People will do many stupid things and use any means to justify their actions no matter how "left fielded" their claims might be.  There is nothing in scripture to support such actions and in fact there is a lot in scripture that condemns such actions.  Can't blame the faith for people's extreme  behavior despite how they try to justify it. 

gramster wrote:

 

l. On pg 359 Cowles tries to make the case that the 10 horns must necessarily be kings and not kingdoms. However as he pointed out on pg 351, the terms are used interchangeably. He also pointed out that a kingdom is often embodied or represented by it's king. I do not find that any solid case has been made precluding these 10 horns from being kingdoms.

Cowles than spends several pages trying to make these prophecies fit AE IV. He does a pretty good job of making most of the points fit for now so we will not dispute this until further chapters shine further light on to this.

Than starting on pg 368 Cowles gives a summary of reasons he rejects the Roman Theory. We will look at any points here we may have missed.

Cowles claims Pagan Rome is out of analogy because it is not a proper successor kingdom.

If Rome did not succeed the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms, than who did? History makes it clear that both these sections of Alexanders kingdom fell into Roman hands.

Yes, Rome consisted of more than just this, and parts of Alexanders kingdom did not fall into Roman hands. But the areas that most affected the Jews did. And more importantly it was under Roman dominion that Christ was crucified.

more later.

On l) - As kings, these horns perfectly fit the kings in the succession of the Seleucid Kingdom without resorting to any guess work. Cowles comments on page 351 explained why they were used interchangeably and that "the more full and precise statements must prevail over the one that is brief and general..." and "the king finds his type in the horn, for the horn is the executive power of the beast, but has no power apart from the beast. And so of the king." Cowles is very clear why this analogy supports kings not kingdoms, that you wish to see it otherwise is obviously to support your Roman theory.

Cowles does a great job of showing how Daniel 7 fits Antiochus 4 which when you get to your theory we can do a side by side comparison.

Cowles opens his argument on p 368 why Roman theory does not fit, and its based on primarily it does not fit the analogy because Pagan Rome would have involved a huge chasm of 400 years and over 600 years for Papal Rome. In addition he claims that they  are  not standing in the same political relationship to the Jews. With Rome, it disregards the relationship of the visions to the Jews "and his special circumstances as patron, protector and father." It disregards that the war with the saints of the most high is between the little horn and the Jews. Cowles has much more, but so far you haven't presented your side so until you do, it's not clear exactly which position you are taking with what you consider to fit with your Roman view. More comments on this once I see what you are going to actually present.

You are missing the entire points Cowles made in regard to what was a "proper successor kingdom." If the Syrian kingdom was the 4th beast it does not matter if the Ming dynasty came next as the prophecy was already completed with the Seleucids and Antiochus 4 as the little horn. Since you saw things differently and are not seeing the 4th beast as the Syrian kingdom, you can't get there from where you are as you have taken a different road.

Since you previously gave a general idea of your views and interpretations I do know where you are going, but I'll hold comments until I see you construct it with supporting arguments.

 

That brings us to the "huge chasm".

m. Cowles infers that there is a huge chasm of 400 years to Pagan Rome, and 600 years for Papal Rome, and that this somehow poses a problem.

First, I do not see a chasm of 400 years between the "Grecian" empire, or 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom, and the beginnings of Pagan Rome. When I read the history, Rome is arising right on time as the previous kingdoms are going into decline and falling into Roman hands. There may be 400 years from the death of Alexander, but the 4 headed beast more aptly symbolizes the 4 divisions of his empire as well.

The 600 year chasm for Papal Rome is likewise faulty. There may have been 600 years from the death of Alexander, but not from the breakup of Pagan Rome. Once again "Papal Rome" was arising on the scene just on time, as Pagan Rome was in decline and being broken up.

You are right that a 2nd century, or 6th century BC writer would not know the details of Jesus, the coming messiah. The messianic prophecies were not properly understood at that time. God, as a writer, however would know this. That being said, there would hardly have been any point at this portion of the text for God to have started trying to explain all this to Daniel. References to Jesus' first coming was saved for later.

So I agree with you that it references God, not necessarily as "doing all this", but certainly as being there as I previously pointed out. I hardly ignored the fact that there is no reference here to a resurrection. If you read my post, I also pointed out that the focus of this chapter, and the book as a whole is the fate of nations, not individuals. It would hardly make sense for God to have changed focus, and start talking about the fate of individuals here.

