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.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
You have smashed the puzzle pieces beyond recognition

 

gramster wrote:

Error in link. Try this one. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Writings yes, My point is to demonstrate the chaistic structure of Daniel, especially chapter 9. Also this is my point with the websites. I do not necessarily agree with everything else on the sites.

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

gramster wrote:

You start with the "prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt" not with the "word or command to rebuild and restore". There is a lot of difference. Even the JPS translates this as "the word to" not "the prophecy that". It appears that even the Jews do not see this as referring to Jeremiah's prophecy.

After Cyrus conquered Babylon he commanded, that the inhabitants who had been displaced be allowed to return and  "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - from line 32 of the Cyrus Cylinder - see - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

And according to Josephus - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm in book XI Chapter 1 - "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."

According to Josephus this order was in the 1st year of Cyrus' reign after conquering Babylon.

In Isaiah, specifically 2nd Isaiah chapters 40 - 55, written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid."

gramster wrote:

I start my time clock with the only command or word to both "rebuild" (physically), and "restore" (politically). This seems to be the best fit.

So in essence you start your clock erroneously only such that you can fit Jesus into your interpreted idea by back tracking from when he supposedly was executed. Your problem however is both scripture and secular documents are against you here.

gramster wrote:

One does not have to try to jam the square peg of "prophecy that" into the round hole of "word to" for this one to fit.

You have used a sledge hammer and beat the piece in with such force it shattered before your eyes.

gramster wrote:

The only reason for one not to use the best fit for the text is in effort to puzzle fit AE IV into this. He is still over 100 years off.

 

You have no best fit here, you have damaged the pieces to the point they have become unrecognizable.

____________________________________________________________
"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
You have many problems

gramster wrote:

Cut off does not have to mean subtracted. It is simply that this time is "cut out" of the 2300 years for closer examination. That would not affect the time frame for the 2300 year prophecy. Seventy years are cut off, amputated, divided concerning your people. This time frame is being looked at in particular as pertaining to "Daniel's people" or the Jews. After this time period the rest of the 2300 years does not pertain to the Jews in particular.

What is relevant to Daniel has been explained. The Jews were given 490 years to get their act together. I will detail this when I finish my interpretation of Daniel 9.

You still haven't detailed what your plans are for the 2300 (years) days.

You have many other problems with what you have presented in regard to Daniel 9

1- There is more than 1 way that this prophecy can be fulfilled, therefore it fails the specific requirement of being a truly miraculous prophecy.

2- There was no decree given to Nehemiah. He had letters of safe passage, and authorization to cut wood for remodeling the Temple.

3 - The Temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before Nehemiah and he was only remodeling it.

See - Ezra 6:15 JPS - "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." - 516 to 520 BCE approx.

4 - Jews used a 365 day year though they used a lunar calendar month. They adjusted for this every few years by adding a month so that it came out to 365 day years.

5- The rest of the prophecies of Daniel were never fulfilled if this pertains to Jesus.

6 - You completely ignore the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks which result in 2 anointed ones.

7 - As I mentioned before, the text refers to A messiah, anointed one or moshiach not THE MESSIAH, as there is no definitive article before anointed one or messiah.

There are other problems I have mentioned along the way but you have made so many and they are scattered about it's not worth the time to go back and collect them all. I'll do that when you finally summarize chapter 9.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Gramster's Authorized

Gramster's Authorized Version of the Bible?


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster's Authorized Version of the Bible?

GAVB, perhaps.

As with other believers I understand his motivation to seek something concrete to substantiate his beliefs, but what he has with Daniel in general is mush, ancient mush, that is sketchy which also  needs a decoder and a cipher that is lost or murky through age.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


AtheistSam
atheist
AtheistSam's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2011-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Puzzle Fitting and Preference

This does not make sense to me - gramster you don't depend on "puzzle fitting" and yet you have a preference for your decrees? How does that work? I have taken the opportunity to highlight from your posts as a reference to my question.

gramster wrote:

Various translations of the Bible can include "puzzle fitting" for personal agendas. That's why I do not depend on any of them. 

gramster wrote:

 

The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself. Therefore I prefer the latter decree

<snip>

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self governance. That is why I prefer this one. 

