 20 or so pages in regards to Chao 12.

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

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

It's cool that you and pjts agree on this. It leaves you on shaky ground with Daniel.

1. Daniel claims Darius was king of the Medes. You say he wasn't. If he were simply a governor, why call him a king?

2. You claim Nabonidus was Belshazzar's father (I think - looks like quoting got screwed up) but Daniel 5 refers to "Nebuchadnezzar his father".

If it's prophecy, shouldn't it get things right? Looks like you're the one bending the needle.

You guys sound like a broken record. We have already addressed these issues.

First, Daniel refers to Darius the Mede, probably alluding to a Median connection. That does not mean that Media as an Empire was successive to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. It wasn't.

Second, someone ruling in the place of a king was often referred to as the king to those he was ruling over.

Third, as freeminer already pointed out, a father could refer to a grandfather,  uncle, or even a previous ruler in the same basic position.

Since you had gotten so confused about these issues, we went to analyzing the prophecies themselves. The actual proof is in the content of the prophecies. Ancient history has proved nothing as of yet.

Maybe we should send you a recording of this so you can play it every time you forget.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Maybe we

gramster wrote:

Maybe we should send you a recording of this so you can play it every time you forget.

Brainwashing , ftw !

 


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's cool that you and pjts agree on this. It leaves you on shaky ground with Daniel.

1. Daniel claims Darius was king of the Medes. You say he wasn't. If he were simply a governor, why call him a king?

2. You claim Nabonidus was Belshazzar's father (I think - looks like quoting got screwed up) but Daniel 5 refers to "Nebuchadnezzar his father".

If it's prophecy, shouldn't it get things right? Looks like you're the one bending the needle.

You guys sound like a broken record. We have already addressed these issues.

First, Daniel refers to Darius the Mede, probably alluding to a Median connection. That does not mean that Media as an Empire was successive to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. It wasn't.

Second, someone ruling in the place of a king was often referred to as the king to those he was ruling over.

Third, as freeminer already pointed out, a father could refer to a grandfather,  uncle, or even a previous ruler in the same basic position.

Since you had gotten so confused about these issues, we went to analyzing the prophecies themselves. The actual proof is in the content of the prophecies. Ancient history has proved nothing as of yet.

Maybe we should send you a recording of this so you can play it every time you forget.

 

You wouldn't be able to make a recording - you and miner can't hold a consistent interpretation. You'd have to re-record it each time.

Which is pretty much what it comes down to for the Bible. If you don't like what it says keep swapping shit out until it says what you want it to say.

Also, as I said, you have to presuppose Daniel is a book of prophecy because you need it to be prophecy. If you couldn't call it prophecy, you wouldn't be able to interpret (and re-interpret and re-re-interpret, etc.) it till you got what you needed.

And they didn't call people kings just because they sat in rulership. The judges weren't kings. When they were under military occupation the lead general was not called king.

And as for father in the royal line sense, that could be. then again, Belshazzar wasn't serving as king so it probably wan't the case.

Keep spinning kids. I hope the wheel stops on where you want it this time.

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:Daniel clearly was

 


 

Quote:
Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.
Quote:
I'm not sure what a "perfect writer" would look like. The scriptural claim is that Daniel constitutes authentic prophecy confirmed by history and extending to the present day. You have raised objections which are common among secularists. I have supplied rational answers. If Daniel was a retrospective, calculated deception, why wasn't Nabonidus mentioned? What was the motive?

Quote:
If Daniel was written in the 2nd century without an Internet and a local library in a tumultous time with strife, violence, persecution under conditions where the writer could be executed for his work his accuracy in regard to ancient history could be less than perfect. Lo. that is what we find.

the fact that you cling on to the notion that Daniel was written in the 2nd century in the face of all the academic evidence to the contrary is a measure of your deep irrationality. Daniel put his head above the political parapet on various occasions. The stories you tell yourself are absurd. The kings under whom he served had no reason for concern at prophetic writings intended for Israel.


Quote:
1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 

Quote:
 Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

Quote:
This differs with the babylonian Chronicles - see here - which mention no such adventure by Nebuchadnezzar that year against Hattiland or Judah. The taking of captives is in the 7th year of his reign per the Chronicles while 2 Kings claim it is in his 8th year. Jeremiah also agrees it was the 7th year. "The date in this Biblical story (the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar) is contradicted by this chronicle and the Biblical book of Jeremiah, which both state that it was the seventh year:"

Regrdless, only the Bible claims that captives were taken in 605 BCE.

good isn't it!.........the Bible gives us all sorts of information other sources don't.

if you put up your references I'll tell you where your misunderstanding is.

 

Quote:
2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

yes there is....... Biblical evidence.

Quote:
There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?

Quote:
 Babylonian records. See above.

the Babylonian records don't contradict the Biblical account.........if you think they do...........cite where.

Quote:
3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

Quote:

Not answered.

 

This refers to the Chaldeans being desribed as astrologers or a priest caste not the people or population. I asked this in post #499 you had it in post #505 but made no comment in its regard.

So, no you never answered this. If you think you did, please refer to where.

  1. Genesis 11:30-32 (in Context) Genesis 11 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Genesis 15:7
    He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."
    Genesis 15:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 15 (Whole Chapter)
  3. Nehemiah 9:7
    "You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham.
    Nehemiah 9:6-8 (in Context) Nehemiah 9 (Whole Chapter)
  4. Job 1:17
    While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
    Job 1:16-18 (in Context) Job 1 (Whole Chapter)
  5. Ezekiel 12:13
    I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not see it, and there he will die.
    Ezekiel 12:12-14 (in Context) Ezekiel 12 (Whole Chapter)
  6. Ezekiel 23:14
    "But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red,
    Ezekiel 23:13-15 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
  7. Ezekiel 23:23
    the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses.
    Ezekiel 23:22-24 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)

 

what is the problem?

Quote:
4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!! 

Quote:
Of course I do because the Bible is what we are analyzing here isn't it.

no 'of course' about it. It is irrational to doubt the veracity of scripture either on the grounds that it contains information that other sources don't or vice versa.

Quote:
5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

Quote:
the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.

Quote:
The Bible gives a situation in conflict with Babylonian records, the Nabonidus Chronicles. 2 claims differ. The tablets are the originals, the Book of Daniel who can say what it is for sure.

the Bible account does not conflict with the Chronicles, it merely deals with Belshazzar because he is the relevant character:

Apologetics Press :: Reason & RevelationNovember 1996 - 16[11]:81-85 
Babylon: A Test Case in Prophecy [Part I] by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

The historical facts are not disputed. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.), was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (562-560 B.C.), who is mentioned in 2 Kings 25:27-30 and in Jeremiah 52:31-34. Next came Neriglissar (560-556 B.C.), an evil conspirator who was defeated and slain in battle by the Medes and Persians (Sanderson, et al., 1900, 1:54). Labashi-Marduk subsequently came to the Chaldean throne in 556 B.C., but was assassinated after a few months. Finally, there was Nabonidus, who ruled from 556-539 B.C. His son, Belshazzar, was co-regent with his father. Actually it was Belshazzar who was occupying the city of Babylon when it fell (see Daniel 5:1ff.). Inscriptions have been discovered which make it clear that Nabonidus had entrusted the “kingship” of the capital city to his son while he campaigned in Arabia for about a decade (Vos, 1988, 1:276). When Cyrus advanced against Babylon, Nabonidus marched east to meet him, but fled before the Persian general’s army. Later, after Cyrus had captured the city (539 B.C.), Nabonidus surrendered to the Persians. And so, the biblical prophecies regarding the conquerors of the city of Babylon were fulfilled exactly.

why is it that atheists, like lemmings, collude in their own destruction?


Quote:
6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

Quote:
explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.

Quote:
Not ignored, discounted in favor of the Babylonian records.

scholars in the field don't see the need to discount one in favour of the other since they don't conflict......it's just part of your story. 

 

Quote:
- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

Quote:
I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.

Quote:
It was bloodless or it wasn't. Simple choice that.

not my point.........which is that you can't cite the translation which states this.

 


Quote:
This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

Quote:
how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.

Quote:
See above, no Internet. Walking to the library in Alexandria was a bit of a distance. Not to mention it was through a war zone. Writing in regard to the evils of your current dictator king might also be hazzardous, as might going on field trips for verification might just get you executed by Antiochus' soldiers.

you are perfectly free to tell yourself whatever stories you wish but it is quite obvious that the Jewish translators had the text in front of them and they were already in Alexandria!


Quote:
Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

Quote:
well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!

Quote:
So, the question is why is Daniel when it has the same problems.

your problem and that of assorted liberals and secularists is precisely that Daniel doesn't have authenticity problems.

 However your problem is probably irremediable. When you've refused the claim of Christ on your life, where do you have left to go?


Quote:
I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

No. It isn't for Baruch.

so now scripture isn't true because Daniel isn't long enough!!!!!!............ give me a break!


Quote:
Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.

Quote:
see my answer on Baruch.

Quote:
There is no reason to doubt Sirach was written by ben Sira in about 180 BCE. Whether canon or not in the religious persuasion you accept,  Daniel is not mentioned which is the point.

You probably don't accept 1 & 2 Mac either but regrdless they have a lot of history in the 2nd century BCE. Oh, I see further down this response you also don't consider them to be worthwhile.

we know when the Book of Mormon was written but that doesn't make it true......... gullible or what?!




Quote:
1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

Quote:
The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.


Quote:
Spin . . whee...

you're the only one of us with a motive.

Quote:
Perhaps we have some sort of communication problem between us or so it seems. After one of us chops and rips it becomes tough to grasp what was what. Also true of grabbing a piece of discussion and commenting.

My best guess here is this is what you mean:

Antiochus fits v25-27 as described in the 1 Mac quote therefore it's not in the v36?

If you mean something else then be straight forward about it.

you keep attributing events described post v36 to Antiochus IV which have already been described pre v36 and then pretending they resolve your dilemma.  Some might take it as an insult to their intelligence.


Quote:
Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI

Quote:
thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?

Quote:
Egypt with intent of violence (or attack), and how he gained riches etc.

all of which is described pre v36.

 

Quote:
I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.

Quote:
you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts?

Quote:
Bible scholars have an agenda as well as believers such as you and predetermine the meaning as has been shown throughout this thread. These non-experts are historians, linguists, archeaologists, literary scholars.

far from pre-determining anything., you've been shown how the Biblical account concurs with history. My personal basis for belief is entirely unrelated to the existence of Daniel I can assure  you........thus my agenda has nothing to do with it. You said your 'experts' were not Biblical scholars. Do you need me to post up examples of archaeological support for scripture?.........all the times 'experts' have mocked it and been proved wrong? Sooner or later one would think they and you would get the message.

 

Quote:
I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

Quote:
you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.

Quote:
What do you want to make stick? His view? Your statement he's a liberal? Have you read his book on the link I posted or not? He's was a Christian, date of this book was 1870.

if I had a quid for everyone who's used that title! Liberalism is not a 20th century product.

Quote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


Quote:
This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19


Quote:
Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

Quote:
well spotted..........do you see the common theme?
please explain 'dissimilar........ how do the meanings differ?

Quote:
If you refer to previous vendettas by the god then yes. The Jews claims to have been abandoned as claimed throughout the OT is simply their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions and blaming it on the god, not on the situation in which they are involved.

the common theme is 'time of the end'.

Quote:

because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:


Quote:
The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

Quote:
I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!

Quote:
Whee - spin ....

I said, "This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god.." = time of wrath.

The time of the end is the end of the persecution.

except that the text identifies both as occurring at the same time.

ok, I'll spell it out.............

 40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

 41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

 42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

 43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

 44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

 

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3

here's the connection:

40And at the time of the end ........................ 1 "At that time  

thus the time of wrath and the time of the end are in the same timeframe. The 'deliverance' of Israel is included. Furthermore there was resurrection!....... we should have a record of this!

Quote:
4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?
Quote:


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .
yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved. 

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.

Quote:
What is it you want? You want me to see it your way? I don't. I was clear with what I said: "
What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . ."

You can interpret 3 parties in this if you'd like, I don't.

at the end of the day, you'll choose whether to tell  yourself irrational stories. I am merely pointing out where rationality lies. There are other prophecies which provide more information.

Quote:
5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


Quote:
Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36. and actually he left Lysias to do the job.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

Quote:
What part of rebellion don't you understand?

what part of normal syntax don't you understand? When the Romans put down Boadicea's rebellion, were they 'attacking the land'? You display all the usual symptoms!


Quote:
6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

Quote:
Dan 11:40 does not say that.


Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"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."

42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?

 

Quote:
The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurrs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.
Quote:

Quote:
no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.

Quote:
Yes it does. NIV Dan 12:1 - "At that time...." That time means the same time as the other events in chapter 11, occuring at, during and after Antiochus IV.

'fraid not, since this is all dealt with pre v36, as I pointed out.

Quote:
Further - see Cowles pp 447-458. Great explanation. though he still is one of you in Jesus belief.

what does that mean?....... the demons believe.

Quote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


Quote:
Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*

I didn't cite Daniel 11.

Quote:
Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV

Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)

25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 163 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem........'holy mountain is common prophetic terminology.

 

Quote:
Spin... Whee...

I said no such thing that the man in question dies in Jerusalem. I said it does not indicate where.

hmm.........but it does.........otherwise there would be no point in v45.

Quote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.

 so Tabae is the 'beautiful holy mountain'!!!........ and which seas is it between then?

45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain.

and which are all these countries that he invaded then?.... .....so far we have Cyprus plus occasional visitor to Egypt..........oh, and by the way, just to recap, everyone knows that the LXX was complete before ever Antiochus came to power.........no doubt you have a story for this!



Quote:
More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land)

nice bit of re-writing......... if you don't lke the text, change it!...........I suggest it means what it says!

Quote:
going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.
 
Quote:
wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia!

Quote:
What it says - "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." His tents are his armies, does not mean he's in one of them.

his tents are his armies?!!!!!..........I didn't say he was in a tent!!!...... I want to know how this description has anything to do with Tabae. Where is your version of the 'holy mountain'?

Quote:
He was as is said - " 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. "

Which is where Antiochus was, East.

which historical event does this relate to?......... after all, this is retrospective! I'll answer my question, it refers to his defence against Mithridates, rather some distance from Israel!


Quote:
9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


Quote:
It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus? 

Quote:
Since you consider the DRO to be erronous what does it matter? Submission can be mercenaries, or they can be giving tribute which is a form of submission.

well, if you have no concern for accuracy, it may as well be fantasy anyway....... you see, you like history and evidence except when it doesn't support you......... I would have said, 'your case' but you've already admitted to not having one.


Quote:
It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.
Quote:
Is this your story? evidence? you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!

Quote:
See above, he went East, he divided his army, his tents per se were in Judea as well as in Persia.

you see, ultimately atheists become semantic mystics...... when language doesn't say what they want it to, they make it mean something else! The character in question 'pitches' his armies does he?! You will find the phrase, 'between the seas' elsewhere in prophecy...... it refers to the Mediterranean and Gallilee.......... which, as we all know is in Persia!