Those who administer to God would naturally be His agents or angels. I have no problem with this. I have answered all of Cowles points on why he believes this couldn't be the final judgment, and not one has held up. His view is left on shaky ground, and mine is far from being debunked.

I also agree that the term "son of man" in this passage is not proof, in and of itself, that Jesus is being referenced. It is interesting to note however that "a" son of man is coming to the father "with the clouds of heaven" to be presented before the "Ancient of Days", and receive an everlasting kingdom. This is an interesting passage for a 2nd century BC author.

So those "straight pride" t-shirts with Leviticus on the back : Not the right kind of "faith" ?

Okay, I won't blame "the faith", whatever that may be (and I have a feeling that, conveniently, no-one will be able to agree on that).

So can you blame their faith ?

The Bible talks about what's in the heart counts.  it's my understanding that their intention of "straight pride" is to "put down" gays... or give them a negative connotation.

Doctrine doesn't always agree with the truth.

gramster wrote:

 

 As for i, it looks like I need to elaborate more on this one.

In Daniel 7:17, the 4 beasts are first referred to as kings. In vs 23 and 24 they are referred to as kingdoms. This reference to them as kingdoms does make these powers more than kings. That is clear. What it does not do is define the 10 horns as kings only, and not kingdoms. These also could be kingdoms represented by their first kings.

I understand, if you can't have them be kingdoms then you can't make your Roman theory work as it's essential to it isn't it?

But none of the kingdoms you mentioned earlier in this thread have anything at all to do with the Jews, so you are treading upstream here.

gramster wrote:

 

Cowles uses as part of his argument to support this, the "fact" that each of the 4 kingdoms were mainly embodied in one king. This is true of Nebuchadnezzar, and mostly true of Alexander the Great. This can be said of Cyrus in the early stages of the "Medo-Persian" kingdom. When it comes to the 4th kingdom we are back to the reasoning that this one is embodied by AE IV because he was such a nasty little bugger to the Jews.

This is pretty "choppy" reasoning. He also makes the statement that a horn has no power apart from the beast. This is said to help support that the horns "must" be kings only, and not kingdoms.

Without Alexander there would never have been a Greek/Macedonian empire so the kingdom in his case was intertwined with him and very embodied in him. The same is true with Cyrus, as many nations just capitulated to him with little or no bloodshed. His empire was embodied in him as well. It is unlikely in both cases that any empire would have occured at all without them.

As to the Seleucid kingdom, it was embodied in the kings as well beginning with Seleucus Nicator and ending with the "nasty bugger" Antiochus IV. 

gramster wrote:

In Daniel 8:22, the 4 kingdoms are represented by horns, not beasts. This seems to conflict with Cowles reasoning above. My point is that horns are not necessarily only kings. Cowles than puts forth an argument based upon very speculative reasoning that seems reasonable enough, but does not go as far as to "prove" his point.

What Cowles says about chapter 8 is well thought out on pp 384-387 showing why this is the case and there is no conflict as you claim. 

gramster wrote:

It is a good point, pretty well reasoned out, and noted as such, but it is not the only valid position that can be taken on this. Cowles has far from proving his point, and definitely not made a strong enough argument to rule out the 10 horns from being or becoming 10 kingdoms.

Cowles position is well thought out and is very likely to be what the writer of Daniel intended with his analogies.

As of yet I have seen nothing of your well thought out arguments, only nit-picking against Cowles. I expect you to at least argue with something more than discrediting his view without substance by showing in detail as he did your theory with as much discussion and support. All you are doing is chopping at the points that will prevent your Roman theory and so far doing so by opinionated statements without an argument showing your justification. 

gramster wrote:

Looking at the symbolism logically, 10 kingdoms that arise out of a previous kingdom could hardly be represented as 10 beasts sprouting from the previous beasts head. Beasts don't grow beasts out of their head. They grow horns. I suppose the 4th beast could have given birth to 10 "little beasties". But it would be more natural for them to be horns, representing a power growing up out of the realm of the previous power.

I have no idea where you came up with this argument. Cowles never went this direction at all, he explained his logic and understanding with great detail and somehow you come up with beasts coming out of beasts. Exactly where and how in Cowles argument does it ever allow this to occur? This is a direct cause of your attempt to take another road and your blinding yourself to Cowles points.

gramster wrote:

We can not make a solid conclusion based on this kind of reasoning. Therefore I can not agree with Cowles that this is proof "beyond all question".