 

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".


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Greetings Joker

Joker wrote:

Here is a fairly simple question, if there is a loving God, who provided his 'only begotten son' to give mankind salvation, why not do it when the missionaries could know of the other continents. Heck, why not have Jesus tell his followers about this, "Build a boat, here is what you will need and how much you will need to bring with..." and send some of them out? I mean later explorers would find that there were cultures that bowed to their god and in fact that this claimed child of God actually did know the location of places that no mortal mapmaker would have been aware of, maybe even providing advanced knowledge of boat building to them so that they could make it. The reason why this is even relevant is that all the people who would be born and die in these places, places that without literal divine intervention or at least obvious divine hand holding wouldn't hear this apparently essential information for generations. So they are doomed to suffer, now you might say that their sins are the source of their torment, fine, but if you apparently love the world so much that you send them a way out of that torment, why not make sure that everyone at least has a shot of hearing it? And keep in mind, this is an allegedly all powerful being we're dealing with here, it isn't like it's wholly dependent on mortal servants to do everything, or if it is, such a being is hardly omnipotent.t

Greetings Joker,

I apologize for the long delay in getting back to you.

In short, I do not believe that those who haven't had the opportunity to hear the gospel message about God and Salvation are going to "suffer" for that which they do not know. The bible in several places speaks of and hints about people being responsible for the light that they have. Some, will likely be judged based entirely upon basic laws of common decency. Others who have had greater opportunity will have a much higher standard of responsibility.

We who have been blessed with the knowledge of God, and have experienced His love and grace are expected to be a part of this "reaching out" and giving opportunity to others. That makes our responsibility greater.

If you have read my much earlier posts, you will find that I do not believe anyone (including Satan) will burn for ceaseless ages of eternity. That idea comes from paganism and a misunderstanding of the word meanings of the text. Especially the word "forever". I see God's biggest "challenge" in the issue of "fairness and justice". When all this mess is over, and it is time for punishment and rewards. God is responsible for "getting it right" for all of us. That is one responsibility I would not want to have. It will take divine power and intelligence to get that one right.

As for continual and direct "divine intervention", it seems as if man lost this direct access to God when he rebelled and chose to obey Satan. The "rules of engagement" in the battle between God and Satan, and the reasons why is another topic that is a bit more complicated. 

Thank you for your question. Maybe sometime after my current discussion on the book of Daniel I can go into this a bit deeper.

Gramps

 

      

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Games with Words

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.


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

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

And several failed prophets called for the end of the world in each of those years (probably based on those calculations in Daniel).

Since we're still here, where does that place the "prophecies" of Daniel again?

"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
Daniel predicts the murder of Joseph Smith

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

Now you got it.

1844 had many notable events but apparently the lynching of Joseph Smith must have been what he was trying to tell us.

Or the election of James Polk as US President.

Or Samuel Morse sending the 1st telegraph message.

Or Jesus came back and took one look around, saw Jews were still being persecuted figured they kill him again so he departed for one of the other habitable planets where Daddy was also playing with his toys.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Nice car

AtheistSam wrote:

This does not make sense to me - gramster you don't depend on "puzzle fitting" and yet you have a preference for your decrees? How does that work? I have taken the opportunity to highlight from your posts as a reference to my question.

gramster wrote:

Various translations of the Bible can include "puzzle fitting" for personal agendas. That's why I do not depend on any of them. 

gramster wrote:

 

The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself. Therefore I prefer the latter decree

<snip>

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self governance. That is why I prefer this one. 

 

Welcome AtheistSam.

I like your car.

Right now it does look like puzzle fitting. But I'm not finished yet. When all is said and done, it will be obvious to the intellectually honest that the pieces fit like hand and glove, and the other views don't cut the mustard. But like with the previous chapters, neon road signs will be ignored, and those who do not wish to believe in God will still be roaring down the wrong way on a one way road.