Quote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


Quote:
While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

Quote:
cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

During this period Parthia under Mithridates I seized territory from Antiochus, circa 167-64. Antiochus was suppressing the worship of gods elsewhere and seizing or trying anyway the treasures from their temples. He also suppressed rebellion in Armenia. I'm sure you are capable of looking these up yourself.

well he was out of power after 164 and these dates cover most of his reign! As I've pointed out, the pre v36 prophecy deals with the Maccabean revolt so unfortunately your explanation doesn't explain why the events to which you wish to attribute this should pop up out of sequence. Furthermore the events described clearly relate to the demise of the person referred to. How is this true of Antiochus' death by illness or accident?  As to Greek gods:

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,

clearly this does not relate to Antiochus IV.


Quote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


Quote:
Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*

Quote:
no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e] '

Quote:
Which is what selling the high priest's office did in effect.

no it didn't .........it didn't create fiefdoms

 

Quote:
Translations once again disagree.

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 

Quote:
You read and speak Greek then? Ancient Greek that is?

How does this particular verse translate in  the DSS??

see the LXX

Quote:
JPS, the MT - "And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price." easily can mean he took bribes for the high priest's office as mentioned.

that is bizarre...... and anyway the priest didn't hold land........furthermore the term is the land.

Quote:
But don't get hung up on this, I don't need to show everything in Daniel perfectly matches what Antiochus IV did or didn't, reporters today with far better resources screw up. Imagine if you had to be stealthy in your research, had only fragmentary information, No Internet, and the nearest Library was in another country.

why do it if it's so risky?!........you see, not only don't your facts fit but you can't provide a motive and we know the LXX was complete prior to Antiochus....... it all  smacks of desperation.

 

Quote:
I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 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:
I commented on this above in regards to "At that time", and how this relates. See the link to Cowles and read his 20 or so pages in regards to Chao 12.

why adopt his mysticism? Liberals don't critique the Bible according to it's own claims anyway.... they make up stories......... now where have I seen that before?! Anyway........ I'm off camping....... have just packed my army!

 

'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
It is more than a little

It is more than a little interesting to see that your primary critique of liberal Christianity is that they make up stories about a book of made up stories.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the greatest made up story ever - the the Bible is not a collection of made up stories but was in fact written by men inspired by an omnimax God and should be taken literally (except for the parts that you have to make fit your interpretations)

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It is more

jcgadfly wrote:

It is more than a little interesting to see that your primary critique of liberal Christianity is that they make up stories about a book of made up stories.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the greatest made up story ever - the the Bible is not a collection of made up stories but was in fact written by men inspired by an omnimax God and should be taken literally (except for the parts that you have to make fit your interpretations)

The situation is really very simple. Either one concludes that it is rational to accept that the Bible is the communication of a supernatural creator to his creation or one doesn't. The reasons for doing so and the rationality or otherwise of that decision is a whole other discussion. However, once one does so, it is lunacy to then arbitrarily assume that he has lied about certain issues, since this is contrary to what he tells us of his character. This is what liberals do. They subject scripture to a critique determined by their own finite intellects and illogically presume that it is susceptible thereto. That is a very different exercise from asking questions of scripture in order to arrive at a coherent exegesis. I don't believe in blind faith. The Bible doesn't teach it. A man is not required to leave his brain at the door. Furthermore, the question is one of truth. The liberal starts by dispensing with the classical concept of truth under which the Bible was written and adopting a dialectic. Once you do this you can make up whatever stories you like.

Contrary to your assertion, all the claims of scripture are rooted in space/time history. I'm stuck with it; I can't make up alternatives or put discrepancies down to 'journalistic screwup' as Paul has done. You may allege 'made up stories', but you can't back it.  Are you claiming the Jews have no history? What we get is what Paul has demonstrated. He claimed the right; to critique without ever having an alternative paradigm; to speculate when his proposals didn't fit the historical facts; to change the meaning of language and to arbitrarily claim that discrepancies on his side of the debate didn't matter while at the same time insisting that the omission of irrelevancy from the Biblical account constituted proof of fabrication!!!!! I am fascinated by the propensity of atheists for colluding in their own deception and for cheerfully disposing of rationality in order to do it. It is obviously not coincidence that a huge proportion of you have had 'christian' experience...... so you dumped your rationality as an adjunct to your teenage rebellion or what?

'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
Building a Solid Foundation

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Thanks, yes, now we are clear. Sorry for the delay on this.

You are right when you say that Media and Persia were actually separate kingdoms and should be viewed as such. Separate kingdoms that were represented together by individual beasts. I have looked into your interpretations carefully, and still have some pretty significant problems.

First, since we are separating out Media from Persia, Media never did follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Babylon was "conquered" by Cyrus. Now technically, Cyrus was the king of Persia and Media. When he rebelled against his grandfather Astyages and gained victory in 550 BC he became the king of Media. This made him the king of Media and Persia.

Under Persian rule the Mede's who were close kin to the Persians retained a prominent position in the kingdom. At the beginning the Geek historians were still calling it a Median Empire. History still considers Persia to be a successor state to Media.

Thus, it would not be correct to use two beasts or sections of a statue to represent Media and Persia. One would have to either represent Persia alone, or considering the Median role "Medo-Persia". The writer of Daniel chose to acknowledge the Median connection by including them in these beasts.

That being said, we have the bear raised up on one side that corresponds nicely with the Ram with one horn larger than the other. Both symbols representing a greater Persia with a Median connection.

Second, we have the leopard with four wings and four heads. This is a very poor symbol for Persia. Yes, Persia did have more than four kings, but was never viewed as having four distinct power centers. Heads being greater than horns would more than likely represent something more than individual kings in succession.

Greece now is a perfect fit. The four wings represent the swiftness with which Alexander conquered all of the vast areas of Persia. The four heads represent the four major divisions that came out of Alexanders kingdom. Now here's a perfect fit.

Than we have the little horn in Daniel 7 who's appearance was greater than his fellows. Antiochus VI was definitely not greater than his predecessors. Yes, he was a "nasty little bugger", but not great in the scheme of things.

If one just takes the book as what is claims (prophecy from God), and does not try to make something else out of it, everything works out just fine.

If one bends the needle of the compass 180 degrees to try to avoid acknowledging God, there are always problems.

Once again, we have a storyline "made up" that just does not work.

 

No problem on the delay, Freeminer and I have occupied ourselves with sparring.

The Medes and Persians were as we both agree separate kingdoms. After Cyrus conquered the Medes in 550 BCE they became vassals. The Medes were always inferior to Babylon as indicated by Daniel as well. The Persians on the other hand had a kingdom that lasted over 3 times longer and encompassed most of the known world thus being greater than Babylon. The Medes did not do so and so were inferior as Daniel indicated.  Thus the Persians do fit in the scenario as Daniel described. The little horn is explicitly stated as coming out of the Macedonian empire of Alexander from one of the 4 kingdoms. That being so, the Seleucid kings fit while Rome does not fit. None of the Greek Kingdoms included Rome or the Etruscans before them so it doesn't fit.

Since we cannot agree, it is pointless to beat each other senseless, that's already going on what with the sparring I have with Freeminer, so I suggest you go ahead and finish your interpretation.

When we get to the end, we can both summarize our views and critiques and let it be what it is. OK?

 

It is not possible to correctly understand or interpret the later prophecies, or portions of Daniel if the earlier ones have been misunderstood. Therefore I build a solid base, carefully examining, and than go on.

So before I continue we will recap your position. Let me know if this is what you believe.

1. The book of Daniel was not prophecy written in the 5th century BC by Daniel as it claims. It was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown Jewish author who was writing history as it happened. This was not being dishonest, even though the book claims to be prophetic and written by Daniel.

2. The 2nd kingdom's in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to the Median Empire alone even though that empire was not successive to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom.

3. The 3rd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Persia alone, even though in Daniel 7 the third kingdom is represented by a leopard with four heads and four wings that perfectly represent Alexanders kingdom. You claim that the four heads represent 4 of the kings of Persia even though Persia never did have four distinct major separations or power centers.

4. You believe the 4th beast of Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Alexanders kingdom, and the 10 horns represent ten successive kings, and Antiochus IV represents the little horn even though he was not greater than his fellows. Also ignoring that the third beast is a much better representation of Alexanders kingdom.

5. Now you throw Daniel 8 into the mix, making the mistake of claiming that the text says the horn came out of one of the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom. Look a little closer. The text does not say that.

If you believe this...?? You haven't a ghost of a chance of getting any of the rest of Daniel right. But, as you have requested, I will continue further into Daniel. Making careful note of all of the huge problems with the only alternate interpretation given.

 


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You wouldn't be able

 

Quote:
You wouldn't be able to make a recording - you and miner can't hold a consistent interpretation. You'd have to re-record it each time.

cite an inconsistency.

Quote:
Which is pretty much what it comes down to for the Bible. If you don't like what it says keep swapping shit out until it says what you want it to say.

cite a distortion of the text..........do you mean like trying to argue that an attack on Cyprus is like sweeping through many countries like a flood or that Tabae is between the seas?! 

Quote:
Also, as I said, you have to presuppose Daniel is a book of prophecy because you need it to be prophecy. If you couldn't call it prophecy, you wouldn't be able to interpret (and re-interpret and re-re-interpret, etc.) it till you got what you needed.
As we've shown, it is prophecy because it foretold events which came to pass. Unfortunately for your argument, the Bible gives much interpretation itself. As for the rest - come up with a coherent alternative by all  means.  

Quote:
And they didn't call people kings just because they sat in rulership. The judges weren't kings. When they were under military occupation the lead general was not called king.
you seem to be confusing Jews and Assyrians..........has anyone claimed this?

Quote:
And as for father in the royal line sense, that could be. then again, Belshazzar wasn't serving as king so it probably wan't the case.
history tells us that Belshazzer precisely was acting as king!

Quote:
Keep spinning kids. I hope the wheel stops on where you want it this time.

thank you for your best wishes but suggesting that Tabae is Jerusalem looks more like 'spin' to me!

 

'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:jcgadfly

freeminer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It is more than a little interesting to see that your primary critique of liberal Christianity is that they make up stories about a book of made up stories.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the greatest made up story ever - the the Bible is not a collection of made up stories but was in fact written by men inspired by an omnimax God and should be taken literally (except for the parts that you have to make fit your interpretations)

The situation is really very simple. Either one concludes that it is rational to accept that the Bible is the communication of a supernatural creator to his creation or one doesn't. The reasons for doing so and the rationality or otherwise of that decision is a whole other discussion. However, once one does so, it is lunacy to then arbitrarily assume that he has lied about certain issues, since this is contrary to what he tells us of his character. This is what liberals do. They subject scripture to a critique determined by their own finite intellects and illogically presume that it is susceptible thereto. That is a very different exercise from asking questions of scripture in order to arrive at a coherent exegesis. I don't believe in blind faith. The Bible doesn't teach it. A man is not required to leave his brain at the door. Furthermore, the question is one of truth. The liberal starts by dispensing with the classical concept of truth under which the Bible was written and adopting a dialectic. Once you do this you can make up whatever stories you like.

Contrary to your assertion, all the claims of scripture are rooted in space/time history. I'm stuck with it; I can't make up alternatives or put discrepancies down to 'journalistic screwup' as Paul has done. You may allege 'made up stories', but you can't back it.  Are you claiming the Jews have no history? What we get is what Paul has demonstrated. He claimed the right; to critique without ever having an alternative paradigm; to speculate when his proposals didn't fit the historical facts; to change the meaning of language and to arbitrarily claim that discrepancies on his side of the debate didn't matter while at the same time insisting that the omission of irrelevancy from the Biblical account constituted proof of fabrication!!!!! I am fascinated by the propensity of atheists for colluding in their own deception and for cheerfully disposing of rationality in order to do it. It is obviously not coincidence that a huge proportion of you have had 'christian' experience...... so you dumped your rationality as an adjunct to your teenage rebellion or what?

The Jews have a history. The Bible isn't it. That silences your objection there (unless you can show in history the incontrovertible marks of God's intervention that makes the Bible a history book and God a historical figure). Believing in a God so you can abandon responsibility for your actions - now that's abandoning rationality.

Before one can accept something as rational, one has to have sound reasoning to do so. It's not "accept first and figure out why acceptance is rational later". Placing the cart before the horse (as you did here) is a perfect description of blind faith. Thanks for shooting your own argument down.

the thinking person should not start with the assumption that something is true because that immediately stops the thinking process. If you accept something as true you won't go any further. You likely won't see any obvious holes because you've put the blinders on that keep you from looking elsewhere.

 

"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
I have corrected all of your

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

freeminer wrote:


 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
If Daniel was written in the 2nd century without an Internet and a local library in a tumultuous time with strife, violence, persecution under conditions where the writer could be executed for his work his accuracy in regard to ancient history could be less than perfect. Lo. that is what we find.


the fact that you cling on to the notion that Daniel was written in the 2nd century in the face of all the academic evidence to the contrary is a measure of your deep irrationality. Daniel put his head above the political parapet on various occasions. The stories you tell yourself are absurd. The kings under whom he served had no reason for concern at prophetic writings intended for Israel.


That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all, as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 

freeminer wrote:
Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
This differs with the Babylonian Chronicles - see here - which mention no such adventure by Nebuchadnezzar that year against Hattiland or Judah. The taking of captives is in the 7th year of his reign per the Chronicles while 2 Kings claim it is in his 8th year. Jeremiah also agrees it was the 7th year. "The date in this Biblical story (the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar) is contradicted by this chronicle and the Biblical book of Jeremiah, which both state that it was the seventh year:"

Regardless, only the Bible claims that captives were taken in 605 BCE.
good isn't it!.........the Bible gives us all sorts of information other sources don't.

if you put up your references I'll tell you where your misunderstanding is.


You know exactly where I got this, stop playing the uninformed, unless you really are.

freeminer wrote:


 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.


yes there is....... Biblical evidence.

freeminer wrote:
There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Babylonian records. See above.



the Babylonian records don't contradict the Biblical account.........if you think they do...........cite where.


You can start in Genesis.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
3-The error in regards to Chaldeans


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Not answered.

 

This refers to the Chaldeans being described as astrologers or a priest caste not the people or population. I asked this in post #499 you had it in post #505 but made no comment in its regard.

So, no you never answered this. If you think you did, please refer to where.


Genesis 11:30-32 (in Context) Genesis 11 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 15:7
He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."
Genesis 15:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 15 (Whole Chapter)
Nehemiah 9:7
"You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham.
Nehemiah 9:6-8 (in Context) Nehemiah 9 (Whole Chapter)
Job 1:17
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
Job 1:16-18 (in Context) Job 1 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 12:13
I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not see it, and there he will die.
Ezekiel 12:12-14 (in Context) Ezekiel 12 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 23:14
"But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red,
Ezekiel 23:13-15 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 23:23
the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses.
Ezekiel 23:22-24 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
 

what is the problem?


You just made my case, thanks.

Now that you bring Genesis into it, it shows that Genesis has Chaldeans as a people not astrologers. Gen 11:31 calls  Ur a city of a people, not a group of soothsayers.

Gen 15:7 says he is the lord that brought them out of the land of a people, not out of a group of soothsayers.

Nehemiah 9, same thing, it doesn't say he brought them out of a den of soothsayers or from a caste of priests.

Again Job 1 says they are a people who were raiding, not a group of priests or soothsayers.