 

You mean you can't make a solid conclusion, I'm good with Cowles views in regard to all but his Jesus as the messiah claims that really have no bearing on his arguments at all.

gramster wrote:

n. Cowles makes the point that Pagan Rome was "not standing in the same political relationship with the Jews".

First, during the reign of the Roman Empire, the Jews were definitely under Roman control.

As I clearly pointed out in my last response the Romans were actually supporting the Jews against Antiochus, more than once. 

gramster wrote:

Secondly, the Jewish messiah came on to the scene during this time, and was crucified by Rome.

I beg to differ here, Jesus was the Christian Pauline messiah, you have not shown at all he was the Jewish messiah. And if you want to try we can go over in detail how Jesus does not fit the expectations of the Jews and their prophecies which you misconstrue to slide in Jesus as the mashiach, which he fits like a square peg in a round hole. This is better suited for another discussion unless you need it now to prove your Roman theory. It will result in an extended side discussion lasting many days or even weeks and posts. And by the time you get back to Daniel you may lose track of your points. I can easily take on the Jewish interpretation showing you how you error in use of their scriptures to create a messiah that is not at all predicted according to Jewish views from the beginning. It bears on the start from Genesis where you as a Christian see man as having original sin and Jews see man as born with a pure soul that can be returned to the god in the same state it was received.

gramster wrote:

It would be absurd to try to make the argument that The Roman Empire was not relevant to the Jews.

The Romans are relevant to the Jews, they destroy the Temple, they kill millions of them in several wars, but not in the 2nd century BCE, here they are on the side of the Jews.

gramster wrote:

One would hardly think that a prophecy given to the Jews about what would happen in the "latter days" would not mention the very power that would crucify the messiah.

As the mashiach is not to be executed it shows you have no understanding of Jewish interpretation. The mashiach is not to be a sacrificial lamb to forgive their sins as you see as a Christian. Rather he would bring about the KOG and lead them under the god's direct rule of the KOG on earth. Jesus did not do this, but was executed and sacrificed to himself so to speak.

As the latter days discussed in Daniel as Cowles even shows had to do with the end of the Jews persecution by the Seleucids and Antiochus it has not a thing to do with the misconstrued Christian messiah that is not at all what a Jew was expecting.

gramster wrote:

o. Cowles also makes the point that the "Roman Theory" has nothing to do with Daniel as father and protector of the Jews, or with the Jews themselves.

We need only to look back over the text itself to see that there is no mention of either Daniel, or the Jewish people in this chapter. This chapter focuses mainly on the actions of the "little horn", and the "saints of the most high". These as of this time have not been adequately defined.

Since you don't see the "saints of the most high" as the Jews of course you don't see Jewish people in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

p. Cowles alleges that the war between the little horn and the saints was a war between this horn and the Jews.

This is still an issue in dispute. We will get into this deeper as we move along.

 

Fairly obvious is the Jews and Antiochus are in such a war.

I also agree that it is pertinent to keep in mind the relevance to "Gods People" and the other kingdoms.

Alexanders kingdom called "Greece" in Daniel 8 included Alexander the 1st king, and the four divisions that followed it. The Syrian and Egyptian divisions including the Seleucid kings were of relevance to the Jews. These kingdoms clearly so far as it affected the Jews fell into Roman hands. Pagan Rome was clearly the next successive kingdom to follow "Greece" from a "relevance to the Jews" perspective.

Out of the break up of Pagan Rome, Papal Rome emerged. That is clear from history. The dating is a bit more difficult to determine. That will have to be examined in detail when we get there. I don't think your date is too far off.

If these prophecies extend down to our time and beyond, and are relevant to "Gods people" in the last days, than the papacy which had a significant hand in persecuting "Gods people" would clearly be relevant.

If you believe the writer to simply be a 2nd century Jew, "making all this up". The papacy would have no relevance at all.

Likewise, if you believe these prophecies ended no later than the time of Christ, the papacy would not be relevant.

It's not the "straight pride" bit. It's the combination of that and "they shall surely be put to death", which was on the t-shirts as well. I'm not sure if "putting down" is the expression you're looking for.

caposkia wrote:

Doctrine doesn't always agree with the truth.

