Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Offline Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.
Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!
If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.
Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.
- Login to post comments
Now for the Leopard being Alexander's kingdom not posing a problem, as I have pointed out:
If the Leopard is Alexanders kingdom, the 4 heads would logically correspond with the 4 major divisions of that kingdom. Parallel to the Goat with 4 horns in chapter 8. That includes Egypt, Syria, and all of the Seleucid Kings.
Having the 4th beast Egypt, Syria, and the Seleucid Kings, would make that beast successive to itself. That does not make any sense. You are still grabbing at straws to keep from accepting the text as it was written.
Your problem is you seem to always add more to something then is there. Even if the Leopard is Alexander not the Persians, the 4th beast can still be the Seleucids without losing consistency and easily fit into with the other chapters describing the little horn.
Vs 18 and 19 Gabriel wakes Daniel and tell''s him he is going to make known to him "what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be."
The indignation here referring to the sanctuary and host being trampled under foot.
Vs 20 and 21 identifies the Median and Persian empire, and the Grecian Empire as well as Alexander the Great.
Vs 22 speaks of the 4 divisions of the Grecian empire that would arise out of that nation, and uses a word that can mean either king or kingdom to refer to them.
Vs 23 "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise, having fierce features, who understands sinister schemes.
Here the words used for king and kingdom can also mean kingdom and king. This makes it difficult to determine with certainty.
The word used for "understands" (umevin)is translated as "acted wisely, clever, with discernment, and prudent." Which is hardly a word that would be used to describe AE IV.
The word for "sinister schemes" (chidah) is translated difficult questions, intrique, and riddles, and can be made to mean a number of things.
Vs 24 "His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall destroy fearfully, and shall prosper and thrive; he shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.
It has been said that AE IV was "great" in the eyes of a 2nd century BC writer. This is questionable since they were able to overcome him, but I will not take issue of this at this time.
"but not with his power" hardly fits AE IV. It was absolutely with the power of his own forces that he acted.
He did destroy "mighty and holy people", but did not "prosper and thrive".
This really does not look like AE IV.
Vs 25 Through his cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper under his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of Princes; but he shall be broken without human hand.
The word for cunning is translated discretion, insight, intelligence, and wisdom. AE IV was more like a raging fool.
Again he did not prosper, he was running the kingdom into the ground. I am sure he magnified himself in his heart.
"shall even rise against the Prince of Princes", Cowles suggests this refers to AE IV arraying himself against Jehovah God. I do not see how Jehovah can be refered to as a "Prince" when He is always the king of kings. This would however, fit perfectly into a reference to the Messiah Jesus.
Vs 26 "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true;"(reinforcing the reliability of the vision)
"therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future." God indeed "sealed up" the vision by using symbolic language that would be understood only in later times (many days in the future).
Vs 27 And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king's business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it.
The word "sick" (chalah) is translated afflicted, caused to grieve, be sorry, wounded, devastated, and horrified.
Daniel was devastated by this vision, and did not understand it. If this vision were referring to a literal 2300 days of persecution of the Jews in the 2nd century BC, Daniel would have understood it, and been encouraged that the time would be relatively short until AE IV would meet his untimely demise.
This was not the case. This vision was about something entirely different. Something more mysterious and deeply disturbing.
It looks like you finished with your interpretation and comments. It will be a few days before I cam respond to all of your views as I'm in a period of a hectic work schedule. I have not forgotten about you.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
As promised I waited until you finished with your presentation on Daniel 8. As you posted it in pieces I had to go back and put them altogether, it would be better if you presented it all at once to speed this process up. Anyway what follows is my reconstruction of the pieces you recently posted on Daniel 8 in the last few hundred posts. You much earlier attempted it as well but I'm not going back into that mess from a few months ago as it is filled with too much conjecture and adversity on everyone's part.
Back in the 1980s a really fun adventure game on Commodores and PCs was a game called Zork. In some respects Daniel is like that game. I successfully interpreted all three games of Zork though it took me months. When you made errors in Zork you generally died. It was all a word relation adventure game where you were told of your surroundings and investigated by going in different directions and using the things you found along the way. It was never exactly clear when you found an item if it was useful now or in the future or if it was just a distraction. Daniel is much like Zork in that objects and information you find are not exactly clear when you find them. The information you find may or may not bear any relationship to understanding what the writer(s) of Daniel were trying to convey.
We are now entering the world of Daniel 8. It is a very strange environment in comparison to the world we are leaving.