Ezekiel 12 & 23, also indicate it was a people not a priest caste.

 

Daniel however, in the MT 2:2 - Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans,

NIV cleans it up but in footnotes has "or Chaldeans"

Thanks for proving your error.

 

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record


the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!! 


Most certainly I object. L Ron's Sci-Fi has historical BS as well as did Sci-Fi's BSG and history according to Xena.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Of course I do because the Bible is what we are analyzing here isn't it.


no 'of course' about it. It is irrational to doubt the veracity of scripture either on the grounds that it contains information that other sources don't or vice versa.


Why don't you just erect an altar to the book, forgot you can't do that that's idolatry.

All things should be challenged, that you won't says it all.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony


freeminer wrote:
the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The Bible gives a situation in conflict with Babylonian records, the Nabonidus Chronicles. 2 claims differ. The tablets are the originals, the Book of Daniel who can say what it is for sure.


the Bible account does not conflict with the Chronicles, it merely deals with Belshazzar because he is the relevant character:

From - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation November 1996 - 16[11]:81-85

Babylon: A Test Case in Prophecy [Part I]  by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

 

The historical facts are not disputed. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.), was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (562-560 B.C.), who is mentioned in 2 Kings 25:27-30 and in Jeremiah 52:31-34. Next came Neriglissar (560-556 B.C.), an evil conspirator who was defeated and slain in battle by the Medes and Persians (Sanderson, et al., 1900, 1:54). Labashi-Marduk subsequently came to the Chaldean throne in 556 B.C., but was assassinated after a few months. Finally, there was Nabonidus, who ruled from 556-539 B.C. His son, Belshazzar, was co-regent with his father. Actually it was Belshazzar who was occupying the city of Babylon when it fell (see Daniel 5:1ff.). Inscriptions have been discovered which make it clear that Nabonidus had entrusted the “kingship” of the capital city to his son while he campaigned in Arabia for about a decade (Vos, 1988, 1:276). When Cyrus advanced against Babylon, Nabonidus marched east to meet him, but fled before the Persian general’s army. Later, after Cyrus had captured the city (539 B.C.), Nabonidus surrendered to the Persians. And so, the biblical prophecies regarding the conquerors of the city of Babylon were fulfilled exactly.

why is it that atheists, like lemmings, collude in their own destruction?


You could at least pull the header off and leave just the references so the post doesn't burst out wide on a page. Which I did in my quote.

Your lack of concern in your posting is duly noted. I hope you have a maid at home to pick up after you.

Why is it that believers don't have glass stomachs? Then they could at least see something.

 

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.


freeminer wrote:
explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Not ignored, discounted in favor of the Babylonian records.


scholars in the field don't see the need to discount one in favour of the other since they don't conflict......it's just part of your story.


Which scholars that are secular agree? I know Bible scholars do, one would expect that.

 
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.


freeminer wrote:
I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It was bloodless or it wasn't. Simple choice that.


not my point.........which is that you can't cite the translation which states this.


Belshazaar was killed in the battle for Opis, in the month of Tashritu 539 BCE. As Nabonidus sent him there it did not occur the very next day as claimed in Daniel. If Daniel was at Opis he would have been executed with all the rest, so don't try that as an escape outlet.

 From the Nabonidus Chronicle columns 3 & 4 lines 12-14 -

"  In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus] massacred the inhabitants. "


The city of Babylon itself was captured bloodless but not so all of Babylon. There is a difference.

From columns 3 & 4 lines 15-20-

The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.
   In the month of Arahsamna, the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, [unidentified objects] were filled before him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon.

From the Cyrus Cylinder fragment A line 17 -

He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands.

You get it now.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.



freeminer wrote:
how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
See above, no Internet. Walking to the library in Alexandria was a bit of a distance. Not to mention it was through a war zone. Writing in regard to the evils of your current dictator king might also be hazardous, as might going on field trips for verification might just get you executed by Antiochus' soldiers.


you are perfectly free to tell yourself whatever stories you wish but it is quite obvious that the Jewish translators had the text in front of them and they were already in Alexandria!


The only thing for sure complete before the 2nd century BCE in the LXX was the Torah. As to when the rest of the Hebrew was translated there is no proof of when each book was complete.

There is conflicting information that the Torah was done either in the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.E) or during the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C E. But again, that's only the Torah. No dates are known exactly for the rest.

However, the grandson of ben Sira who you don't accept in 132 BCE wrote that the Law, the Prophets and the other books were translated by then. But you don't accept Sira so oh well I guess you can’t use him for help.

As I'm sure you are aware the Jews considered the LXX as divergent due to it's corruption and inaccuracies. It was not acceptable for theological discussions and fell out of favor. But as you say, you're not a Jew so you don't care. These divergences however can and do affect what you accept.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.


freeminer wrote:
well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So, the question is why is Daniel when it has the same problems.


your problem and that of assorted liberals and secularists is precisely that Daniel doesn't have authenticity problems.

 However your problem is probably irremediable. When you've refused the claim of Christ on your life, where do you have left to go?


I can always barbeque kittens.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

No. It isn't for Baruch.


so now scripture isn't true because Daniel isn't long enough!!!!!!............ give me a break!


Spin . . . Wheee....

You know exactly what I meant. Perhaps we speak different dialects of English.

Please cite other books of the Hebrew Bible, or appropriate histories of any country that mention Daniel prior to the time of Antiochus IV.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.


freeminer wrote:
see my answer on Baruch.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
There is no reason to doubt Sirach was written by ben Sira in about 180 BCE. Whether canon or not in the religious persuasion you accept,  Daniel is not mentioned which is the point.

You probably don't accept 1 & 2 Mac either but regardless they have a lot of history in the 2nd century BCE. Oh, I see further down this response you also don't consider them to be worthwhile.


we know when the Book of Mormon was written but that doesn't make it true......... gullible or what?!


Yes you are, already shown.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

freeminer wrote:
The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Spin . . whee...


you're the only one of us with a motive.


Which is what, I want company when I barbeque kittens? I already have that.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Perhaps we have some sort of communication problem between us or so it seems. After one of us chops and rips it becomes tough to grasp what was what. Also true of grabbing a piece of discussion and commenting.

My best guess here is this is what you mean:

Antiochus fits v25-27 as described in the 1 Mac quote therefore it's not in the v36?

If you mean something else then be straight forward about it.


you keep attributing events described post v36 to Antiochus IV which have already been described pre v36 and then pretending they resolve your dilemma.  Some might take it as an insult to their intelligence.


Sorry, I don't have your perception to read what you'd like me to read. I exist in another dimension that you have abandoned. You know, a world where magic & fantasy are found in books & entertainment and are not real.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI


freeminer wrote:
thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Egypt with intent of violence (or attack), and how he gained riches etc.


all of which is described pre v36.


Why don't you post your scenario as a complete post from the beginning to end of Daniel 11 without all of your spin, avoidance, word twisting and games. You can do so when we complete this trip in Fantasyland just as I have asked Gramps to do.

That is if you have one.

freeminer wrote:


 
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.


freeminer wrote:
you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Bible scholars have an agenda as well as believers such as you and predetermine the meaning as has been shown throughout this thread. These non-experts are historians, linguists, archaeologists, literary scholars.


far from pre-determining anything., you've been shown how the Biblical account concurs with history. My personal basis for belief is entirely unrelated to the existence of Daniel I can assure  you........thus my agenda has nothing to do with it. You said your 'experts' were not Biblical scholars. Do you need me to post up examples of archaeological support for scripture?.........all the times 'experts' have mocked it and been proved wrong? Sooner or later one would think they and you would get the message.


If you weren't born spouting Christian belief at some point it was absorbed by you. This method has Jesus as your savior from the start with little or no emphasis on how the god showed up on the scene in the 1st place. Therefore, there is of course a predetermined outcome to how a person that believes in Jesus looks at scripture. You have been demonstrating this throughout this thread.

I don't care if an angel dropped out of the sky and scooped your butt out of the way of a train and that is the prime cause of your beliefs. I'd want video and notarized statements though.

 I imagine the archeologists you would post are the usual suspects. Your choice.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"


freeminer wrote:
you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What do you want to make stick? His view? Your statement he's a liberal? Have you read his book on the link I posted or not? He's was a Christian, date of this book was 1870.


if I had a quid for everyone who's used that title! Liberalism is not a 20th century product.


What's a quid? An English term for money. Is that's what causing the communication problem. Are you a Brit?  Perhaps there’s a translator link available from Google.

I know what a  liberal is.  Jesus was one as well and even he didn't invent it.

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.


freeminer wrote:
well spotted..........do you see the common theme?
please explain 'dissimilar........ how do the meanings differ?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
If you refer to previous vendettas by the god then yes. The Jews claims to have been abandoned as claimed throughout the OT is simply their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions and blaming it on the god, not on the situation in which they are involved.


the common theme is 'time of the end'.


Right, the end of Antiochus and the persecution.

NIV makes it sound like the time of wrath is the end times. DRO and JPS however indicate what will be before the indignation ends. Very different. Maybe the Jews had cause to walk away from the LLX in favor of the MT, I mean look at you.

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:

because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.


freeminer wrote:
I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Whee - spin ....

I said, "This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god.." = time of wrath.

The time of the end is the end of the persecution.
except that the text identifies both as occurring at the same time.

ok, I'll spell it out.............

 40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

 41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

 42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

 43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

 44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

 

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3

here's the connection:

40And at the time of the end ........................ 1 "At that time

thus the time of wrath and the time of the end are in the same timeframe. The 'deliverance' of Israel is included. Furthermore there was resurrection!....... we should have a record of this!



Daniel makes the statement there is resurrection but not in the way you view.

I'm not buying into your scenario above. I gave my reasons. There are no records of the magic claimed elsewhere, why would this have one? Or is there a pillar of salt somewhere in a museum of Lot’s wife, an ark made of gold with stone tablets, remains of the skyscraper built at Babel that are taller than the WTC was, Egyptian relics that support Moses, ………..The Daniel story is built upon the previous mythology and so has a basis in the Sci-Fi Fantasy realm.

 

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:
4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .

freeminer wrote:

yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved.

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What is it you want? You want me to see it your way? I don't. I was clear with what I said: "
What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . ."

You can interpret 3 parties in this if you'd like, I don't.

freeminer wrote:

at the end of the day, you'll choose whether to tell  yourself irrational stories. I am merely pointing out where rationality lies. There are other prophecies which provide more information.


You are pointing out where you have guessed wrongly the intent. Perhaps if you clean your glasses………

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:
5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36. and actually he left Lysias to do the job.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What part of rebellion don't you understand?


what part of normal syntax don't you understand? When the Romans put down Boadicea's rebellion, were they 'attacking the land'? You display all the usual symptoms!


Your twisting it to your purposes. Your grasping at straws is noted.

freeminer wrote:



]6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Dan 11:40 does not say that.


Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"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."


42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?


Wine stain on the original?

Oh, you don't have that do you.

 
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.
freeminer wrote:
no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Yes it does. NIV Dan 12:1 - "At that time...." That time means the same time as the other events in chapter 11, occurring at, during and after Antiochus IV.


'fraid not, since this is all dealt with pre v36, as I pointed out.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Further - see Cowles pp 447-458. Great explanation. though he still is one of you in Jesus belief.


what does that mean?....... the demons believe.



Injection of more fantasy? Or have you been reading horror books for Halloween?


freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*
I didn't cite Daniel 11.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV


Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)
25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 163 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem........'holy mountain is common prophetic terminology.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Spin... Whee...

I said no such thing that the man in question dies in Jerusalem. I said it does not indicate where.


hmm.........but it does.........otherwise there would be no point in v45.

freeminer wrote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.


 so Tabae is the 'beautiful holy mountain'!!!........ and which seas is it between then?

45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain.

and which are all these countries that he invaded then?.... .....so far we have Cyprus plus occasional visitor to Egypt..........oh, and by the way, just to recap, everyone knows that the LXX was complete before ever Antiochus came to power.........no doubt you have a story for this!



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land)


nice bit of re-writing......... if you don't lke the text, change it!...........I suggest it means what it says!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.
freeminer wrote:
wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia!


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What it says - "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." His tents are his armies, does not mean he's in one of them.


his tents are his armies?!!!!!..........I didn't say he was in a tent!!!...... I want to know how this description has anything to do with Tabae. Where is your version of the 'holy mountain'?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
He was as is said - " 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. "

Which is where Antiochus was, East.


which historical event does this relate to?......... after all, this is retrospective! I'll answer my question, it refers to his defence against Mithridates, rather some distance from Israel!

You think! I already said that, thanks for repeating. But you read into the text what you’d like to complete your ‘proof’ of prophecy. Leaving out your injected ideas and preconceptions and you don’t get to your destination.
1-the text does not explicitly indicate where the king dies.
2-the text is clear enough what king was fighting what king but you inject a king of the North that is different than what is considered throughout and called the kingdom of the North.
What king of the North have you created that fits this? Answer, none given by you.


freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:
9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

freeminer wrote:

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus? 


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Since you consider the DRO to be erroneous what does it matter? Submission can be mercenaries, or they can be giving tribute which is a form of submission.


well, if you have no concern for accuracy, it may as well be fantasy anyway....... you see, you like history and evidence except when it doesn't support you......... I would have said, 'your case' but you've already admitted to not having one.

We are analyzing your fantasy not one I created. Nice try at a spin.
It’s on you to provide evidence for a Daniel in the 6th century and so far your only proof is the controversial book with the guy’s name on it that you want to use to prove it’s a prophecy.
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.

freeminer wrote:
]Is this your story? evidence? you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
See above, he went East, he divided his army, his tents per se were in Judea as well as in Persia.


you see, ultimately atheists become semantic mystics...... when language doesn't say what they want it to, they make it mean something else! The character in question 'pitches' his armies does he?! You will find the phrase, 'between the seas' elsewhere in prophecy...... it refers to the Mediterranean and Gallilee.......... which, as we all know is in Persia!

Or the Red Sea. Or the Persian Gulf. But that might not fit huh?
The army is of the king, pitches its tents in 2 different areas.
freeminer wrote:



freeminer wrote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.


freeminer wrote:
cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

During this period Parthia under Mithridates I seized territory from Antiochus, circa 167-64. Antiochus was suppressing the worship of gods elsewhere and seizing or trying anyway the treasures from their temples. He also suppressed rebellion in Armenia. I'm sure you are capable of looking these up yourself.


well he was out of power after 164 and these dates cover most of his reign! As I've pointed out, the pre v36 prophecy deals with the Maccabean revolt so unfortunately your explanation doesn't explain why the events to which you wish to attribute this should pop up out of sequence. Furthermore the events described clearly relate to the demise of the person referred to. How is this true of Antiochus' death by illness or accident?  As to Greek gods:

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,

clearly this does not relate to Antiochus IV.

It does, but then it won’t fit the dimension to which you wish to insert it.
freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*


freeminer wrote:
no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e] '


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Which is what selling the high priest's office did in effect.


no it didn't .........it didn't create fiefdoms

How do you suddenly get to the Middle Ages. Time Travel…..

 
freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Translations once again disagree.

freeminer wrote:

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
You read and speak Greek then? Ancient Greek that is?