 

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

AtheistSam wrote:

This does not make sense to me - gramster you don't depend on "puzzle fitting" and yet you have a preference for your decrees? How does that work? I have taken the opportunity to highlight from your posts as a reference to my question.

gramster wrote:

Various translations of the Bible can include "puzzle fitting" for personal agendas. That's why I do not depend on any of them. 

gramster wrote:

 

The first decree listed above was made by Cyrus (538 or 537 BC) to be found in Ezra 1. "In the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia". This decree was for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and did not address specifically the city itself. Therefore I prefer the latter decree

<snip>

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self governance. That is why I prefer this one. 

 

Welcome AtheistSam.

I like your car.

Right now it does look like puzzle fitting. But I'm not finished yet. When all is said and done, it will be obvious to the intellectually honest that the pieces fit like hand and glove, and the other views don't cut the mustard. But like with the previous chapters, neon road signs will be ignored, and those who do not wish to believe in God will still be roaring down the wrong way on a one way road.

 

 

 

And you and God will happily watch us roast.

"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
Back to Business - Daniel 9:25-27

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the prince of peace that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The only ramifications that

The only ramifications that the use of a particular literary structure has is that reader would recognize that the author chose to use that particular literary structure. That's likely the only thing a Jewish reader would pull from it as well.

The ramifications that you've added come from your belief that it must be prophecy.

"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
2 Princes - Jerusalem - Time References

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed.

2 Princes - There are two very distinct princes being discussed here, a "good prince", and a "bad prince". It is important to know which one is being discussed.

C' 9:26b "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary...

B' 9:27a "And he shall make a covenant with many for one week: ...

Reading this from a "western readers" perspective, this looks like 9:27a is referring to the "bad prince" of 9:26b. But this is not the case. According to the chiasmatic structure, subject B' is related not to C', but to B. That means that 9:27a is referring to the "good prince" of 9:25b.

Putting subject B together with subject B' we get the following.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks.

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week..."

This does not refer to the "bad prince" Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. A 2nd century writer would not have written this like way if that were his intentions. Surely his intended audience would have been gravely confused.

This is referring the "good prince", and an anointed one.

Jerusalem Construction and Destruction - Another mistake that reading this text as a "westerner" can lead to, is the assumption that certain parts of this timetable is specifically referring to the construction or destruction of Jerusalem. 

Even thought the construction and destruction of Jerusalem is closely related to the rest of the text, no specific time passage addresses this directly. The events of the construction and destruction of Jerusalem are addressed here, and interrelated to the rest of the text, but no direct time tables are given to these events.

Time References - The time reference given here relates only to the "good prince" in these verses.

A. 9:25a - "... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" B. 9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

This gives us the time table for the arrival of an "anointed one". One may assume that this time table is broken up into specific and differing events. This is not necessarily so. One who is unfamiliar with the phrase "four score and seven years ago", may also assume that the "four score" refers to one event, while the "seven years" refers to another.

These are examples of "word plays". Various word plays were common in the Hebrew, and not uncommon in our language as well.

Since no specific event is tied in this literary structure to this time table except the arrival of an anointed one, it is evident that an anointed one would be expected to arrive after 69 weeks.

The next time reference given is in 9:26a. This is right in the middle of the chiasm, thus giving it special emphasis.

D. 9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing."

9:25a gives the time table for the "anointed one". 9:26 a gives us a very important event that follows closely.

The next reference to an "anointed one", and the one matching the one referenced in vs 9:25b, is in 9:27a.

"And he will make a covenant with many for one week: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Something will happen in the middle of the 70th week that will "do away" with the sacrificial system.

Now let's put the verses relating to the "anointed one" together and read it like a Jew of the time would understand it.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing."

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Now this makes perfect sense. The writer did not leave his audience guessing as to the meaning of this text. By using the common form of chiastic structure, the writer explicitly communicated to his readers just as he intended.

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Not sure where you get a

Not sure where you get a "good prince" and a "bad prince" equating to the "good prince" = "son of the living God".