OK, let's hope so.
We discussed this in many posts and have different conclusions.
1-The Ram is the kings of the Medes and Persia. The Medes are the smaller horn and the Persians are the larger. I think we both agree on this as the text so indicates later on in v20.
My view is one animal 2 kingdoms, which is what is said in the verses. Next you jump back to the bear in chapter 7 discussing it’s characteristics.
You immediately digress and begin to interpolate without finishing the analysis and attempt to relate it to chapter 7. Personally I think you should stay on topic before jumping around as it's very distracting and requires the reader to go back and find your posts and their comments on them. The least you could do is give the posts where this was originally discussed because this way takes far more time to respond. I'd rather see all of your comments on chapter 8 and after you finish with all of Daniel summarize you position giving references to your original posts.
Anyway, after going back I clearly responded to this earlier in regards to the Bear being the Medes not both the Persians and the Medes as you suggest. The wording in Daniel 7 is diverse not successive. most dictionaries define diverse as: widely varied, different form, character or kind. Successive is defined as: following in order or in uninterrupted sequence. I hardly see where this means the same. I do not see the word successive in the text, please point out where you found this in chapter and verse for Daniel 7. Since you are looking for successive your have taken a wrong turn, please explain your reasoning.
As to the Bear in Daniel 7, an argument we have already fought, with no consensus between us you are grasping once more for validation where there is none. The Bear represents the Medes not both Medes and Persians. Daniel 7 represented 4 kingdoms separately while 8 combined them. You choose to try to do so with both chapters such that you can insert Rome. There are different methods employed in 7 and 8 if you think they are the same, where is Babylon in chapter 8? The Bear in chapter 8 is said to raise itself up on one side, which Cowles indicates is one direction from the beast in v4 or north of it. In my view the Leopard is then the Persians with the 4 kings that the Jews recognize or mention in the Hebrew scriptures being the 4 heads and 4 wings, there were actually 9. The 4th beast in Daniel 7 is then the Seleucid Empire and its king.
Successive is not in the text.
Even if we use your view and the bear is both the Medes and the Persians, then the Leopard is Alexander, the 4th Beast is still the Seleucid Empire and doesn't jump forward 200 more years as you are trying and become Rome. You still don't get where you want.
Enough of Daniel 7, let's finish Daniel 8, OK?
You continue to go back and argue that which has been discussed in regard to chapter 7. See my comments earlier in this post, I'm done talking about the Leopard.
The goat is Alexander and the 4 way split of his conquests, something we both agree upon.
Did Neb burn Jews with any scrolls found in their possession?
Did Neb kill both mother and child if circumcised, hanging the dead infant around the dead mother's neck?
Antiochus was trying to eradicate all beliefs except the bullshit he was promoting. Nebuchadnezzar was forcing submission of a conquered nation. Exactly what quotes on what site do you refer to in this post?
You read into the text the little horn comes from the 4 winds of heaven, while it is obvious that it comes from one of the 4 kings. Your choice to take a wrong turn to justify Rome.
The host are the people of the god as this whole discussion was in regard to them, that being the Jews not non-existent Christians. The stars are also obviously the leaders of the rebellion against the cruelness and suppression by Antiochus, well shown in 1 & 2 Mac and Josephus.
You then assert James, probably a very devout Jew, Stephen, likely a fictional character, and Paul a likely heretic blasphemer radical promoter of a mystical religion have something to do with being prophesied in Daniel. You need far more than the word "stars" to do so. Please detail this assertion with proof not your opinion.
We have also already fought this argument earlier.
1-Antiochus did magnify himself as a god. He also stopped the sacrifice in the Temple.
2-Christ as you use it is an unproven legend from the 1st century. Whether he was real or not is unknown for sure and can't be shown either way. He could be a fictional character. In this assertion you must show he was real, you then must show he was something more than a desert prophet that is executed for inciting rebellion as well as the other criminal acts he did in the Temple when he caused disruptions. As to your RCC views, they don't hold any water without proof that the Jesus character was real and a part of a god. So far, he is a character in some stories that may be based on multiple persons, or be pure fiction, there are threads on this subject, argue it there.
The Temple is terminated permanently by the Romans in 70 CE while after Antiochus during the Maccabees rebellion it returns. Even the text of Daniel says it resumes, though we have the argument over days versus mornings and evenings. In your scenario it is TERMINATED. You then have to buy into Jesus as real and end up in a circular argument once more in order to justify your Roman approach.