How does this particular verse translate in  the DSS??


see the LXX

The LXX is not the DSS………
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
JPS, the MT - "And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price." easily can mean he took bribes for the high priest's office as mentioned.


that is bizarre...... and anyway the priest didn't hold land........furthermore the term is the land.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
But don't get hung up on this, I don't need to show everything in Daniel perfectly matches what Antiochus IV did or didn't, reporters today with far better resources screw up. Imagine if you had to be stealthy in your research, had only fragmentary information, No Internet, and the nearest Library was in another country.


why do it if it's so risky?!........you see, not only don't your facts fit but you can't provide a motive and we know the LXX was complete prior to Antiochus....... it all  smacks of desperation.

 

You do not know any such thing in regard to the LXX.
freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

freeminer wrote:

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 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."

 



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I commented on this above in regards to "At that time", and how this relates. See the link to Cowles and read his 20 or so pages in regards to Chap 12.

why adopt his mysticism? Liberals don't critique the Bible according to it's own claims anyway.... they make up stories......... now where have I seen that before?! Anyway........ I'm off camping....... have just packed my army!

 


If the Bible is already a story in the land that never was, what the diff if your fellow Christian  liberals create a divergence that ultimately comes back to support the delusion you hold at a later time.

Enjoy your camping. Watch out for gators. Or  Crocs, or demons since you think they 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.


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Thanks, yes, now we are clear. Sorry for the delay on this.

You are right when you say that Media and Persia were actually separate kingdoms and should be viewed as such. Separate kingdoms that were represented together by individual beasts. I have looked into your interpretations carefully, and still have some pretty significant problems.

First, since we are separating out Media from Persia, Media never did follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Babylon was "conquered" by Cyrus. Now technically, Cyrus was the king of Persia and Media. When he rebelled against his grandfather Astyages and gained victory in 550 BC he became the king of Media. This made him the king of Media and Persia.

Under Persian rule the Mede's who were close kin to the Persians retained a prominent position in the kingdom. At the beginning the Geek historians were still calling it a Median Empire. History still considers Persia to be a successor state to Media.

Thus, it would not be correct to use two beasts or sections of a statue to represent Media and Persia. One would have to either represent Persia alone, or considering the Median role "Medo-Persia". The writer of Daniel chose to acknowledge the Median connection by including them in these beasts.

That being said, we have the bear raised up on one side that corresponds nicely with the Ram with one horn larger than the other. Both symbols representing a greater Persia with a Median connection.

Second, we have the leopard with four wings and four heads. This is a very poor symbol for Persia. Yes, Persia did have more than four kings, but was never viewed as having four distinct power centers. Heads being greater than horns would more than likely represent something more than individual kings in succession.

Greece now is a perfect fit. The four wings represent the swiftness with which Alexander conquered all of the vast areas of Persia. The four heads represent the four major divisions that came out of Alexanders kingdom. Now here's a perfect fit.

Than we have the little horn in Daniel 7 who's appearance was greater than his fellows. Antiochus VI was definitely not greater than his predecessors. Yes, he was a "nasty little bugger", but not great in the scheme of things.

If one just takes the book as what is claims (prophecy from God), and does not try to make something else out of it, everything works out just fine.

If one bends the needle of the compass 180 degrees to try to avoid acknowledging God, there are always problems.

Once again, we have a storyline "made up" that just does not work.

 

No problem on the delay, Freeminer and I have occupied ourselves with sparring.

The Medes and Persians were as we both agree separate kingdoms. After Cyrus conquered the Medes in 550 BCE they became vassals. The Medes were always inferior to Babylon as indicated by Daniel as well. The Persians on the other hand had a kingdom that lasted over 3 times longer and encompassed most of the known world thus being greater than Babylon. The Medes did not do so and so were inferior as Daniel indicated.  Thus the Persians do fit in the scenario as Daniel described. The little horn is explicitly stated as coming out of the Macedonian empire of Alexander from one of the 4 kingdoms. That being so, the Seleucid kings fit while Rome does not fit. None of the Greek Kingdoms included Rome or the Etruscans before them so it doesn't fit.

Since we cannot agree, it is pointless to beat each other senseless, that's already going on what with the sparring I have with Freeminer, so I suggest you go ahead and finish your interpretation.

When we get to the end, we can both summarize our views and critiques and let it be what it is. OK?

 

It is not possible to correctly understand or interpret the later prophecies, or portions of Daniel if the earlier ones have been misunderstood. Therefore I build a solid base, carefully examining, and than go on.

Well, you and freeminer don't seem to have a problem building upon a morphed misconstued view.

gramster wrote:

So before I continue we will recap your position. Let me know if this is what you believe.

1. The book of Daniel was not prophecy written in the 5th century BC by Daniel as it claims. It was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown Jewish author who was writing history as it happened. This was not being dishonest, even though the book claims to be prophetic and written by Daniel.

First off, I thought you claimed it was in the 6th century BCE, you know from late 7th (605 BCE) through all of the 6th (599 to 500 BCE) If he wrote it in the 400s, Daniel was trying to catch Enoch for age.

There are many books written during the 2nd century BCE, calling them any more dishonest than any of what you accept for canon just seems to be unfair. So is the case of other books, I guess they all were dishonet in that case.

gramster wrote:

2. The 2nd kingdom's in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to the Median Empire alone even though that empire was not successive to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom.

Nice try.

gramster wrote:

3. The 3rd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Persia alone, even though in Daniel 7 the third kingdom is represented by a leopard with four heads and four wings that perfectly represent Alexanders kingdom. You claim that the four heads represent 4 of the kings of Persia even though Persia never did have four distinct major separations or power centers.

The Jews only considered 4 Persian Kings to be important, not all 9. I explained how Dan 7 was thus. Daniel 7 does separate into kingdoms indicated in v19. But no worry, look at it whatever way you'd like.

gramster wrote:

4. You believe the 4th beast of Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Alexanders kingdom, and the 10 horns represent ten successive kings, and Antiochus IV represents the little horn even though he was not greater than his fellows.

Actually you should study Antiochus IV a bit. What matters as well is the perception of the 2nd century BCE writer.

gramster wrote:

Also ignoring that the third beast is a much better representation of Alexanders kingdom.

We'll see what you do with it. Based on your conjecture in regards to tribes of Europe you include, I really don't see much relationship to the Jews in it at all. Good Luck

gramster wrote:

5. Now you throw Daniel 8 into the mix, making the mistake of claiming that the text says the horn came out of one of the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom. Look a little closer. The text does not say that.

I can't find where I said this in regard to Daniel 8, I did say this in regard to the little horn in  Daniel 7 in post # 535 recap.

gramster wrote:

If you believe this...?? You haven't a ghost of a chance of getting any of the rest of Daniel right. But, as you have requested, I will continue further into Daniel. Making careful note of all of the huge problems with the only alternate interpretation given.

 

According to you and freeminer I haven't got any of Daniel right. That's what happens when you don't buy into myths and stories as real.

Actually I also gave you the Rev Henry Cowles interpretation and the RCC's. Cowles views are found in this link -http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

He like you claims it is prophecy, but of the Antiochus IV variety. His claim is Daniel prophesied the persecution by Antiochus in the 6th century BCE. He like you was a Jesus believer. He doesn't see it as the end times like you do. You obviously didn't read his work.

Go to newadvent.com and type Antiochus IV or Daniel in the search box for the RCC's view, though you consider them to be evil incarnate you should at least know what they have to say.

____________________________________________________________
"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:According to you and

 

Quote:
According to you and freeminer I haven't got any of Daniel right. That's what happens when you don't buy into myths and stories as real.

for a kickoff you ignore the Bible's own interpretation!! When this is pointed out you have ignored this because you know it to be a deeply irrational reaction on your part. Also you have admitted that you have no alternative paradigm. Thirdly, the scraps of criticism you've put up don't align with the known historical data. Fourthly you've indulged in semantic mysticism. Fifthly you've speculated freely in an attempt to mock up some sort of story.  Sixthly where discrepancies in your case are put to you, you ignore them also. To round off this sorry saga, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary you post up nonsense such as the above.........the usual atheist reaction, ie. whatever the evidence, the theist can't possibly be right. Once again you prove my signature to be true. 

Quote:
Actually I also gave you the Rev Henry Cowles interpretation and the RCC's. Cowles views are found in this link -http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

He like you claims it is prophecy, but of the Antiochus IV variety. His claim is Daniel prophesied the persecution by Antiochus in the 6th century BCE. He like you was a Jesus believer. He doesn't see it as the end times like you do. You obviously didn't read his work.

Go to newadvent.com and type Antiochus IV or Daniel in the search box for the RCC's view, though you consider them to be evil incarnate you should at least know what they have to say.

I have spent much time talking eschatology with Catholics. If, as seems unlikely, you are actually interested in truth, do yourself a favour.........go and acquaint yourself with their views, then come back and we'll see how long they stand up. You can believe me or not, who cares, the only important thing to you is the notion that God doesn't exist, and Bacon was right, if you were so convinced , you wouldn't need to keep talking about it. Catholic eschatology is a hopeless mess from beginning to end. They think this is the Millennium!!! Christ is ruling from Jerusalem.........hallelujah!!!!!

 

'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:I have corrected all

Quote:

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

I am not susceptible to patronisation....... get used to the idea.


Quote:
That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all,

You correctly identify the issue as one of 'will'. However much the rational evidence is against you, you are unable to subject yours to its logic. Thus you subsume your own rationality to your autonomy. The above statement is one of your more perceptive ones. The last bit is mistaken however....... when I realised that it was a choice between autonomy and rationality, I chose the latter as an act of will! You see this as weakness but the crunch point is........... you can't do it! 

Quote:
as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

the man who doesn't accept that his legs are broken spends his life on the floor.........how is it down there? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 

freeminer wrote:
Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
This differs with the Babylonian Chronicles - see here - which mention no such adventure by Nebuchadnezzar that year against Hattiland or Judah. The taking of captives is in the 7th year of his reign per the Chronicles while 2 Kings claim it is in his 8th year. Jeremiah also agrees it was the 7th year. "The date in this Biblical story (the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar) is contradicted by this chronicle and the Biblical book of Jeremiah, which both state that it was the seventh year:"

Regardless, only the Bible claims that captives were taken in 605 BCE.
good isn't it!.........the Bible gives us all sorts of information other sources don't.

if you put up your references I'll tell you where your misunderstanding is.


You know exactly where I got this, stop playing the uninformed, unless you really are.

freeminer wrote:


 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.


yes there is....... Biblical evidence.

freeminer wrote:
There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Babylonian records. See above.



the Babylonian records don't contradict the Biblical account.........if you think they do...........cite where.


You can start in Genesis.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
3-The error in regards to Chaldeans


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


Not answered.

 

This refers to the Chaldeans being described as astrologers or a priest caste not the people or population. I asked this in post #499 you had it in post #505 but made no comment in its regard.

So, no you never answered this. If you think you did, please refer to where.


Genesis 11:30-32 (in Context) Genesis 11 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 15:7
He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."
Genesis 15:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 15 (Whole Chapter)
Nehemiah 9:7
"You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham.
Nehemiah 9:6-8 (in Context) Nehemiah 9 (Whole Chapter)
Job 1:17
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
Job 1:16-18 (in Context) Job 1 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 12:13
I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not see it, and there he will die.
Ezekiel 12:12-14 (in Context) Ezekiel 12 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 23:14
"But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red,
Ezekiel 23:13-15 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 23:23
the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses.
Ezekiel 23:22-24 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
 

what is the problem?


You just made my case, thanks.

Now that you bring Genesis into it, it shows that Genesis has Chaldeans as a people not astrologers. Gen 11:31 calls  Ur a city of a people, not a group of soothsayers.

Gen 15:7 says he is the lord that brought them out of the land of a people, not out of a group of soothsayers.

Nehemiah 9, same thing, it doesn't say he brought them out of a den of soothsayers or from a caste of priests.

Again Job 1 says they are a people who were raiding, not a group of priests or soothsayers.

Ezekiel 12 & 23, also indicate it was a people not a priest caste.

 

Daniel however, in the MT 2:2 - Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans,

NIV cleans it up but in footnotes has "or Chaldeans"

Thanks for proving your error.

 

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record


the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!! 


Most certainly I object. L Ron's Sci-Fi has historical BS as well as did Sci-Fi's BSG and history according to Xena.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Of course I do because the Bible is what we are analyzing here isn't it.


no 'of course' about it. It is irrational to doubt the veracity of scripture either on the grounds that it contains information that other sources don't or vice versa.


Why don't you just erect an altar to the book, forgot you can't do that that's idolatry.

All things should be challenged, that you won't says it all.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony


freeminer wrote:
the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The Bible gives a situation in conflict with Babylonian records, the Nabonidus Chronicles. 2 claims differ. The tablets are the originals, the Book of Daniel who can say what it is for sure.


the Bible account does not conflict with the Chronicles, it merely deals with Belshazzar because he is the relevant character:

From - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation November 1996 - 16[11]:81-85

Babylon: A Test Case in Prophecy [Part I]  by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

 

The historical facts are not disputed. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.), was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (562-560 B.C.), who is mentioned in 2 Kings 25:27-30 and in Jeremiah 52:31-34. Next came Neriglissar (560-556 B.C.), an evil conspirator who was defeated and slain in battle by the Medes and Persians (Sanderson, et al., 1900, 1:54). Labashi-Marduk subsequently came to the Chaldean throne in 556 B.C., but was assassinated after a few months. Finally, there was Nabonidus, who ruled from 556-539 B.C. His son, Belshazzar, was co-regent with his father. Actually it was Belshazzar who was occupying the city of Babylon when it fell (see Daniel 5:1ff.). Inscriptions have been discovered which make it clear that Nabonidus had entrusted the “kingship” of the capital city to his son while he campaigned in Arabia for about a decade (Vos, 1988, 1:276). When Cyrus advanced against Babylon, Nabonidus marched east to meet him, but fled before the Persian general’s army. Later, after Cyrus had captured the city (539 B.C.), Nabonidus surrendered to the Persians. And so, the biblical prophecies regarding the conquerors of the city of Babylon were fulfilled exactly.

why is it that atheists, like lemmings, collude in their own destruction?


You could at least pull the header off and leave just the references so the post doesn't burst out wide on a page. Which I did in my quote.

Your lack of concern in your posting is duly noted. I hope you have a maid at home to pick up after you.

Why is it that believers don't have glass stomachs? Then they could at least see something.

 

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.


freeminer wrote:
explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Not ignored, discounted in favor of the Babylonian records.


scholars in the field don't see the need to discount one in favour of the other since they don't conflict......it's just part of your story.


Which scholars that are secular agree? I know Bible scholars do, one would expect that.

 
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.


freeminer wrote:
I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It was bloodless or it wasn't. Simple choice that.


not my point.........which is that you can't cite the translation which states this.


Belshazaar was killed in the battle for Opis, in the month of Tashritu 539 BCE. As Nabonidus sent him there it did not occur the very next day as claimed in Daniel. If Daniel was at Opis he would have been executed with all the rest, so don't try that as an escape outlet.

 From the Nabonidus Chronicle columns 3 & 4 lines 12-14 -

"  In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus] massacred the inhabitants. "


The city of Babylon itself was captured bloodless but not so all of Babylon. There is a difference.