Put that on a t-shirt. I'll buy one. I'll put it on and walk around St Pete's square for a while. Should be fun.

gramster wrote:

You are right that a 2nd century, or 6th century BC writer would not know the details of Jesus, the coming messiah. The messianic prophecies were not properly understood at that time. God, as a writer, however would know this. That being said, there would hardly have been any point at this portion of the text for God to have started trying to explain all this to Daniel. References to Jesus' first coming was saved for later.

Since what I said was "A 2nd century BCE writer would have no idea a guy named Jesus was going to claim to be the judge nor would a prophetic writer in the 6th century BCE, thus "ancient of days" alludes to the god doing it in these verses."

gramster wrote:

Actually the text does not specify who is "doing it". It only portrays "The Ancient of Days" (God) as being seated in a position to observe what's going on. It is easy to assume that it is God Doing it, but the text is not clear on this.

A claim, does not make one the messiah nor does it make Jesus fit Jewish prophecy of the mashiach as understood by the Jews for 100s of years and redirected in the 1st century primarily by Paul.

The god explained countless times to the Jews what the mashiach was to be and what conditions had to be met when he came. These conditions were not in place for Jesus.

[quote-gramster]

I won't get back in to the Paul thing right now, or the messiah thing either. I will leave these for another time as we both agreed best.

So I agree with you that it references God, not necessarily as "doing all this", but certainly as being there as I previously pointed out. I hardly ignored the fact that there is no reference here to a resurrection. If you read my post, I also pointed out that the focus of this chapter, and the book as a whole is the fate of nations, not individuals. It would hardly make sense for God to have changed focus, and start talking about the fate of individuals here.

The quote I am referring to is also at the end of the world. This is not a problem.

Those who administer to God would naturally be His agents or angels. I have no problem with this. I have answered all of Cowles points on why he believes this couldn't be the final judgment, and not one has held up. His view is left on shaky ground, and mine is far from being debunked.

I have not ignored any of Cowles points. I have acknowledged when his points are supported, pointed out when they are shaky or unsupported, and left some for later stating that was what I was doing.

Since the claim is that my views have already been discredited by Cowles, I am focusing on that first.

gramster wrote:

I also agree that the term "son of man" in this passage is not proof, in and of itself, that Jesus is being referenced. It is interesting to note however that "a" son of man is coming to the father "with the clouds of heaven" to be presented before the "Ancient of Days", and receive an everlasting kingdom. This is an interesting passage for a 2nd century BC author.

OK, but as Jews were called that throughout as I showed you it's not at all surprising.

caposkia wrote:

yea, i was trying to put it lightly.  there is absolutely no support for their approach.

 

I'm sure all the kids in "ex-gay" camp are thrilled to hear that.

caposkia wrote:

lol... I think you'd be surprised at how many Christians would wear that shirt as well.'

I'm told those aren't "real" christians.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Seleucus Nicator did conquer a lot of territory. Most of it had nothing to do with the Jews. Jerusalem and the "holy land", were at times part of the Ptolemic Empire, and at times under Seleucid control.

The portions of the Seleucid Empire that were of concern to the Jews did indeed end up in Roman hands. Really? What did the eastern portions of the Seleucid Empire have to do with the Jews?

True, Rome did not end up with all of the territories that were previously in Seleucid hands, but with empires that is seldom the case.

As a successor kingdom, so far as it affected the Jews, Rome did directly follow the "Grecian" empire of Alexander.

The Romans come after the Seleucids in their direct effect on the Jews no matter how hard you try to ignore it.

The Seleucids rule until the Jews gain their freedom which lasts until Pompey in 64 BCE. 

Written in the 2nd century prior to Roman takeover Rome would not be in the storyline as a nation that ruled the Jews. And when you examine the story using Cowles method or the Grecian theory, that's exactly what you see. 

As the Jews do rule themselves for almost 100 years how do you account for that in your Roman theory?

Doesn't it break the chain?

 

Yes, the Romans did come after the Seleucids (one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom). That is exactly what was prophesied. Rome followed "Greece" (Alexander and the 4 divisions of his kingdom).

Actually the Jews had "complete independence" for a little over 60 years, and that was marred by infighting and civil war, which ended in the annexation by Rome in 63 BC. 

This would hardly make this "the kingdom of God" referenced in the prophecies. It would hardly be the next successive kingdom following the Seleucid Empire either. It was just a brief period of independence. This hardly prevents Rome as being the next successive kingdom to follow "Greece" as stated in the prophecies.

The prophecies in Daniel 7 portray a 4th beast "great and terrible" following the 4 headed leopard (Alexander and the 4 divisions of his empire). The Roman Empire fits this description no matter how hard you try to ignore it.