See above, I pretty well made it clear what I think of your assertions.
You have no way of supporting any of the NT stories as reality based as secular accounts do not mention the character Jesus during the time period. See the thread mentioned to Caposkia written by Todangst called A Silence that screams as he presents a fairly comprehensive argument in regard to this issue.
We argued this whole thing earlier, when you count the morning and evening sacrifices it is very close to the number. Regardless with your Roman method the Temple is eradicated and the sacrifices are TERMINATED. In Daniel they are restored. The Jews understood sacrifices to be at the Temple, not as you are trying to interpolate. I realize you are trying to connect this to Rome and Christianity but you are on the wrong road and lost badly at this point.
Now you go back to your poor interpretation of the little horn coming from the 4 winds not from one of the 4 kings. We have argued this repeatedly. The text does not say what you want it to say.
As Daniel is about the Jews and written to the Jews why would it be about the non-existent Christians? 1 & 2 Mac discuss the leaders of the rebellion, the so called stars.
Where does any OT book discuss your claims in regards to the characters, James, Stephen or Paul?
Again, we have beat the sacrifice issue to death, see above.
V 13 describes a period of time you wrongly say is days, it was 2300 mornings and evenings in the text. It isn’t 2,300 years though, which would have been 1844 or so which a group of "end days" wackos in the 19th century thought as they gave away all and waited for the Jesus to return on a hill. If you have a date for the end can you leave all of your possessions to a good charity, such as the RRS, though its not tax deductible.
V14 says it would be sanctified in 2300 evenings and mornings, not days.
In V15 someone that looked like a man is seen by Daniel. He was referred to as Gabriel in V16 by someone out of sight. He was there to attempt to explain what these visions meant. So does this mean Gabriel was a Cylon, they looked like humans in BSG.
V17 says Daniel was terrified of the construct that looked like a man. He told Daniel that these visions refer to the time of the end and does not explain the end of what. Maybe it was one of Isaac Asimov's robots from his Foundation Series or the Movie version of I Robot.
1-A time period is given but is unclear and/or vague, 2300 mornings and nights or is it 1150 of each? This is not well expressed in the text, it could be either. Counting the total sacrifices that have not or will not occur or the number of days? In Zork things had to be done in a specific way, when do I ring the bell, light the candle and read from the book? Doing it wrong produced nothing while doing it right you made progress.
2-Daniel was considering the visions and trying to understand them does not specifically mean he didn’t get it at all as you suggest. The text only says while he was trying to understand the vision he heard talking and Gabriel being told to tell him the meaning of the vision.
3-The vision refers to the time of the end, the end of what is the question. Later on it describes what this means in other places in various chapters and it is describing the end of persecution of the Jews or the people of the god. You assert it has to do with the end of the world and the return of the Jesus in your overall arguments.
You are guessing that this means it is a history to the end of time whereas the end of persecution fits the entire situation. The point of the writing wasn’t for the 2nd century BCE writer to understand as he obviously did, he wrote it. No it was intended for the 2nd century BCE reader. You put too much into so little in regard to the understanding that which was discussed.
In v18 it is revealed the writer was sleeping with his face towards the ground. The construct (thing that looked like a man-dreams contain all sorts of weird things) touched him and stood him up. Not clear if the writer was still sleeping or if this was still a description of the fantasy dreamworld as he slept.
In v19, the writer was told the human like being told him he would make it clear to him what would occur in the LAST end of the indignation and at the APPOINTED time the end will be. There is more on this in other chapters where the end of the indignation refers to both the sacrifices and the persecution of the people of the god. I argued all this earlier with Freeminer.
In v20, the Ram is the representation of the Medes and Persians. One animal, 2 kingdoms.
In v21, the Goat is the Greek(really Macedonian) empire and Alexander is the great horn.
In v22, the 4 horns are 4 kingdoms that come from the breakup of Alexander's conquests.
In v23, in the later times of their kingdoms, a fierce king will arise, who most except extreme Bible believers recognize as Antiochus IV. Those that see this are the RCC, the Jews, Cowles and secular scholars. Those that don't are like you evangelistic doom sayers seeing Rome where it is not and the evil papal dictators as part of an Apocalyptic fortune teller's premonition or dream sent from a god. Further in NIV it says he will be a master of intrigue, something Antiochus most certainly was.