From columns 3 & 4 lines 15-20-

The fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas [litt: Ugbaru], the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there. Till the end of the month, the shield carrying Gutians were staying within Esagila but nobody carried arms in Esagila and its buildings. The correct time for a ceremony was not missed.
   In the month of Arahsamna, the third day [29 October], Cyrus entered Babylon, [unidentified objects] were filled before him - the state of peace was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon.

From the Cyrus Cylinder fragment A line 17 -

He made him enter his city Babylon without fighting or battle; he saved Babylon from hardship. He delivered Nabonidus, the king who did not revere him, into his hands.

You get it now.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.



freeminer wrote:
how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
See above, no Internet. Walking to the library in Alexandria was a bit of a distance. Not to mention it was through a war zone. Writing in regard to the evils of your current dictator king might also be hazardous, as might going on field trips for verification might just get you executed by Antiochus' soldiers.


you are perfectly free to tell yourself whatever stories you wish but it is quite obvious that the Jewish translators had the text in front of them and they were already in Alexandria!


The only thing for sure complete before the 2nd century BCE in the LXX was the Torah. As to when the rest of the Hebrew was translated there is no proof of when each book was complete.

There is conflicting information that the Torah was done either in the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.E) or during the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C E. But again, that's only the Torah. No dates are known exactly for the rest.

However, the grandson of ben Sira who you don't accept in 132 BCE wrote that the Law, the Prophets and the other books were translated by then. But you don't accept Sira so oh well I guess you can’t use him for help.

As I'm sure you are aware the Jews considered the LXX as divergent due to it's corruption and inaccuracies. It was not acceptable for theological discussions and fell out of favor. But as you say, you're not a Jew so you don't care. These divergences however can and do affect what you accept.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.


freeminer wrote:
well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So, the question is why is Daniel when it has the same problems.


your problem and that of assorted liberals and secularists is precisely that Daniel doesn't have authenticity problems.

 However your problem is probably irremediable. When you've refused the claim of Christ on your life, where do you have left to go?


I can always barbeque kittens.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

No. It isn't for Baruch.


so now scripture isn't true because Daniel isn't long enough!!!!!!............ give me a break!


Spin . . . Wheee....

You know exactly what I meant. Perhaps we speak different dialects of English.

Please cite other books of the Hebrew Bible, or appropriate histories of any country that mention Daniel prior to the time of Antiochus IV.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.


freeminer wrote:
see my answer on Baruch.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
There is no reason to doubt Sirach was written by ben Sira in about 180 BCE. Whether canon or not in the religious persuasion you accept,  Daniel is not mentioned which is the point.

You probably don't accept 1 & 2 Mac either but regardless they have a lot of history in the 2nd century BCE. Oh, I see further down this response you also don't consider them to be worthwhile.


we know when the Book of Mormon was written but that doesn't make it true......... gullible or what?!


Yes you are, already shown.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.
the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

freeminer wrote:
The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Spin . . whee...


you're the only one of us with a motive.


Which is what, I want company when I barbeque kittens? I already have that.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Perhaps we have some sort of communication problem between us or so it seems. After one of us chops and rips it becomes tough to grasp what was what. Also true of grabbing a piece of discussion and commenting.

My best guess here is this is what you mean:

Antiochus fits v25-27 as described in the 1 Mac quote therefore it's not in the v36?

If you mean something else then be straight forward about it.


you keep attributing events described post v36 to Antiochus IV which have already been described pre v36 and then pretending they resolve your dilemma.  Some might take it as an insult to their intelligence.


Sorry, I don't have your perception to read what you'd like me to read. I exist in another dimension that you have abandoned. You know, a world where magic & fantasy are found in books & entertainment and are not real.

freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI


freeminer wrote:
thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Egypt with intent of violence (or attack), and how he gained riches etc.


all of which is described pre v36.


Why don't you post your scenario as a complete post from the beginning to end of Daniel 11 without all of your spin, avoidance, word twisting and games. You can do so when we complete this trip in Fantasyland just as I have asked Gramps to do.

That is if you have one.

freeminer wrote:


 
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.


freeminer wrote:
you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Bible scholars have an agenda as well as believers such as you and predetermine the meaning as has been shown throughout this thread. These non-experts are historians, linguists, archaeologists, literary scholars.


far from pre-determining anything., you've been shown how the Biblical account concurs with history. My personal basis for belief is entirely unrelated to the existence of Daniel I can assure  you........thus my agenda has nothing to do with it. You said your 'experts' were not Biblical scholars. Do you need me to post up examples of archaeological support for scripture?.........all the times 'experts' have mocked it and been proved wrong? Sooner or later one would think they and you would get the message.


If you weren't born spouting Christian belief at some point it was absorbed by you. This method has Jesus as your savior from the start with little or no emphasis on how the god showed up on the scene in the 1st place. Therefore, there is of course a predetermined outcome to how a person that believes in Jesus looks at scripture. You have been demonstrating this throughout this thread.

I don't care if an angel dropped out of the sky and scooped your butt out of the way of a train and that is the prime cause of your beliefs. I'd want video and notarized statements though.

 I imagine the archeologists you would post are the usual suspects. Your choice.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"


freeminer wrote:
you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What do you want to make stick? His view? Your statement he's a liberal? Have you read his book on the link I posted or not? He's was a Christian, date of this book was 1870.


if I had a quid for everyone who's used that title! Liberalism is not a 20th century product.


What's a quid? An English term for money. Is that's what causing the communication problem. Are you a Brit?  Perhaps there’s a translator link available from Google.

I know what a  liberal is.  Jesus was one as well and even he didn't invent it.

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:


1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.


freeminer wrote:
well spotted..........do you see the common theme?
please explain 'dissimilar........ how do the meanings differ?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
If you refer to previous vendettas by the god then yes. The Jews claims to have been abandoned as claimed throughout the OT is simply their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions and blaming it on the god, not on the situation in which they are involved.


the common theme is 'time of the end'.


Right, the end of Antiochus and the persecution.

NIV makes it sound like the time of wrath is the end times. DRO and JPS however indicate what will be before the indignation ends. Very different. Maybe the Jews had cause to walk away from the LLX in favor of the MT, I mean look at you.

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:

because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.


freeminer wrote:
I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Whee - spin ....

I said, "This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god.." = time of wrath.

The time of the end is the end of the persecution.
except that the text identifies both as occurring at the same time.

ok, I'll spell it out.............

 40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

 41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

 42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

 43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

 44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

 

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3

here's the connection:

40And at the time of the end ........................ 1 "At that time

thus the time of wrath and the time of the end are in the same timeframe. The 'deliverance' of Israel is included. Furthermore there was resurrection!....... we should have a record of this!



Daniel makes the statement there is resurrection but not in the way you view.

I'm not buying into your scenario above. I gave my reasons. There are no records of the magic claimed elsewhere, why would this have one? Or is there a pillar of salt somewhere in a museum of Lot’s wife, an ark made of gold with stone tablets, remains of the skyscraper built at Babel that are taller than the WTC was, Egyptian relics that support Moses, ………..The Daniel story is built upon the previous mythology and so has a basis in the Sci-Fi Fantasy realm.

 

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:
4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .

freeminer wrote:

yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved.

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What is it you want? You want me to see it your way? I don't. I was clear with what I said: "
What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . ."

You can interpret 3 parties in this if you'd like, I don't.

freeminer wrote:

at the end of the day, you'll choose whether to tell  yourself irrational stories. I am merely pointing out where rationality lies. There are other prophecies which provide more information.


You are pointing out where you have guessed wrongly the intent. Perhaps if you clean your glasses………

freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:
5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36. and actually he left Lysias to do the job.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What part of rebellion don't you understand?


what part of normal syntax don't you understand? When the Romans put down Boadicea's rebellion, were they 'attacking the land'? You display all the usual symptoms!


Your twisting it to your purposes. Your grasping at straws is noted.

freeminer wrote:



]6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Dan 11:40 does not say that.


Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"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."


42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?


Wine stain on the original?

Oh, you don't have that do you.

 
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.
freeminer wrote:
no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Yes it does. NIV Dan 12:1 - "At that time...." That time means the same time as the other events in chapter 11, occurring at, during and after Antiochus IV.


'fraid not, since this is all dealt with pre v36, as I pointed out.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Further - see Cowles pp 447-458. Great explanation. though he still is one of you in Jesus belief.


what does that mean?....... the demons believe.



Injection of more fantasy? Or have you been reading horror books for Halloween?


freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:


7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*
I didn't cite Daniel 11.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV


Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)
25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 163 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem........'holy mountain is common prophetic terminology.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Spin... Whee...

I said no such thing that the man in question dies in Jerusalem. I said it does not indicate where.


hmm.........but it does.........otherwise there would be no point in v45.

freeminer wrote:


8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.


 so Tabae is the 'beautiful holy mountain'!!!........ and which seas is it between then?

45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain.

and which are all these countries that he invaded then?.... .....so far we have Cyprus plus occasional visitor to Egypt..........oh, and by the way, just to recap, everyone knows that the LXX was complete before ever Antiochus came to power.........no doubt you have a story for this!



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land)


nice bit of re-writing......... if you don't lke the text, change it!...........I suggest it means what it says!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.
freeminer wrote:
wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia!


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What it says - "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." His tents are his armies, does not mean he's in one of them.


his tents are his armies?!!!!!..........I didn't say he was in a tent!!!...... I want to know how this description has anything to do with Tabae. Where is your version of the 'holy mountain'?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
He was as is said - " 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. "

Which is where Antiochus was, East.


which historical event does this relate to?......... after all, this is retrospective! I'll answer my question, it refers to his defence against Mithridates, rather some distance from Israel!

You think! I already said that, thanks for repeating. But you read into the text what you’d like to complete your ‘proof’ of prophecy. Leaving out your injected ideas and preconceptions and you don’t get to your destination.
1-the text does not explicitly indicate where the king dies.
2-the text is clear enough what king was fighting what king but you inject a king of the North that is different than what is considered throughout and called the kingdom of the North.
What king of the North have you created that fits this? Answer, none given by you.


freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:
9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

freeminer wrote:

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus? 


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Since you consider the DRO to be erroneous what does it matter? Submission can be mercenaries, or they can be giving tribute which is a form of submission.


well, if you have no concern for accuracy, it may as well be fantasy anyway....... you see, you like history and evidence except when it doesn't support you......... I would have said, 'your case' but you've already admitted to not having one.

We are analyzing your fantasy not one I created. Nice try at a spin.
It’s on you to provide evidence for a Daniel in the 6th century and so far your only proof is the controversial book with the guy’s name on it that you want to use to prove it’s a prophecy.
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.

freeminer wrote:
]Is this your story? evidence? you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
See above, he went East, he divided his army, his tents per se were in Judea as well as in Persia.


you see, ultimately atheists become semantic mystics...... when language doesn't say what they want it to, they make it mean something else! The character in question 'pitches' his armies does he?! You will find the phrase, 'between the seas' elsewhere in prophecy...... it refers to the Mediterranean and Gallilee.......... which, as we all know is in Persia!

Or the Red Sea. Or the Persian Gulf. But that might not fit huh?
The army is of the king, pitches its tents in 2 different areas.
freeminer wrote:



freeminer wrote:


9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.


freeminer wrote:
cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

During this period Parthia under Mithridates I seized territory from Antiochus, circa 167-64. Antiochus was suppressing the worship of gods elsewhere and seizing or trying anyway the treasures from their temples. He also suppressed rebellion in Armenia. I'm sure you are capable of looking these up yourself.


well he was out of power after 164 and these dates cover most of his reign! As I've pointed out, the pre v36 prophecy deals with the Maccabean revolt so unfortunately your explanation doesn't explain why the events to which you wish to attribute this should pop up out of sequence. Furthermore the events described clearly relate to the demise of the person referred to. How is this true of Antiochus' death by illness or accident?  As to Greek gods:

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,

clearly this does not relate to Antiochus IV.

It does, but then it won’t fit the dimension to which you wish to insert it.
freeminer wrote:


freeminer wrote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*


freeminer wrote:
no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e] '


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Which is what selling the high priest's office did in effect.


no it didn't .........it didn't create fiefdoms

How do you suddenly get to the Middle Ages. Time Travel…..

 
freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Translations once again disagree.

freeminer wrote:

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
You read and speak Greek then? Ancient Greek that is?

How does this particular verse translate in  the DSS??


see the LXX

The LXX is not the DSS………
freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
JPS, the MT - "And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price." easily can mean he took bribes for the high priest's office as mentioned.


that is bizarre...... and anyway the priest didn't hold land........furthermore the term is the land.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
But don't get hung up on this, I don't need to show everything in Daniel perfectly matches what Antiochus IV did or didn't, reporters today with far better resources screw up. Imagine if you had to be stealthy in your research, had only fragmentary information, No Internet, and the nearest Library was in another country.


why do it if it's so risky?!........you see, not only don't your facts fit but you can't provide a motive and we know the LXX was complete prior to Antiochus....... it all  smacks of desperation.

 

You do not know any such thing in regard to the LXX.
freeminer wrote:



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

freeminer wrote:

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 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."

 



pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I commented on this above in regards to "At that time", and how this relates. See the link to Cowles and read his 20 or so pages in regards to Chap 12.

why adopt his mysticism? Liberals don't critique the Bible according to it's own claims anyway.... they make up stories......... now where have I seen that before?! Anyway........ I'm off camping....... have just packed my army!

 


If the Bible is already a story in the land that never was, what the diff if your fellow Christian  liberals create a divergence that ultimately comes back to support the delusion you hold at a later time.

Enjoy your camping. Watch out for gators. Or  Crocs, or demons since you think they exist.

'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
Still no viable alternative

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Thanks, yes, now we are clear. Sorry for the delay on this.

You are right when you say that Media and Persia were actually separate kingdoms and should be viewed as such. Separate kingdoms that were represented together by individual beasts. I have looked into your interpretations carefully, and still have some pretty significant problems.

First, since we are separating out Media from Persia, Media never did follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Babylon was "conquered" by Cyrus. Now technically, Cyrus was the king of Persia and Media. When he rebelled against his grandfather Astyages and gained victory in 550 BC he became the king of Media. This made him the king of Media and Persia.

Under Persian rule the Mede's who were close kin to the Persians retained a prominent position in the kingdom. At the beginning the Geek historians were still calling it a Median Empire. History still considers Persia to be a successor state to Media.

Thus, it would not be correct to use two beasts or sections of a statue to represent Media and Persia. One would have to either represent Persia alone, or considering the Median role "Medo-Persia". The writer of Daniel chose to acknowledge the Median connection by including them in these beasts.

That being said, we have the bear raised up on one side that corresponds nicely with the Ram with one horn larger than the other. Both symbols representing a greater Persia with a Median connection.

Second, we have the leopard with four wings and four heads. This is a very poor symbol for Persia. Yes, Persia did have more than four kings, but was never viewed as having four distinct power centers. Heads being greater than horns would more than likely represent something more than individual kings in succession.

Greece now is a perfect fit. The four wings represent the swiftness with which Alexander conquered all of the vast areas of Persia. The four heads represent the four major divisions that came out of Alexanders kingdom. Now here's a perfect fit.