It could still be two human princes. And again, you are putting meaning into the structure where there probably isn't any.

Boatload of assumptions on your part.

"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 knew you hammer those smashed pieces into the puzzle

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed.

2 Princes - There are two very distinct princes being discussed here, a "good prince", and a "bad prince". It is important to know which one is being discussed.

C' 9:26b "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary...

B' 9:27a "And he shall make a covenant with many for one week: ...

Reading this from a "western readers" perspective, this looks like 9:27a is referring to the "bad prince" of 9:26b. But this is not the case. According to the chiasmatic structure, subject B' is related not to C', but to B. That means that 9:27a is referring to the "good prince" of 9:25b.

Putting subject B together with subject B' we get the following.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks.

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week..."

This does not refer to the "bad prince" Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. A 2nd century writer would not have written this like way if that were his intentions. Surely his intended audience would have been gravely confused.

This is referring the "good prince", and an anointed one.

Jerusalem Construction and Destruction - Another mistake that reading this text as a "westerner" can lead to, is the assumption that certain parts of this timetable is specifically referring to the construction or destruction of Jerusalem. 

Even thought the construction and destruction of Jerusalem is closely related to the rest of the text, no specific time passage addresses this directly. The events of the construction and destruction of Jerusalem are addressed here, and interrelated to the rest of the text, but no direct time tables are given to these events.

Time References - The time reference given here relates only to the "good prince" in these verses.

A. 9:25a - "... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" B. 9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

This gives us the time table for the arrival of an "anointed one". One may assume that this time table is broken up into specific and differing events. This is not necessarily so. One who is unfamiliar with the phrase "four score and seven years ago", may also assume that the "four score" refers to one event, while the "seven years" refers to another.

These are examples of "word plays". Various word plays were common in the Hebrew, and not uncommon in our language as well.

Since no specific event is tied in this literary structure to this time table except the arrival of an anointed one, it is evident that an anointed one would be expected to arrive after 69 weeks.

The next time reference given is in 9:26a. This is right in the middle of the chiasm, thus giving it special emphasis.

D. 9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing."

9:25a gives the time table for the "anointed one". 9:26 a gives us a very important event that follows closely.

The next reference to an "anointed one", and the one matching the one referenced in vs 9:25b, is in 9:27a.

"And he will make a covenant with many for one week: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Something will happen in the middle of the 70th week that will "do away" with the sacrificial system.

Now let's put the verses relating to the "anointed one" together and read it like a Jew of the time would understand it.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing."

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Now this makes perfect sense. The writer did not leave his audience guessing as to the meaning of this text. By using the common form of chiastic structure, the writer explicitly communicated to his readers just as he intended.   

All the twisting of meaning and squiming you are doing to beat these pieces into the puzzle so Jesus can be the one is fun to watch.

You know what I think, see post #952 and #951 neither of which you answered.

Also see post #957 where you come up with 1844 CE. See my response in #959 where Joseph Smith is murdered or Polk is elected President.

See posts: #872, #895,  #903, #910, #913, #931, # 946 where I'm clear as to what I think.

2 Annointed ones, Cyrus and Onias.

Daniel 9:25 JPS Hebrew version cited in post #913 - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks;.."

You combine the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks in what you call Dan 9:25 b).

However JPS shows them as 2 different periods. going on as "and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

Then in v26 JPS - "And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more;" this is anointed one #2 - who is killed namely Onais.

and in the 2nd part - Antiochus shows up - "and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

And continues in v27 - "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment."

See my previous post where I went into detail.

I especially love how you bounce from translation to translation in order to get your mangled puzzle pieces to fit.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Time Lines

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Error in link. Try this one. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Writings yes, My point is to demonstrate the chaistic structure of Daniel, especially chapter 9. Also this is my point with the websites. I do not necessarily agree with everything else on the sites.

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

gramster wrote:

You start with the "prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt" not with the "word or command to rebuild and restore". There is a lot of difference. Even the JPS translates this as "the word to" not "the prophecy that". It appears that even the Jews do not see this as referring to Jeremiah's prophecy.