In v24, he will be a mighty power, but not by his own hand. He was in fact a usurper. Antiochus the Great previously had built a strong empire which still existed when he deceitfully became king. Antiochus IV did destroy the mighty, kings, princes, rich, other rulers, temples of other gods, Pharaohs, and the like. He also severely persecuted the people of the god, more than anyone had since the fable tales of Egypt.
In v25, Antiochus IV was deceitful, practiced intrigue and was pompous, self inflating, and destroyed many in many lands in pursuit of his vanity. He did stand up against the Jewish god in many ways including the ban of it's worship, the desecration of it's Temple, the alteration of said Temple to the worship of other gods and the like. And he is eventually broken in his attempt to impose his own views of gods on others. He did succeed in his prosperity for a time, though one can argue exactly how successful that may have been. Hitler did conquer Europe and Russia for a time as well and prospered, though in the end for both it fell apart.
In v26, the construct man told the writer that this is true and to shut it up because it will be many days or in the future. As it was highly dangerous to have Jewish scrolls during the persecution by Antiochus it was wise to keep this type of rebellious talk in symbolic language and to generally keep it hidden until the time that such persecution was nearing the end. As this book is well known soon after the events of the Maccabees war it would seem such was the case. Prior to these events, the book of Daniel is not mentioned by other supposed prophets nor is any of the content alluded to by any other OT writer. The mention only of Daniel and the fable tale of the Lions Den Myth being the sole exception. There are many myths of other cultures interspersed throughout the OT which don't make them based in reality either. You don't need to go off on a tangent here or we will go in a direction you don't anticipate. I'd so love to talk about other pagan gods such as Mot, Yamm, Litan, and the ever so present god Ba'al though that would take this way off your intended path. Anyway, the knowledge of the Book of Daniel soon after these wars adds more to the date of the origins though we have argued this to death as well previously.
In v27, the writer was horrified and devastated by the events that he described, which was surely the case for a writer in the 2nd century BCE living through the persecution by the maniac Antiochus IV.
After we finish our rebuttals on each other comments on this chapter we should proceed to the next chapters and hopefully we will finally see your entire scenario. I'm looking forward to how you end up with all the unrelated countries of Europe having a bearing on the Jews as well as how you see the final chapters of Daniel.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Greetings again,
In looking over your response, I have identified 5 main points of contention. I will address these one at a time so as not to leave any room for confusion.
I will start with the issue of kingdoms. You have repeatedly ignored the evidence I have so clearly presented. Now you are asking me to quote chapter and verse where the word "successive" is used in the text of Daniel 7. The actual word successive does not have to be employed for it to be clear that these powers are presented by the author as such.
In Daniel Chapter 2, I pointed out that the 2nd kingdom, the one following the head of gold (Babylon) was the kingdom of "Medo-Persia". That being the Persian empire with a strong Median element, as the author so obviously views this kingdom as such. This is clearly demonstrated in chapter 8 esp.
See also Daniel 5:38 "Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians". This is how the author viewed this power. As a combined unit, not as separate successive kingdoms.
Yet you insist that it is Media alone as you state in post #499.
I pointed out earlier in post #240 and later posts, as verified by history that Media did not follow Babylon as a successive power, but existed basically at the same time, and ended around the same time.
You ignored the evidence, and I quote; Daniel 2:39 "But after you shall arise another kingdom". What is it about the words AFTER YOU that is so hard to understand. This can not be the kingdom of Media. Media did not arise after king Nebuchadnezzar. Yet you still continue to ignore this because it does not work with your "puzzle fitting".
Than we go to chapter 7, which states regarding the 4 great beasts;
"The first was like a lion..." Vs 4
"And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear..." Vs 5
"After this I looked and there was another, like a leopard" Vs 6
"After this I saw...and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible..."
Certainly, the author did not use the word "successive". I am sure that this word was not even in his Hebrew vocabulary. But it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that he is talking about "successive powers" here.
I am sorry that this does not fit into your warped scenario.
Yet against all reason, in post #714, you are still insisting that Media alone is the 2nd beast in both chapters 2 and 7.
It does not appear that it is I who has taken a wrong turn. From the start, you have been traveling down the wrong road. Watch out! The cliff is just around the corner.
If one is to be intellectually honest, it is crystal clear that Media cannot be the second kingdom in either chapter 2 or 7.
But you cannot accept that because that makes "Rome" the 4th beast.
More later.