Than we have the little horn in Daniel 7 who's appearance was greater than his fellows. Antiochus VI was definitely not greater than his predecessors. Yes, he was a "nasty little bugger", but not great in the scheme of things.

If one just takes the book as what is claims (prophecy from God), and does not try to make something else out of it, everything works out just fine.

If one bends the needle of the compass 180 degrees to try to avoid acknowledging God, there are always problems.

Once again, we have a storyline "made up" that just does not work.

 

No problem on the delay, Freeminer and I have occupied ourselves with sparring.

The Medes and Persians were as we both agree separate kingdoms. After Cyrus conquered the Medes in 550 BCE they became vassals. The Medes were always inferior to Babylon as indicated by Daniel as well. The Persians on the other hand had a kingdom that lasted over 3 times longer and encompassed most of the known world thus being greater than Babylon. The Medes did not do so and so were inferior as Daniel indicated.  Thus the Persians do fit in the scenario as Daniel described. The little horn is explicitly stated as coming out of the Macedonian empire of Alexander from one of the 4 kingdoms. That being so, the Seleucid kings fit while Rome does not fit. None of the Greek Kingdoms included Rome or the Etruscans before them so it doesn't fit.

Since we cannot agree, it is pointless to beat each other senseless, that's already going on what with the sparring I have with Freeminer, so I suggest you go ahead and finish your interpretation.

When we get to the end, we can both summarize our views and critiques and let it be what it is. OK?

 

It is not possible to correctly understand or interpret the later prophecies, or portions of Daniel if the earlier ones have been misunderstood. Therefore I build a solid base, carefully examining, and than go on.

Well, you and freeminer don't seem to have a problem building upon a morphed misconstued view.

gramster wrote:

So before I continue we will recap your position. Let me know if this is what you believe.

1. The book of Daniel was not prophecy written in the 5th century BC by Daniel as it claims. It was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown Jewish author who was writing history as it happened. This was not being dishonest, even though the book claims to be prophetic and written by Daniel.

First off, I thought you claimed it was in the 6th century BCE, you know from late 7th (605 BCE) through all of the 6th (599 to 500 BCE) If he wrote it in the 400s, Daniel was trying to catch Enoch for age.

There are many books written during the 2nd century BCE, calling them any more dishonest than any of what you accept for canon just seems to be unfair. So is the case of other books, I guess they all were dishonet in that case.

gramster wrote:

2. The 2nd kingdom's in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to the Median Empire alone even though that empire was not successive to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom.

Nice try.

gramster wrote:

3. The 3rd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Persia alone, even though in Daniel 7 the third kingdom is represented by a leopard with four heads and four wings that perfectly represent Alexanders kingdom. You claim that the four heads represent 4 of the kings of Persia even though Persia never did have four distinct major separations or power centers.

The Jews only considered 4 Persian Kings to be important, not all 9. I explained how Dan 7 was thus. Daniel 7 does separate into kingdoms indicated in v19. But no worry, look at it whatever way you'd like.

gramster wrote:

4. You believe the 4th beast of Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Alexanders kingdom, and the 10 horns represent ten successive kings, and Antiochus IV represents the little horn even though he was not greater than his fellows.

Actually you should study Antiochus IV a bit. What matters as well is the perception of the 2nd century BCE writer.

gramster wrote:

Also ignoring that the third beast is a much better representation of Alexanders kingdom.

We'll see what you do with it. Based on your conjecture in regards to tribes of Europe you include, I really don't see much relationship to the Jews in it at all. Good Luck

gramster wrote:

5. Now you throw Daniel 8 into the mix, making the mistake of claiming that the text says the horn came out of one of the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom. Look a little closer. The text does not say that.

I can't find where I said this in regard to Daniel 8, I did say this in regard to the little horn in  Daniel 7 in post # 535 recap.

gramster wrote:

If you believe this...?? You haven't a ghost of a chance of getting any of the rest of Daniel right. But, as you have requested, I will continue further into Daniel. Making careful note of all of the huge problems with the only alternate interpretation given.

 

According to you and freeminer I haven't got any of Daniel right. That's what happens when you don't buy into myths and stories as real.

Actually I also gave you the Rev Henry Cowles interpretation and the RCC's. Cowles views are found in this link -http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

He like you claims it is prophecy, but of the Antiochus IV variety. His claim is Daniel prophesied the persecution by Antiochus in the 6th century BCE. He like you was a Jesus believer. He doesn't see it as the end times like you do. You obviously didn't read his work.

Go to newadvent.com and type Antiochus IV or Daniel in the search box for the RCC's view, though you consider them to be evil incarnate you should at least know what they have to say.

Yes, I know how BC dates work. As for my mistake 5th century instead of 6th. Sorry. "My Bad".

As for books written in the 2nd century BC or any other, they are only deceptive if they claim to be what they are not.

As for The Median Empire being the 2nd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, "nice try", ???. Is that an answer??? Your scenario does not work. The Median Empire was not the next kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars. That's a huge problem for your story. To try to sweep this under the rug this way is indeed a "nice try". You'll have to do better than this.

As for the leopard being Persia and the four heads being 4 of the kings, this is very weak. If the four heads were popping up one after the other than "maybe"???

I don't see any point in considering Antichus IV as the little horn when he was no longer around when the 4th beast came on to the scene.

I realize that there are other views and why. I have studied into these, and have not found one to hold water. Cowles is no different. He starts off wrong, and of course ends up in the ditch.

You say that the little horn in Daniel 7 comes from the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom?? Daniel 7 has the little horn coming up in the midst of the 10 horns of the 4th beast. The only beast in Daniel 7 with four divisions is the leopard which you mistakenly refer to as Persia.

You still have no viable alternative interpretation. The one you have given has already fallen apart, and I have pointed out why.


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

gramster wrote:

Yes, I know how BC dates work. As for my mistake 5th century instead of 6th. Sorry. "My Bad".

As for books written in the 2nd century BC or any other, they are only deceptive if they claim to be what they are not.

As for The Median Empire being the 2nd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, "nice try", ???. Is that an answer??? Your scenario does not work. The Median Empire was not the next kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars. That's a huge problem for your story. To try to sweep this under the rug this way is indeed a "nice try". You'll have to do better than this.

As for the leopard being Persia and the four heads being 4 of the kings, this is very weak. If the four heads were popping up one after the other than "maybe"???

I don't see any point in considering Antichus IV as the little horn when he was no longer around when the 4th beast came on to the scene.

I realize that there are other views and why. I have studied into these, and have not found one to hold water. Cowles is no different. He starts off wrong, and of course ends up in the ditch.

You say that the little horn in Daniel 7 comes from the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom?? Daniel 7 has the little horn coming up in the midst of the 10 horns of the 4th beast. The only beast in Daniel 7 with four divisions is the leopard which you mistakenly refer to as Persia.

You still have no viable alternative interpretation. The one you have given has already fallen apart, and I have pointed out why.

As to your views whatever works for you.

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no realtionship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

I am not susceptible to patronisation....... get used to the idea.

Did you mean patronization? Y'all have a different dictionary o'r thar? Too much to drink on your camping trip perhaps. Since you aren't my professor but just an elitist I'll take it for what it implies.

freeminer wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all,

You correctly identify the issue as one of 'will'. However much the rational evidence is against you, you are unable to subject yours to its logic. Thus you subsume your own rationality to your autonomy. The above statement is one of your more perceptive ones. The last bit is mistaken however....... when I realised that it was a choice between autonomy and rationality, I chose the latter as an act of will! You see this as weakness but the crunch point is........... you can't do it!

I hear crutches are on sale at Walmart. Perhaps they would suit you as well as the ones you use. And the good thing is once you have paid for them you don't have to pay additional out each week on Sunday. You can just pick them up and limp around.

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

the man who doesn't accept that his legs are broken spends his life on the floor.........how is it down there?

Is there a floor? How do you know for sure?




 

____________________________________________________________
"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:I have corrected all

Quote:

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

I am not susceptible to patronisation....... get used to the idea.

Quote:
Did you mean patronization? Y'all have a different dictionary o'r thar?

yes, the s and z are interchangeable and when shortening 'over' we would still include the 'e', as per, 'o'er'.

Quote:
Too much to drink on your camping trip perhaps. Since you aren't my professor but just an elitist I'll take it for what it implies.
is this part of your case?


Quote:
That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all,

Quote:
You correctly identify the issue as one of 'will'. However much the rational evidence is against you, you are unable to subject yours to its logic. Thus you subsume your own rationality to your autonomy. The above statement is one of your more perceptive ones. The last bit is mistaken however....... when I realised that it was a choice between autonomy and rationality, I chose the latter as an act of will! You see this as weakness but the crunch point is........... you can't do it!

Quote:
I hear crutches are on sale at Walmart. Perhaps they would suit you as well as the ones you use. And the good thing is once you have paid for them you don't have to pay additional out each week on Sunday. You can just pick them up and limp around.
thank you for confirming my point with your absurd meanderings!

Quote:
as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

Quote:
the man who doesn't accept that his legs are broken spends his life on the floor.........how is it down there?

Quote:
Is there a floor? How do you know for sure?
"the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge"




 

'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.


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

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

I am not susceptible to patronisation....... get used to the idea.

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Did you mean patronization? Y'all have a different dictionary o'r thar?

yes, the s and z are interchangeable and when shortening 'over' we would still include the 'e', as per, 'o'er'.

Y'all  thank being aggervatin wit yar big wuhds r pressin'  a fellar?

I tare of yar thinkin' y'all got an edgy-cation.  Y'all ned a hait upside the haid septin that thar's a wast on a scannel like y'all.

 

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Too much to drink on your camping trip perhaps. Since you aren't my professor but just an elitist I'll take it for what it implies.
is this part of your case?

Nah.

Estoy jugando con usted ahora.

 

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all,

Quote:
You correctly identify the issue as one of 'will'. However much the rational evidence is against you, you are unable to subject yours to its logic. Thus you subsume your own rationality to your autonomy. The above statement is one of your more perceptive ones. The last bit is mistaken however....... when I realised that it was a choice between autonomy and rationality, I chose the latter as an act of will! You see this as weakness but the crunch point is........... you can't do it!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I hear crutches are on sale at Walmart. Perhaps they would suit you as well as the ones you use. And the good thing is once you have paid for them you don't have to pay additional out each week on Sunday. You can just pick them up and limp around.
thank you for confirming my point with your absurd meanderings!

Gracias!

Que. No tiene sentido del humor?

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

freeminer wrote:
the man who doesn't accept that his legs are broken spends his life on the floor.........how is it down there?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Is there a floor? How do you know for sure?
"the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge"

 

Buenos dias.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
not sure where you got the

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

'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
Cowles

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Yes, I know how BC dates work. As for my mistake 5th century instead of 6th. Sorry. "My Bad".

As for books written in the 2nd century BC or any other, they are only deceptive if they claim to be what they are not.

As for The Median Empire being the 2nd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, "nice try", ???. Is that an answer??? Your scenario does not work. The Median Empire was not the next kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars. That's a huge problem for your story. To try to sweep this under the rug this way is indeed a "nice try". You'll have to do better than this.

As for the leopard being Persia and the four heads being 4 of the kings, this is very weak. If the four heads were popping up one after the other than "maybe"???

I don't see any point in considering Antichus IV as the little horn when he was no longer around when the 4th beast came on to the scene.

I realize that there are other views and why. I have studied into these, and have not found one to hold water. Cowles is no different. He starts off wrong, and of course ends up in the ditch.

You say that the little horn in Daniel 7 comes from the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom?? Daniel 7 has the little horn coming up in the midst of the 10 horns of the 4th beast. The only beast in Daniel 7 with four divisions is the leopard which you mistakenly refer to as Persia.

You still have no viable alternative interpretation. The one you have given has already fallen apart, and I have pointed out why.

As to your views whatever works for you.

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no relationship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

 

As you have suggested, I am taking some time out to study Cowles interpretation of Daniel. It is the most viable alternative suggested as of yet, so in fairness it deserves a fair shake. At least he doesn't try to make the Median Empire a separate, successive kingdom to king Neb's. He also is not suggesting China, or the USA be considered for these 1st four powers. He does make a hearty argument, and I do not reject other interpretations on the basis that they disagree with the one I believe in.

I have read his chapter on Daniel 7, but will have to go back over it for more analysis. I will also need to study his chapters on Daniel 2 and 8, as well as some of his additional notes etc. That will take me some time to be thorough. Hopefully not too much though.

Gramps


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Yes, I know how BC dates work. As for my mistake 5th century instead of 6th. Sorry. "My Bad".

As for books written in the 2nd century BC or any other, they are only deceptive if they claim to be what they are not.

As for The Median Empire being the 2nd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, "nice try", ???. Is that an answer??? Your scenario does not work. The Median Empire was not the next kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars. That's a huge problem for your story. To try to sweep this under the rug this way is indeed a "nice try". You'll have to do better than this.

As for the leopard being Persia and the four heads being 4 of the kings, this is very weak. If the four heads were popping up one after the other than "maybe"???

I don't see any point in considering Antichus IV as the little horn when he was no longer around when the 4th beast came on to the scene.

I realize that there are other views and why. I have studied into these, and have not found one to hold water. Cowles is no different. He starts off wrong, and of course ends up in the ditch.

You say that the little horn in Daniel 7 comes from the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom?? Daniel 7 has the little horn coming up in the midst of the 10 horns of the 4th beast. The only beast in Daniel 7 with four divisions is the leopard which you mistakenly refer to as Persia.

You still have no viable alternative interpretation. The one you have given has already fallen apart, and I have pointed out why.

As to your views whatever works for you.

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no relationship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

 

As you have suggested, I am taking some time out to study Cowles interpretation of Daniel. It is the most viable alternative suggested as of yet, so in fairness it deserves a fair shake. At least he doesn't try to make the Median Empire a separate, successive kingdom to king Neb's. He also is not suggesting China, or the USA be considered for these 1st four powers. He does make a hearty argument, and I do not reject other interpretations on the basis that they disagree with the one I believe in.

I have read his chapter on Daniel 7, but will have to go back over it for more analysis. I will also need to study his chapters on Daniel 2 and 8, as well as some of his additional notes etc. That will take me some time to be thorough. Hopefully not too much though.

Gramps

Nice way to throw that straw man in gramster.

PJTS mentioned China only to show historical error. China's empires predated the Bible but somehow the God who gave the prophecies knew nothing of them? I grant that they really had nothing to do with the area where the book was written (then again Rome didn't either).

It's similar to Shermer's reminder to YEC's that the Babylonians were making beer during a time the YECs say God was creating the universe. Or when I remind folks that the Egyptians were building pyramids during the time of Noah's flood.

"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:not sure

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

I respond to what I receive.

Not sure  what you mean in RE: to "class" & "the English" but sounds as if you have been directly affected by their actions. As an American we dumped their rule and became the self-centered self serving country we are over 230 years ago. Many of the problems of today can be directly tied to their influence. But that is another subject entirely.

I see you got the point.

Y'all have a good day as well.

Buenos dias.

____________________________________________________________
"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:As you have

gramster wrote:

As you have suggested, I am taking some time out to study Cowles interpretation of Daniel. It is the most viable alternative suggested as of yet, so in fairness it deserves a fair shake. At least he doesn't try to make the Median Empire a separate, successive kingdom to king Neb's. He also is not suggesting China, or the USA be considered for these 1st four powers. He does make a hearty argument, and I do not reject other interpretations on the basis that they disagree with the one I believe in.