A brief period of "independence" hardly changes this. The Jews simply broke loose from the oppression of one beast briefly before coming under the control of the next. 

 

yea, but it seems pjts has a good flow going with this guy and I don't like cutting it off with something completely unrelated.... which seems to be exactly what I did...

 

caposkia wrote:

 

yea, but it seems pjts has a good flow going with this guy and I don't like cutting it off with something completely unrelated.... which seems to be exactly what I did...

 

Cap, you are welcome to join in on the Daniel discussion if you'd like. Gramster is adamant for the Roman theory. My position is it has a 2nd century origin. I have even used the Rev Henry Cowles argument for the Grecian theory to show that Daniel is about the Macabean period not the end of the world. Cowles 1870 book is available online from several sources for free. Cowles position is Daniel prophesied about the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV. I agree with 99% or more of Cowles views, just not the Jesus as a messiah, though you knew that already. Though Cowles was a Christian he saw clearly that Daniel only fits the Jews in the 2nd century BCE and not anywahere else. Cowles maintains Daniel is unneeded to progress into Jesus as the messiah something Gramster doesn't quite get.

PJTS

I was just apologising again for the nitpicking, and inviting you bible people (you, JC, JPTS and Grampy) to continue your discussion without interference from me.

(I keep forgetting how bible talk is a serious hobby for some people. Not my thing, so I should butt out)

Anonymouse wrote:

I was just apologising again for the nitpicking, and inviting you bible people (you, JC, JPTS and Grampy) to continue your discussion without interference from me.

(I keep forgetting how bible talk is a serious hobby for some people. Not my thing, so I should butt out)

[satire on]

As all the believers have to show is writing from less than pristene verifiable sources no one should have to argue why it's as unrealistic as a flying unicorn (they did fly didn't they or am I thinking of Pegasus the flying horse?)

Since all it takes is written ancient writing we should all worship the almighty Enki, lord of the Earth as well as the creator gods Anu and blessed mother Ki for whom we all owe our existence.

[/satire off]

As with doing the dirty dishes, someone has to do it.

At the beginning there were a lot of countries and powers suggested that probably none of us really believe relate to these prophecies in 2, and 7.. This being China, the USA, and such. These were mentioned for reasons of perspective I suppose. I will not spend time on these at this point.

Than we have the suggestion that Media and Persia were meant to be two distinct successive powers. That I personally reject this mainly for four basic reasons.

1 Media was not a successive kingdom to Neb's Babylon.

2 Media is a poor fit for the symbolism of the beasts involved.

3 Media and Persia are seen as a unit in Daniel 8 by definition.

4 The uncanny likeness of the 4 headed leopard to the goat with 4 horns which seem to obviously be the same power (the goat being called "Greece" specifically in ch would have to be forced to be Persia instead.

More Later

4 The uncanny likeness of the 4 headed leopard to the goat with 4 horns which seem to obviously be the same power (the goat being called "Greece" specifically in ch would have to be forced to be Persia instead.

More Later

gramster wrote:

At the beginning there were a lot of countries and powers suggested that probably none of us really believe relate to these prophecies in 2, and 7.. This being China, the USA, and such. These were mentioned for reasons of perspective I suppose. I will not spend time on these at this point.

Than we have the suggestion that Media and Persia were meant to be two distinct successive powers. That I personally reject this mainly for four basic reasons.

1 Media was not a successive kingdom to Neb's Babylon.

2 Media is a poor fit for the symbolism of the beasts involved.

3 Media and Persia are seen as a unit in Daniel 8 by definition.

4 The uncanny likeness of the 4 headed leopard to the goat with 4 horns which seem to obviously be the same power (the goat being called "Greece" specifically in ch would have to be forced to be Persia instead.

More Later

1. I believe this is third time you've posted this summary and each of them are different.

2. I really wish you'd quit lying about what pjts said. he never posited that China or the USA fit the mold. He simply asked why your omniscient deity didn't know about these empires that existed prior to the writing of Daniel.

I think what we actually got to was.

1. Babylon

2. Media/Persia

3. Macedonia

4  the Seleucid empire

vs. your version (which if I recall was)

1. Babylon

2. Medo-Persia

3. Greece

4. Modern Europe (in a reformed Roman Empire)

Now you can go on if you'd like - I just wanted to clear up your lie.