After Cyrus conquered Babylon he commanded, that the inhabitants who had been displaced be allowed to return and  "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - from line 32 of the Cyrus Cylinder - see - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

And according to Josephus - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm in book XI Chapter 1 - "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."

According to Josephus this order was in the 1st year of Cyrus' reign after conquering Babylon.

In Isaiah, specifically 2nd Isaiah chapters 40 - 55, written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid."

gramster wrote:

I start my time clock with the only command or word to both "rebuild" (physically), and "restore" (politically). This seems to be the best fit.

So in essence you start your clock erroneously only such that you can fit Jesus into your interpreted idea by back tracking from when he supposedly was executed. Your problem however is both scripture and secular documents are against you here.

gramster wrote:

One does not have to try to jam the square peg of "prophecy that" into the round hole of "word to" for this one to fit.

You have used a sledge hammer and beat the piece in with such force it shattered before your eyes.

gramster wrote:

The only reason for one not to use the best fit for the text is in effort to puzzle fit AE IV into this. He is still over 100 years off.

 

You have no best fit here, you have damaged the pieces to the point they have become unrecognizable.

Two sites that I listed from wikipedia do illustrate the "poetic" structure of Daniel. The other site gives a brief discussion regarding the use of this literary style in Hebrew literature. The main point of these websites is to familiarize the reader with this very common literary style, and give illustrations of this from a source other than just "Gramps".

It is like introducing someone to western poetry that has never been exposed to it. Once they understand how it works, they can appreciate the works of Whitman, Poe, Auden, and the others. When happening upon a poem they would recognize and appreciate it as such.

In Hebrew literature "poetry" was more than just rhyme or rhythm. Poetry was used to emphasize a point, and can be utilized to help clarify a passage, as in Daniel. It is quite simple really.

In regards to decrees to build and restore Jerusalem, are you now saying that this is referring to Cyrus, instead of Jeremiah's "prophecy"?

As to the decree or word that I have suggested, it is the only one that "restores" the city to it's original standing, allowing a political structure of self government to be set up. Following that decree building of the wall commenced "but in troubled times", as prophesied. But it did not go well until Nehemiah came on to the scene.

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Error in link. Try this one. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Writings yes, My point is to demonstrate the chaistic structure of Daniel, especially chapter 9. Also this is my point with the websites. I do not necessarily agree with everything else on the sites.

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

gramster wrote:

You start with the "prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt" not with the "word or command to rebuild and restore". There is a lot of difference. Even the JPS translates this as "the word to" not "the prophecy that". It appears that even the Jews do not see this as referring to Jeremiah's prophecy.

After Cyrus conquered Babylon he commanded, that the inhabitants who had been displaced be allowed to return and  "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - from line 32 of the Cyrus Cylinder - see - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

And according to Josephus - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm in book XI Chapter 1 - "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."

According to Josephus this order was in the 1st year of Cyrus' reign after conquering Babylon.

In Isaiah, specifically 2nd Isaiah chapters 40 - 55, written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid."

gramster wrote:

I start my time clock with the only command or word to both "rebuild" (physically), and "restore" (politically). This seems to be the best fit.

So in essence you start your clock erroneously only such that you can fit Jesus into your interpreted idea by back tracking from when he supposedly was executed. Your problem however is both scripture and secular documents are against you here.

gramster wrote:

One does not have to try to jam the square peg of "prophecy that" into the round hole of "word to" for this one to fit.

You have used a sledge hammer and beat the piece in with such force it shattered before your eyes.

gramster wrote:

The only reason for one not to use the best fit for the text is in effort to puzzle fit AE IV into this. He is still over 100 years off.

 

You have no best fit here, you have damaged the pieces to the point they have become unrecognizable.

Two sites that I listed from wikipedia do illustrate the "poetic" structure of Daniel. The other site gives a brief discussion regarding the use of this literary style in Hebrew literature. The main point of these websites is to familiarize the reader with this very common literary style, and give illustrations of this from a source other than just "Gramps".