I have read his chapter on Daniel 7, but will have to go back over it for more analysis. I will also need to study his chapters on Daniel 2 and 8, as well as some of his additional notes etc. That will take me some time to be thorough. Hopefully not too much though.

Gramps

Cowles wrote in the mid 1860s. The US and China weren't the most powerful influences on the world at that time. Regardless, as Jcgadfly mentioned they were brought up to show only that the OT was a subset of the entire world & it had serious gaps in its understanding overall. The OT makes claims in regard to "the whole earth" in many places, not just in Daniel which have a serious problem. The point of China was most European descended people don't ever seem to even consider it when they look at the history of the world, especially ancient times, until they get to the point where Marco Polo interacts or gunpowder came to Europe. Serious mistake. This has nothing to do with Daniel but is just an example of the biased views of the Western 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.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:not sure

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

Paul created a religion where he is the only source. He wanted to be able to show himself better than the Sanhedrin that rejected him. He wanted his works to be known as the sole knowledge of God.

How is that not elitist?

"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
Chase that bone

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Yes, I know how BC dates work. As for my mistake 5th century instead of 6th. Sorry. "My Bad".

As for books written in the 2nd century BC or any other, they are only deceptive if they claim to be what they are not.

As for The Median Empire being the 2nd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, "nice try", ???. Is that an answer??? Your scenario does not work. The Median Empire was not the next kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars. That's a huge problem for your story. To try to sweep this under the rug this way is indeed a "nice try". You'll have to do better than this.

As for the leopard being Persia and the four heads being 4 of the kings, this is very weak. If the four heads were popping up one after the other than "maybe"???

I don't see any point in considering Antichus IV as the little horn when he was no longer around when the 4th beast came on to the scene.

I realize that there are other views and why. I have studied into these, and have not found one to hold water. Cowles is no different. He starts off wrong, and of course ends up in the ditch.

You say that the little horn in Daniel 7 comes from the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom?? Daniel 7 has the little horn coming up in the midst of the 10 horns of the 4th beast. The only beast in Daniel 7 with four divisions is the leopard which you mistakenly refer to as Persia.

You still have no viable alternative interpretation. The one you have given has already fallen apart, and I have pointed out why.

As to your views whatever works for you.

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no relationship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

 

As you have suggested, I am taking some time out to study Cowles interpretation of Daniel. It is the most viable alternative suggested as of yet, so in fairness it deserves a fair shake. At least he doesn't try to make the Median Empire a separate, successive kingdom to king Neb's. He also is not suggesting China, or the USA be considered for these 1st four powers. He does make a hearty argument, and I do not reject other interpretations on the basis that they disagree with the one I believe in.

I have read his chapter on Daniel 7, but will have to go back over it for more analysis. I will also need to study his chapters on Daniel 2 and 8, as well as some of his additional notes etc. That will take me some time to be thorough. Hopefully not too much though.

Gramps

Nice way to throw that straw man in gramster.

PJTS mentioned China only to show historical error. China's empires predated the Bible but somehow the God who gave the prophecies knew nothing of them? I grant that they really had nothing to do with the area where the book was written (then again Rome didn't either).

It's similar to Shermer's reminder to YEC's that the Babylonians were making beer during a time the YECs say God was creating the universe. Or when I remind folks that the Egyptians were building pyramids during the time of Noah's flood.

I would ask for proof, but I've already learned not to chase that bone. It only serves to distract from the subject at hand. I will have to wait for later to get into those claims.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:freeminer

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

Paul created a religion where he is the only source. He wanted to be able to show himself better than the Sanhedrin that rejected him. He wanted his works to be known as the sole knowledge of God.

How is that not elitist?

another thing I can't fathom is where atheists get all this guff about Paul "preaching a different gospel". Perhaps you would:

a]  point out where you infer these motivations from what Paul actually wrote. Perhaps you don't read it!

20 I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

 b] point out where Paul departs from the gospel preached by Christ.

Romans 15:19
by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
             

'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
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

Quote:
I respond to what I receive.

no you don't... you can't even justify the assertion.

Quote:
Not sure  what you mean in RE: to "class" & "the English" but sounds as if you have been directly affected by their actions. As an American we dumped their rule and became the self-centered self serving country we are over 230 years ago. Many of the problems of today can be directly tied to their influence. But that is another subject entirely.

I see you got the point.

interesting that you should think this since apparently you can't even explain yourself. All the indications are that even you don't know what you mean!

 

'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:As to your views

Quote:
As to your views whatever works for you.

thank you for this affirmation of liberal democracy!

Quote:
I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

yes, we knew your position. The issue is, which party is demonstrably into fantasy? You propose the notion that Daniel is retrospective against all the evidence and have failed to back this with any possible rational motive. What has Daniel's prophecy got to do with the ideas of Judaism and how is it "supportive" of them? 

Quote:
In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

but you're not in favour of "argument from the masses"! Thinking about it, that sounds a bit elitist of you!

Quote:
As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no realtionship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

but you've spent a good deal of time complaining about excluded ones!.........you really are all over the place!

'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.


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

 

 

freeminer wrote:

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I respond to what I receive.

no you don't... you can't even justify the assertion.

Whatever.

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Not sure  what you mean in RE: to "class" & "the English" but sounds as if you have been directly affected by their actions. As an American we dumped their rule and became the self-centered self serving country we are over 230 years ago. Many of the problems of today can be directly tied to their influence. But that is another subject entirely.

I see you got the point.

interesting that you should think this since apparently you can't even explain yourself. All the indications are that even you don't know what you mean!

 

You have become boring. 

Hasta otro día.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
freeminer wrote:Quote:As to

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
As to your views whatever works for you.

thank you for this affirmation of liberal democracy!

Quote:
I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

yes, we knew your position. The issue is, which party is demonstrably into fantasy? You propose the notion that Daniel is retrospective against all the evidence and have failed to back this with any possible rational motive. What has Daniel's prophecy got to do with the ideas of Judaism and how is it "supportive" of them? 

Quote:
In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

but you're not in favour of "argument from the masses"! Thinking about it, that sounds a bit elitist of you!

Quote:
As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no realtionship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

but you've spent a good deal of time complaining about excluded ones!.........you really are all over the place!

Your ability to integrate information is lacking as you have adequately demonstrated.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
freeminer wrote:jcgadfly

freeminer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

Paul created a religion where he is the only source. He wanted to be able to show himself better than the Sanhedrin that rejected him. He wanted his works to be known as the sole knowledge of God.

How is that not elitist?

another thing I can't fathom is where atheists get all this guff about Paul "preaching a different gospel". Perhaps you would:

a]  point out where you infer these motivations from what Paul actually wrote. Perhaps you don't read it!

20 I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

 b] point out where Paul departs from the gospel preached by Christ.

Romans 15:19
by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
             

You mean you can't see where Paul made Christ a God? How he preached a religion that abolished the Torah?

I have no problem with Paul preaching the gospel of Christ - he created it. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. See, Jesus and his disciples were observant Pharisaic Jews and what Paul was preaching was blasphemy.

From http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm (He misspells Maccoby's name but the information is there)

"Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist."

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You mean you can't

 

Quote:

You mean you can't see where Paul made Christ a God?

here are just a couple of the places where Jesus himself claims to be God:

6     And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7     He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

13     I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14     Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15     For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16     I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Quote:
How he preached a religion that abolished the Torah?

please cite any reference in scripture prior to Paul which tells you that a man may be made righteous by keeping the Law. Then you may tell me where Paul abolished the Torah.

 

Quote:
I have no problem with Paul preaching the gospel of Christ - he created it.

how could Paul have created the gospel which Christ preached?........avoiding the more madcap notions would be helpful.

Quote:
Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.

fortunately it has everything to do with Jesus' teachings.

Quote:
See, Jesus and his disciples were observant Pharisaic Jews and what Paul was preaching was blasphemy.

Jesus' disciples were fishermen. Jesus was in constant conflict with Pharisees...... on what issue?.........the Law! 

Quote:
From http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm (He misspells Maccoby's name but the information is there)
good grief, you really will swallow any crap the devil feeds you..........ok, let's take this apart........

Quote:
"Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin.

here are just a couple of things Jesus said about his role:

 

 

  1. Mark 2:5
    When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
    Mark 2:4-6 (in Context) Mark 2 (Whole Chapter)
  2. Mark 2:10
    But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man,
    Mark 2:9-11 (in Context) Mark 2 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:44-46 (in Context)
 Luke 5:24
But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
Luke 5:23-25 (in Context)
 John 12:32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Luke 19:9-11 (New International Version)

 

 9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Quote:
Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage

well........ here's what Jesus had to say about his relationship to human politics:

John 18:36
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
John 18:35-37 (in Context)

Matthew 22:21
Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Quote:
he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life.

reject scripture if you must but make sure you know what it says first.

Quote:
This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus.

he even contradicts himself!!!! Was the vision of God or not? Why does he have to insult our intelligence?  

Quote:
The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions.

no he didn't , Christ did.........at the Passover........is there no end to this guy's ignorance? 

Quote:
The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this,
cite one scrap of evidence for this assertion. Furthermore, Paul submitted his teaching to the scrutiny of the Jerusalem Church. I have never seen so much nonsense packed into so small a space. 

Quote:
especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist."

cite the smallest particle..........one tiny iota of evidence that the Jerusalem Church did not practice communion. 

'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
Miner, you are an amusing

Miner, you are an amusing cat,

You have to go to Revelation (well after Jesus was around and written by a dude who did a LOT of magic mushrooms (probably not the author of the Gospel of John)) to show that Jesus (who, as I said, wasn't around) to show he called himself God?

Thank you for solidifying the case that Paul and his converts had more to do with Jesus' divinity than Jesus did.

You need one scripture to show that a man can be righteous by keeping the law? I can give you an entire Old Testament. The "saved by grace through faith" didn't exist till Paul and his converts. Are you saying that the God- fearing people in the OT who knew none of this weren't righteous? Or are you going to pull a Paul and "borrow" them to say that they knew about grace through faith but didn't understand it? If Abraham truly had faith as paul describes it, he wouldn't have made sacrifices

As for Paul canceling the Torah - look in Romans 4-5. I'd enjoy seeing your apology but I look forward to more lies from you.

How did Paul create the gospel of Christ? Simple, Jesus did not preach what Paul was teaching. hence, the rift between Paul and Jesus' disciples. If you were following the teachings of Jesus, you'd be a Pharisaic Jew. You're a Christian, so you must be following Paul's teachings.

It has to do with Jesus' teachings if you think "following Jesus' teachings"==""throwing them away and substituting your own". Oh wait, you do.

Your mark quotes are not inconsistent with Jesus claims as Messiah. One sent by God with God's authority to act as His agent can and should be able to do what god can do. That does not make him God.

Look at this: http://www.torahofmessiah.com/shaliach.htm

"My kingdom is not of this world" as Messiah, he was acting as an agent of the kingdom of God. Look at it like "diplomatic immunity".

John 6 states that many followers of Christ left because what Jesus was saying was an abomination to the Jewish law. The disciples were observant Jews.It just makes more sense that observant Jews would not do things that would be perceived as offensive to the Jewish law.

Jesus and his disciples did not celebrate the Eucharist. They had a Passover meal. Paul and his converts added the magic later on.

As observant Jews, the disciples still celebrated passover with the additional reason of remembering their messiah. This was also normal Jewish custom to remember one's teacher. No deification needed until Paul wanted to make a mystery religion that required its adherents to be subservient to Roman rule.

Still trying to end your ignorance - but the fact that you enjoy being willfully stupid makes it more difficult

 

 

"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
Daniel - Cowles - Critique pt 1

I am now back from my vacation. I had a good time. I also brought Henry Cowles with me and did a lot of reading.

I am not one to dismiss a view point simply because it differs from my own. HC makes a pretty good case for his beliefs and is therefore worthy of consideration. His views are also the best supported alternative to my own presented to date.

It has been suggested that Daniel was written "history as it happened" in the 2nd century BC. It has also been suggested that there are many powers that can be made to fit the powers mentioned in Daniel. Therefore it has been suggested that it can not be proven that Daniel is a book of prophecy, written before the events prophesied.

For these reasons we will evaluate the book of Daniel in the light of the two viewpoints put forward to see if the above is true.

Henry Cowles supports what he calls the "Grecian Theory", and rebuts what he calls the "Roman Theory". We will evaluate the texts comparing these two alternatives.

HC, like many of higher education unfortunately tends to use 50 pages to say what could be clearly be said in four. I will try not to make that mistake.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel - Cowles - Critique pt 2 (CH 2)

Daniel Chapter 2.

We will not waste time discussing the first three beasts since we have already beaten them into the ground. We will instead focus on the main points of Daniel 2 that there remains questions about.

1. What is meant by the latter days, and if they end in the time of Christ, or extend down further in time.

2. The fourth beast whether it be Rome, or the Seleucid kings.

3. The meaning of "The Kingdom of God".

4. Who the book was written to and why.

First I will give answer to the question that gives perspective to the whole book of Daniel. Who was the book written to and why? Was it written to and for the Jews only? or is there any evidence that it was also written to and for non Jews at a later time in history?

HC takes the first view, and I the second. I would like to consider the passage in Daniel 12:9+10 to begin with. "Go your way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end". What is meant by "closed up", "sealed", and "time of the end"? The answer to these questions bear greatly on correctly interpreting the passages in Daniel.

How does one "close up" or "seal up" a book until a later time in history? I suppose today one could simply lock it up in a time vault of some kind, but they did not have those in BC times. So how does one do that?

The answer is quite simple. Write the book enshrouded in symbolism and in such a manner that is would only be properly understood at the time, and by the readers that were meant to understand it. I know of no other explanation for this passage.

I therefore suggest that the book of Daniel was prophecy written well in advance of events in symbolic terms to be passed down to future readers. This we will examine further as we go forward.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Ch2 cont...

Next I would like to address just who this book was written for, as this also has considerable bearing on interpreting the passages.

HC contends that this book was written exclusively for Jews up until the time of Christ, and has no bearing for non Jews later in earth's history, and in other parts of the world. I believe the prophecies in Daniel continue down in time to the coming of the Lord at the end of the world, and therefore are relevant to all.

HC bases his view on two main factors. First on the statement "your people...in the later days", and Secondly on the idea that the Kingdom of God referred to in Daniel is not the 2nd coming at the end of the world, but Christ's 1st coming in the days of ancient Rome.

In response to the first I make the following points:

1. From a Christian view point, it is not those who are physical ancestors of Abraham that are Jews, but all those who believe in Jesus. Therefore this passage can be inclusive of Christians down to the end of the ages. This is information that was not necessary for Daniel to know, so God did not need to put forth the effort as this time to explain.

2. The latter days can also refer to the times we now live in.

In response to the second we will have to look at the evidence as we move along.


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

gramster wrote:

I am now back from my vacation. I had a good time.

Welcome back.

gramster wrote:

I also brought Henry Cowles with me and did a lot of reading.

I am not one to dismiss a view point simply because it differs from my own. HC makes a pretty good case for his beliefs and is therefore worthy of consideration. His views are also the best supported alternative to my own presented to date.