Without being able to hammer the square peg of Media alone into the first round hole, you get a much clearer view of just what powers Daniel was referring to. And the analogies fit much better all the way through.
Your view:
1. Head of Gold ch2, lion ch7, Babylon
2. Chest and arms ch2, bear ch7, Media
3. Belly and thighs ch 2, leopard ch 7, Persia
4. legs of Iron ch 2, terrible beast ch 7, Alexander's Kingdom
5. Feet of Iron and Clay ch 2, Seleucid Kings
Correct view that actually fits the historical record of the powers discussed.
1. Babylon
2. Persia with Median element
3. Alexander's kingdom
4. Rome
5. The divided Roman Empire.
The only thing this does not fit is the notion that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown writer.
Therefore one must try to make the case that this book is part fiction, and part history as it happened, and that somehow this was not being deceptive or dishonest.
Why would one would go so far out on a limb to try to make this book something other than prophecy as it claims? The answer is obvious. It is a desperate attempt to try to deny the existence of a deity that can foretell the future.
That takes us to the next issue where the evidence I provided was either ignored, or swept conveniently swept under the rug for the same reasons.
...and I still see no sources for any of this "evidence". I can't ignore what isn't there.
That means:
1. You are an expert in the field who is cited by others (but even they source).
2. You are pulling opinions from your hind parts and calling them evidence.
3. You are a plagiarist.
4. You are God Himself revealing divine knowledge
You can cancel my doubts easily. You refuse to do so.
Why are the religious afraid of scrutiny and accountability?
"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
It all makes sense now!
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Daniel_8
15 So ai, Daniel, wuz watchin teh vizun an wuz leik, "wtf?", der wuz a gui hoo lokked liek a hooman!
16 An ai hurd a hooman sez from teh waturz, "Yo sup, Gabriel! Liek, tell dis dood wat him vizun iz sed."
17 An den he caem neer an ai wuz liek, "OMG!" an wuz rilly skared an fell daown on mai faece. (Ow! Dat rilly hurt!) An den him sez, "Sun of hooman, u needz to undrstand dis vizun becuz itz abowt teh endz tiemz."
18 An liek, ai falled ahsleep wile him wuz talkingz to mi cuz i haz teh narkolepzy! (Liek, srry!) Den him wuz liek, "lol" an waked mi up. Him wuz rilly nice an standz mi to mai feetz.
What Would Jesus Drive? Well, God preferred an old Plymouth, "God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden in a Fury"; Moses was said to ride a motor bike, "the roar of Moses’ Triumph is heard in the hills", while the apostles would carpool in a Honda, "the apostles were in one Accord".
As to your interpreting successive out of the text, that is still your interpretation taking the text beyond what was presented.
The Medes were concurrent to Nebuchadnezzar and they were conquered by the Persians prior to Babylon falling to the Persians. We have the Google and the Wiki to tell us all of this. With such a short time span between the two empires, Medes and Persians it is not certain the writer always was accurate in his history. As attested to by the inacurate first part of Daniel where it is not accurate as in the lack of the real king of Babylon named Nabonidus being included and the crown prince being claimed as the sole ruler as well as poorly documented names in regard to the Persian king that conquered Babylon, suddenly you wish to claim indesputible history is in this very questionable text.
No way!
I have previously pointed out that even if you use the Medes and Persians together in Dan 7 it makes no differance to the 4th Beast which is essentially the Seleucid Empire anyway.
See Post 853 - where I wrote - Even if we use your view and the bear is both the Medes and the Persians, then the Leopard is Alexander, the 4th Beast is still the Seleucid Empire and doesn't jump forward 200 more years as you are trying and become Rome. You still don't get where you want.
What I see here is not concrete evidance but interpretation especially in your claims regarding sucessive and dismissal of other empires that may conflict with your desired outcome.
I was clear your god had blinders due to his ignorance of the rest of the world empires of the ancients. Your avoidance by claiming they had no relevance to the Jews also applies to your later BS in regards to Europe. But you change it up by dumping Jews for Christians as the people of the god to get your desired outcome.
All of this interpretation of course is just that, opinons, no more. I still don't see how this makes your god jump off the page of an ancient text and suddenly become any more reality based than any other man created god on any other ancient texts. You absolutely cannot prove the date of writing as we have at length already discussed. In fact evidence is against you as to the actual date, as mentioned in multiple posts being before the time of the Maccabees.