It is like introducing someone to western poetry that has never been exposed to it. Once they understand how it works, they can appreciate the works of Whitman, Poe, Auden, and the others. When happening upon a poem they would recognize and appreciate it as such.

In Hebrew literature "poetry" was more than just rhyme or rhythm. Poetry was used to emphasize a point, and can be utilized to help clarify a passage, as in Daniel. It is quite simple really.

In regards to decrees to build and restore Jerusalem, are you now saying that this is referring to Cyrus, instead of Jeremiah's "prophecy"?

As to the decree or word that I have suggested, it is the only one that "restores" the city to it's original standing, allowing a political structure of self government to be set up. Following that decree building of the wall commenced "but in troubled times", as prophesied. But it did not go well until Nehemiah came on to the scene.

 

 

Again, all the poetic structure means is that the writer used this particular poetic structure. Any special meaning ascribed to that structure is coming from you and not the text.

It's actually even simpler than you believe you're making it. And PJTS is not "just now saying it" about the decrees - he's been pretty consistent all the way through. Do you know which decree you're talking about or do you just rotate them in as needed?

"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
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Cut off does not have to mean subtracted. It is simply that this time is "cut out" of the 2300 years for closer examination. That would not affect the time frame for the 2300 year prophecy. Seventy years are cut off, amputated, divided concerning your people. This time frame is being looked at in particular as pertaining to "Daniel's people" or the Jews. After this time period the rest of the 2300 years does not pertain to the Jews in particular.

What is relevant to Daniel has been explained. The Jews were given 490 years to get their act together. I will detail this when I finish my interpretation of Daniel 9.

You still haven't detailed what your plans are for the 2300 (years) days.

You have many other problems with what you have presented in regard to Daniel 9

1- There is more than 1 way that this prophecy can be fulfilled, therefore it fails the specific requirement of being a truly miraculous prophecy.

2- There was no decree given to Nehemiah. He had letters of safe passage, and authorization to cut wood for remodeling the Temple.

3 - The Temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before Nehemiah and he was only remodeling it.

See - Ezra 6:15 JPS - "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." - 516 to 520 BCE approx.

4 - Jews used a 365 day year though they used a lunar calendar month. They adjusted for this every few years by adding a month so that it came out to 365 day years.

5- The rest of the prophecies of Daniel were never fulfilled if this pertains to Jesus.

6 - You completely ignore the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks which result in 2 anointed ones.

7 - As I mentioned before, the text refers to A messiah, anointed one or moshiach not THE MESSIAH, as there is no definitive article before anointed one or messiah.

There are other problems I have mentioned along the way but you have made so many and they are scattered about it's not worth the time to go back and collect them all. I'll do that when you finally summarize chapter 9.

 

1. The road signs are all there. I will lay them all out when I finish with the chapter.

2. As you mentioned, the passage in the JPS uses the term "word". Ataxeres gave permission to return, put the finishing touches on the temple, and restore civil government. He also provided ample resources to do this. It was that "word of act" that cleared the way for the proper restoration of the city of Jerusalem. Both physically and politically.

3. The temple structure was "finished" by 520 BC as you say, but apparently still needed more "finishing". In Ezra 6:14 he writes "And they builded it, and finished it, according to the commandment of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxeres king of Persia."

It seems as if there are three "commands or decrees" that Ezra acknowledges here. And the temple is not the only subject here. The proper restoration of the city is also mentioned. "Build and Restore", the building continued on the temple, and the building and proper restoration to it's original was finally able to start taking place.

There are therefore 3 "words or commands" that we can consider. One of them has to be the starting point. We look at the other clues to determine exactly where to start. We cannot start just anywhere.

4. Correct.

5. The rest of the prophecies?

6. Four score and seven years ago, a frog ate a mouse, and a dragon swallowed a camel. I guess the frog ate the mouse four score years ago, and the dragon ate the camel seven years ago?