And to think he wrote this 150 years ago and you just found out.

gramster wrote:

It has been suggested that Daniel was written "history as it happened" in the 2nd century BC. It has also been suggested that there are many powers that can be made to fit the powers mentioned in Daniel. Therefore it has been suggested that it can not be proven that Daniel is a book of prophecy, written before the events prophesied.

And so far all we have seen from you is conjecture and assertion.

gramster wrote:

For these reasons we will evaluate the book of Daniel in the light of the two viewpoints put forward to see if the above is true.

Great. Are you planning a concise presentation or a haphazard scattered approach?

gramster wrote:

Henry Cowles supports what he calls the "Grecian Theory", and rebuts what he calls the "Roman Theory".

Yes he does but like you he sees Daniel as prophecy and unlike you he had no idea of the details in regard to the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians and the Persians as most of the clay tablets had not been either found or deciphered when he wrote. One wonders what conclusions he may have made with further knowledge now available. Perhaps he may have become a non-believer.

gramster wrote:

We will evaluate the texts comparing these two alternatives.

HC, like many of higher education unfortunately tends to use 50 pages to say what could be clearly be said in four. I will try not to make that mistake.

Sometimes one needs to lay it out in detail to show the path one took to arrive at the conclusion presented. I grant you this can be monotonous to read and sometimes exasperating like, can you get to the point already but generally is the way of theologians such as Cowles. 

____________________________________________________________
"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:Daniel

gramster wrote:

Daniel Chapter 2.

We will not waste time discussing the first three beasts since we have already beaten them into the ground. We will instead focus on the main points of Daniel 2 that there remains questions about.

1. What is meant by the latter days, and if they end in the time of Christ, or extend down further in time.

2. The fourth beast whether it be Rome, or the Seleucid kings.

3. The meaning of "The Kingdom of God".

4. Who the book was written to and why.

First I will give answer to the question that gives perspective to the whole book of Daniel. Who was the book written to and why? Was it written to and for the Jews only? or is there any evidence that it was also written to and for non Jews at a later time in history?

HC takes the first view, and I the second. I would like to consider the passage in Daniel 12:9+10 to begin with. "Go your way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end". What is meant by "closed up", "sealed", and "time of the end"? The answer to these questions bear greatly on correctly interpreting the passages in Daniel.

How does one "close up" or "seal up" a book until a later time in history? I suppose today one could simply lock it up in a time vault of some kind, but they did not have those in BC times. So how does one do that?

Closed up - sealed according to Cowles it means sealed until the prophecies were relevant which meant to him at the time of Antiochus. See pp 447-458.

Closed up and sealed to me simply means it is a completed work.

gramster wrote:

The answer is quite simple. Write the book enshrouded in symbolism and in such a manner that is would only be properly understood at the time, and by the readers that were meant to understand it. I know of no other explanation for this passage.

Cowles gave you another explanation which encompassed his entire dicussion on Daniel and is summarized in his chapter 12 pp446-458.

I also gave you my view that it was written during the time the events occured and is substaniated by 1 & 2 Mac and others non canon books that these events were occuring during the time of Antiochus and this is adequately shown. 

You OTOH have yet to provide anything to substaniate your interpretation of Daniel which can be measured. Now is your chance to detail your proof and bring it out to be examined.

gramster wrote:

I therefore suggest that the book of Daniel was prophecy written well in advance of events in symbolic terms to be passed down to future readers. This we will examine further as we go forward.

I await your proof and examination with bated breath.

 

Cowles asks a question at the bottom of page 455 which is appropriate to you. "How can I afford to give up my long cherished views of these prophecies?" And he goes on to explain on pages 456-458 why. Suffice it to say you are so enamoured with your intepretation that it is beyond you to consider any other possibility even one such as Cowles whereupon the Jesus beliefs aren't altered just your perception of the papal dictators as anti-christs. The papal dictators are evil corrupt monsters I will grant you but no more so than the like of evangelical fanatics of all other Christian dogmas that force upon the masses their visions of the god myths as proper and true. 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:Next I would

gramster wrote:

Next I would like to address just who this book was written for, as this also has considerable bearing on interpreting the passages.

HC contends that this book was written exclusively for Jews up until the time of Christ, and has no bearing for non Jews later in earth's history, and in other parts of the world. I believe the prophecies in Daniel continue down in time to the coming of the Lord at the end of the world, and therefore are relevant to all.

Cowles in very great detail explained his view and you discredit it with a single sentence. Try and show why you think this don't just assert it.

gramster wrote:

HC bases his view on two main factors. First on the statement "your people...in the later days", and Secondly on the idea that the Kingdom of God referred to in Daniel is not the 2nd coming at the end of the world, but Christ's 1st coming in the days of ancient Rome.

In response to the first I make the following points:

1. From a Christian view point, it is not those who are physical ancestors of Abraham that are Jews, but all those who believe in Jesus. Therefore this passage can be inclusive of Christians down to the end of the ages. This is information that was not necessary for Daniel to know, so God did not need to put forth the effort as this time to explain.

So you are a Jew now? Good one. I have never heard a Christian make such a claim that Jesus believers are Jews due to their belief in Jesus. You will clearly have to show proof for this assertion.

And I so like your dodge and reading between the lines why the writer of Daniel was left clueless in this regard. Because he didn't need to know is also because the future choices and events hadn't gone down a path of expected results thereby creating a scenario that was not in the original writing or even meant to be considered as it was far outside the scope of a 2nd century writer addressing the persecution by Antiochus against the Jewish people.

gramster wrote:

2. The latter days can also refer to the times we now live in.

In response to the second we will have to look at the evidence as we move along.

Your misunderstanding of "the time of the end" results in your dreamworld fantasy enabling your unwarranted use of Daniel as anything beyond the period of persecution under Antiochus which even your fellow Christian Cowles recognized. You cling very hard to your enamored misconstrued interpretations that are so precious to your basis in your beliefs.

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

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just getting started

I have been aware of this alternative interpretation of Daniel for quite some time. It is not new. I have not previously studied the works of Cowles.

At this point we are just getting started. My conjecture and assertions are merely defining of the issues. As we come to places where the text conflicts with stated views those issues will be examined more closely.

As for holding on to my cherished beliefs, and not considering other possibilities, considering other possibilities is just what I am doing here. Putting other interpretations side by side with  mine for careful examination. You need not accuse me of blinding myself prematurely.

I agree with you about dictators who try to force their views on the masses. They all become monsters. That's why I believe so strongly in the separation of church and state. Freedom of thought is the most precious of all.

I have not yet tried to discredit Cowles views on Daniel relating only to the Jews. I have only put forward an alternative for us to consider going forward.

There are points of conflict in Daniel 2 that I will be addressing very soon. We will see where the "chips fall".

 


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

gramster wrote:

Next I would like to address just who this book was written for, as this also has considerable bearing on interpreting the passages.

HC contends that this book was written exclusively for Jews up until the time of Christ, and has no bearing for non Jews later in earth's history, and in other parts of the world. I believe the prophecies in Daniel continue down in time to the coming of the Lord at the end of the world, and therefore are relevant to all.

HC bases his view on two main factors. First on the statement "your people...in the later days", and Secondly on the idea that the Kingdom of God referred to in Daniel is not the 2nd coming at the end of the world, but Christ's 1st coming in the days of ancient Rome.

In response to the first I make the following points:

1. From a Christian view point, it is not those who are physical ancestors of Abraham that are Jews, but all those who believe in Jesus. Therefore this passage can be inclusive of Christians down to the end of the ages. This is information that was not necessary for Daniel to know, so God did not need to put forth the effort as this time to explain.

2. The latter days can also refer to the times we now live in.

In response to the second we will have to look at the evidence as we move along.

In other words, you leave it open-ended until chance brings you something you can interpret as fitting Daniel's "prophecy"?

How many times has this prophecy been reinterpreted? How many more do you think you'll need?

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


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

gramster wrote:

I have been aware of this alternative interpretation of Daniel for quite some time. It is not new. I have not previously studied the works of Cowles.

At this point we are just getting started. My conjecture and assertions are merely defining of the issues. As we come to places where the text conflicts with stated views those issues will be examined more closely.

As for holding on to my cherished beliefs, and not considering other possibilities, considering other possibilities is just what I am doing here. Putting other interpretations side by side with  mine for careful examination. You need not accuse me of blinding myself prematurely.

I agree with you about dictators who try to force their views on the masses. They all become monsters. That's why I believe so strongly in the separation of church and state. Freedom of thought is the most precious of all.

I have not yet tried to discredit Cowles views on Daniel relating only to the Jews. I have only put forward an alternative for us to consider going forward.

There are points of conflict in Daniel 2 that I will be addressing very soon. We will see where the "chips fall".

 

OK, I'll wait and see where you go with your opening statements on the issues to see if you support these assertions and what so far is but conjecture. 

Long ago I went through this comparison between the 3 possibilities you are now studying and concluded the most likely was it was "history written as it happened". As I mentioned I studied Cowles viewpoints in grad school.

 

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

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Ch 2 -

 

One more issue I would like to take a brief look at before going in to the evaluation of Daniel 7. That is the meaning of the kingdom that God will set up in the "days of these kings".

H. Cowles contends that it is referring to the spiritual kingdom talked about by Jesus and His disciples. Throughout the book of Daniel he builds on this as foundational to his interpretation.

I believe that this kingdom is none other than the eternal kingdom that God will establish at the second coming.

That gives us four important differences in interpretation to look at as we evaluate the text in Daniel 2. Next we will examine the text to see what makes sense, and whether either interpretation falls short of fitting in to the prophecies.

Thus far. I have not been attempting to give evidence to support my views, or discredit H. Cowles views. I have only been defining some important differences.

To recap.

1. What is meant by the "latter days"? Does this refer to the 2nd century B.C. down to the time of Christ, or does it refer to the end of the world and the 2nd coming?

2. What power does the 4th beast represent? Rome, or the Seleucid kings?

3. Who was the book written for? The Jews only up to Christ, or for Christians also to the end of the world?

4. What is is the meaning of the kingdom that God will set up?

These we will keep in mind while examining the text as well as the third option, that Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 2 4th kingdom

Since the 4th kingdom is the one of primary interest I will start there.

Daniel 2:40. "And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron beaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these".

41. "And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay"

42. "And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle".

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

44. "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people.

Let's take a look at the identifying features of this 4th kingdom.

1. It is as strong as iron, it breaks and shatters everything in it's path.

2. The feet and toes of iron and clay represent a divided kingdom that is partly weak and partly strong.

3. There would be attempts to unite the kingdom through marriage, but those attempts would fail to unite the kingdom.

4. In the days of "those kings" God will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.

The first point could arguably be referring to either the "kingdom (s)" of Egypt and Syria, or the the Mighty Roman Empire. Evan though I believe the Roman Empire to better fit this description, there is nothing definite here to prove either right or wrong. It could also fit into the concept of being "recorded as it happened". So we will have to wait for more information on this in latter chapters.

The second point brings out a question. Is this kingdom strong as iron crushing all others as portrayed in verse 40, or is it partially weak and partially strong as indicated in the later verses? I take the following view for the following reasons.

The power spoken of here in it's earlier stages was strong as iron, crushing and destroying anything in it's path. The later end of the kingdom was to be divided, partly strong, and partly weak.

The reasons this makes sense to me is first due to the order of the events in the text. First described as strong, than as divided.

Secondly because of a word found stuck into the original text in verse 42. Qethath, meaning end or later. It's positioning in the original text is suggestive that the feet and toes are referring to the latter period of that power.

Finally, this to me seems to fit best in reference to the rest of parallel prophecies in Daniel which we will take a closer look as we come to them.

At this early stage the second point can also be referring to the "Grecian Theory" and the "Recorded as it happened Theory" as well. Later chapters will help to further define this.

The third point, intermarriage in attempts to unite the kingdom as this point can be interpreted to fit all three of the theories in discussion. So I won't waste time in arguing this point at this time.

The fourth point also brings out a question. Just how does "in the days of those kings" fit into the 3 theories.

Cowles has suggested that is fits the Grecian theory because those kings or that kingdom was taken out of the way to make way for the kingdom of God, or the messiah. I have a problem with that proposition. The text does not leave room for that. It states that "in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom", not following their removal. He suggests that he has solved the problem, but I fail to see how.

I believe the Grecian Theory falls far short of fitting this one. The "Recorded as it Happened" theory can still be made to fit since a 2nd century BC might have thought things would play out this way.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Since the 4th

gramster wrote:

Since the 4th kingdom is the one of primary interest I will start there.

Daniel 2:40. "And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron beaks to pieces and shatters all things; and like iron which crushes, it shall break and crush all these".

41. "And as you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the miry clay"

42. "And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle".

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

44. "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people.

Let's take a look at the identifying features of this 4th kingdom.

1. It is as strong as iron, it breaks and shatters everything in it's path.

2. The feet and toes of iron and clay represent a divided kingdom that is partly weak and partly strong.

3. There would be attempts to unite the kingdom through marriage, but those attempts would fail to unite the kingdom.

4. In the days of "those kings" God will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.

The first point could arguably be referring to either the "kingdom (s)" of Egypt and Syria, or the the Mighty Roman Empire. Evan though I believe the Roman Empire to better fit this description, there is nothing definite here to prove either right or wrong. It could also fit into the concept of being "recorded as it happened". So we will have to wait for more information on this in latter chapters.

The second point brings out a question. Is this kingdom strong as iron crushing all others as portrayed in verse 40, or is it partially weak and partially strong as indicated in the later verses? I take the following view for the following reasons.

The power spoken of here in it's earlier stages was strong as iron, crushing and destroying anything in it's path. The later end of the kingdom was to be divided, partly strong, and partly weak.

The reasons this makes sense to me is first due to the order of the events in the text. First described as strong, than as divided.

Secondly because of a word found stuck into the original text in verse 42. Qethath, meaning end or later. It's positioning in the original text is suggestive that the feet and toes are referring to the latter period of that power.

Finally, this to me seems to fit best in reference to the rest of parallel prophecies in Daniel which we will take a closer look as we come to them.

At this early stage the second point can also be referring to the "Grecian Theory" and the "Recorded as it happened Theory" as well. Later chapters will help to further define this.

The third point, intermarriage in attempts to unite the kingdom as this point can be interpreted to fit all three of the theories in discussion. So I won't waste time in arguing this point at this time.

The fourth point also brings out a question. Just how does "in the days of those kings" fit into the 3 theories.

Cowles has suggested that is fits the Grecian theory because those kings or that kingdom was taken out of the way to make way for the kingdom of God, or the messiah. I have a problem with that proposition. The text does not leave room for that. It states that "in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom", not following their removal. He suggests that he has solved the problem, but I fail to see how.

I believe the Grecian Theory falls far short of fitting this one. The "Recorded as it Happened" theory can still be made to fit since a 2nd century BC might have thought things would play out this way.

 

Cowles details his views on this subject specifically on pp 306-309 and if you buy into the Jesus as the messiah bringing about the kingdom of god one can hammer it into the puzzle as did the Rev Cowles.

As so far you agree the "history as it happened" approach has as much plausibility as your theory I personally have no argument to make at this point.

____________________________________________________________
"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.