More later.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Successive, let's see now, "After you", "1st beast", "2nd beast" ... . I must be jumping to conclusions just to make my powers work. "After you", can in fact mean "concurrent" ??? Now that's good!
Inaccuracies?
Crown Prince "Belshazzar" named "sole" ruler?? Now who's inserting words into the text?
Belshazzar, who previously was used as evidence of historical inaccuracies due to the fact that historians didn't believe he even existed, was not referred to as the "sole" ruler of Babylon.
Belshazzar is referred to as "king" in Daniel. And this is not a historical blunder. He is considered to have been a "regent" or "co-regent" of Babylon since Nabonidus was in Tema, not Babylon. That gives him the right to the title of king. This is further backed up by Daniel being offered the position of 3rd highest in the kingdom, as Belshazzar was 2nd after Nabonidus. This has all been previously discussed, and backed up by historical documents but you still "cling" to this as it is all you have.
In regards to "poorly documented names in regards to the Persian king that conquered Babylon", this too is merely an unfounded assertion. Grasping at straws. This also was previously discussed.
It is typical for an atheist to go to the extremes trying to prove that there "may" be inaccuracies in the Bible. Especially in regards to prophecy. What is incredible is how amazingly accurate the Bible proves to be when further evidence is actually "dug up".
So based upon the above "there is a slight possibility" that the author may have been inaccurate in some detail of history, but not proven... , you try to make your case?
Now for the Leopard being Alexander's kingdom not posing a problem, as I have pointed out:
If the Leopard is Alexanders kingdom, the 4 heads would logically correspond with the 4 major divisions of that kingdom. Parallel to the Goat with 4 horns in chapter 8. That includes Egypt, Syria, and all of the Seleucid Kings.
Having the 4th beast Egypt, Syria, and the Seleucid Kings, would make that beast successive to itself. That does not make any sense. You are still grabbing at straws to keep from accepting the text as it was written.
so when you also claim the 4th beast to be both Rome and Alexander's empire simultaneously?
Beasts coming one after another somehow mean empires coming one after another? But wait, we must ignore major portions of the other world empires as they don't relate to the Jews. That makes senses as the god created by the Jews would only consider them as important. Why would the god that this culture created know anything of the rest of the world. And sure enough the made up god does not.
Yep.
Yep, that's the the story line in Daniel.
Number of times Nabonidus is mentioned in Daniel = 0
Number of times Nabonidus is mentioned in any OT book = 0
Number of times Daniel is mentioned in Babylonian records such as:
the Nabonidus Chronicles = 0
Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar = 0
Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur = 0
Verse Account of Nabonidus = 0
Date of discovery and translation of ancient Babylonian clay tablets = 19th century (1854 to 1880 approximate)
Time span of Christian distortion and promotion of BS in regard to Babylon and Daniel = 1800 years.
Belshazzar who is not related to Nebucahdnezzar is claimed in Daniel to be his son whereas the Nabonidus documents say he was his son.
Hmm!
Don't worry, you can still believe in Santa if you want.
My my, you still want to try to read that which is not there and change what is.
One would think that at the very least you would try to be the skeptic and freethinker you have claimed, but not so.
Yes we discussed all of this and you grasp at all you can without basis to validate your man created god.
It is typical for a hard core Bible believer to accept magic and Sci-Fi as real from ancient texts, but only from the ancient Bible texts that is, magic and Sci-Fi from other ancients are clearly myths and meaderings of the ancient ignorant, right?
Magic and Sci-Fi in Daniel such as :
a disembodied hand writing on a wall,
men tossed in furnace and not charred,
man tossed in a den of lions and survived,
telling and interpretating a dream of someone else.
These all must be real because these assertions show the power of the man created god of the Jews. Never mind that they are all fantasy based and fly in the face of reality.
You call this approach being a skeptic?
True unless not proved false when there are many issues and questions is certainly not a skeptical method Gramster. Minimally you could file the whole book under uncertainty but instead you promote it as all real. Sounds like a hard core Bible believer to me. Just admit this and drop your claim to being fair minded and using a skeptical approach. I'll respect you for your honesty, though I'll continue to disagree.
Your problem is you seem to always add more to something then is there. Even if the Leopard is Alexander not the Persians, the 4th beast can still be the Seleucids without losing consistency and easily fit into with the other chapters describing the little horn.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Okay, now I'm really lost. I thought Greece was the leopard?
Alexander's kingdom seems to have included what is now part of Greece:
Macedon did not equal Greece as we know it today. If you want to say Macedon is the leopard, fine, but then we have to go back and say it isn't Greece that is the leopard as referenced earlier.
I would be more inclined to say ancient Corinth is closer to our modern concept of "Greece".
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
My PM --
Oh, Grow up. I know I want to know if Atheists fear going to H-e-l-l and/or a "christless eternity" someday :~
Why dont you visit my thread and tell me about a disputed passage in the bible.
Thus far I have the worshipper of Baal being named among the giants of the faith. I could see this to be especially inappropriate to suggest a Baal-devotee, calling on baal (as Ugaritic Dnil did), was numbered among exemplary "righteous" men. You are very welcome there.
Alexander was a Macedonian king not Greek. Yes he conquered Greece. It matters little for this discussion if it is Greece or Macedonia we say Alexander is from but correctly he was a Macedonian.
The Leopard is considered by hard core Bible Believers to be Greece or Alexander due to the 4 wings they say represents his swift conquests as well as the 4 heads where they suggest it represents the 4 way spilt of the kingdom. They need to do this because they want the 4th beast in Daniel 7 to be Rome. However, it does not need to be as I pointed out repeatedly to Grampster. It can still be the Seleucid empire and still not be Rome.
On the other hand Leopards were a Persian symbol. The 4 heads represent the 4 kings mentioned in the OT, there were actually 9 but the Jews do not name more than 4.
Then in Dan 7 the beasts are :
1-Babylon
2-Medes
3-Persia
4-Greece or even the Seleucids.
Gramps and I disagree here because of his desire to insert Rome where it isn't. We have argued this countless times in this thread and will never agree. I gave him an out with an if then to show him it was not essential but he desires to cling to his interpretation to try to prove his man made god is real.
He still has the rest of Daniel to misconstue to prove his god made prophecies. He has a long way to go.
PJTS
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Maybe you remember when Greece was the goat.
I don't know why I am trying to follow this thread. It is twistier than the road up Mt. Lemmon outside of Tucson, than Lombard St. in San Francisco, .....
And I don't really care. As far as I can tell, Daniel means what you want it to mean - just like any other "prophecy".
Maybe the author was on drugs or had epileptic seizures or something.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hopefully if we ever get to the point where we can summarize this entire mess it will be obvious what the interpretations are from each of us.
Since I don't consider it to be prophecy but history written somewhat as it occured I agree with you that as prophecy it can be twisted into whatever.
I wouldn't count on that point ever being reached though, at least not in the near future at the rate we are making progress. We keep going back and forth over the same stuff, again and again.
The goat is from Daniel 8 where it is named as Greece in the text. Apparently the writer didn't differiate between Greeks and Macedonians.
The leopard and the other beasts are from Daniel 7.
I'm not sure what the writer(s) were on when they wrote this, better stuff than I have.
Perhaps there is a lost cypher that decodes it that rotted away in a cave.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
LOL! wow that's funny.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Yep.
Since Nabonidus was in Tema, not Babylon, he was hardly the focus of this book. I am sure there are many other notable figures in history also not mentioned in the bible.
No reason for Nabonidus to mention Daniel since he was not in Babylon, and had problems of his own to worry about.
Date of discovery and translation of ancient Babylonian clay tablets = 19th century (1854 to 1880 approximate)
Time span of Christian distortion and promotion of BS in regard to Babylon and Daniel = 1800 years.
As many have already pointed out, the term son can be used to mean "relative" or "successor". It is not unlikely that he was a relative, and certainly was a successor. No problems here. There are still no inaccuracies.
Don't worry, you can still believe in Santa if you want.
My my, you still want to try to read that which is not there and change what is.
One would think that at the very least you would try to be the skeptic and freethinker you have claimed, but not so.
Yes we discussed all of this and you grasp at all you can without basis to validate your man created god.
Yes, this is what this is really all about isn't it? You just can't accept the reality of a creator God no matter how much evidence, logic, and reason point directly at Him. You will call black white, and purple orange rather than accept the obvious. One day you will have your proof that you can not refute. Than it will be too late.
Since your definition of free thinker and skeptic seems to be one who turns a blind eye to obvious facts, and distorts evidence in order to enable ones self to continue to disbelieve, I will drop those labels. My definition is quite different. I am skeptical of that which flies in the face of evidence and logic, and free to think and believe according to that which makes sense to me. That so far points me to a creator God.