To the Jews, seven was a very special number. A writer could hardly resist the opportunity to use "seven sevens" in a passage. "Seven sevens, and three score sevens, and two sevens". This is a very poetic way of saying 69 weeks, or 483 years. Nothing more. One cannot read ancient Hebrew like we do English.

7. As to the anointed being "The Messiah", or another "anointed", we will look at that closer soon.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Poetic Structure and Commands

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Error in link. Try this one. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Writings yes, My point is to demonstrate the chaistic structure of Daniel, especially chapter 9. Also this is my point with the websites. I do not necessarily agree with everything else on the sites.

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

gramster wrote:

You start with the "prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt" not with the "word or command to rebuild and restore". There is a lot of difference. Even the JPS translates this as "the word to" not "the prophecy that". It appears that even the Jews do not see this as referring to Jeremiah's prophecy.

After Cyrus conquered Babylon he commanded, that the inhabitants who had been displaced be allowed to return and  "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - from line 32 of the Cyrus Cylinder - see - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

And according to Josephus - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm in book XI Chapter 1 - "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."

According to Josephus this order was in the 1st year of Cyrus' reign after conquering Babylon.

In Isaiah, specifically 2nd Isaiah chapters 40 - 55, written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid."

gramster wrote:

I start my time clock with the only command or word to both "rebuild" (physically), and "restore" (politically). This seems to be the best fit.

So in essence you start your clock erroneously only such that you can fit Jesus into your interpreted idea by back tracking from when he supposedly was executed. Your problem however is both scripture and secular documents are against you here.

gramster wrote:

One does not have to try to jam the square peg of "prophecy that" into the round hole of "word to" for this one to fit.

You have used a sledge hammer and beat the piece in with such force it shattered before your eyes.

gramster wrote:

The only reason for one not to use the best fit for the text is in effort to puzzle fit AE IV into this. He is still over 100 years off.

 

You have no best fit here, you have damaged the pieces to the point they have become unrecognizable.

Two sites that I listed from wikipedia do illustrate the "poetic" structure of Daniel. The other site gives a brief discussion regarding the use of this literary style in Hebrew literature. The main point of these websites is to familiarize the reader with this very common literary style, and give illustrations of this from a source other than just "Gramps".

It is like introducing someone to western poetry that has never been exposed to it. Once they understand how it works, they can appreciate the works of Whitman, Poe, Auden, and the others. When happening upon a poem they would recognize and appreciate it as such.

In Hebrew literature "poetry" was more than just rhyme or rhythm. Poetry was used to emphasize a point, and can be utilized to help clarify a passage, as in Daniel. It is quite simple really.

In regards to decrees to build and restore Jerusalem, are you now saying that this is referring to Cyrus, instead of Jeremiah's "prophecy"?

As to the decree or word that I have suggested, it is the only one that "restores" the city to it's original standing, allowing a political structure of self government to be set up. Following that decree building of the wall commenced "but in troubled times", as prophesied. But it did not go well until Nehemiah came on to the scene.

 

 

Again, all the poetic structure means is that the writer used this particular poetic structure. Any special meaning ascribed to that structure is coming  from you and not the text.

It's actually even simpler than you believe you're making it. And PJTS is not "just now saying it" about the decrees - he's been pretty consistent all the way through. Do you know which decree you're talking about or do you just rotate them in as needed?

"Poetic Structure". Alternating parallels and chaisms. It's not complicated.

Psalms 37:3-5

A. Trust in the Lord and do good;

B. so you will dwell in the land, and enjoy security.

A'. Take delight in the Lord,

B'. and he will give you the desires of your heart.

A". Commit your way to the Lord; trust him,

B". and he will act.

These lines alternate between two main subjects. A, A', and A", all relate to advice about how we should act towards God. B, B', and B", all relate to how God will respond.

A Hebrew writer would not "throw in" another subject, or stick one in out of place. That is what people are doing when they try to make AE IV fit into the lines of Daniel 9:25-27.

Since this type of literary structure was very common in Hebrew writings, a Jewish reader would be thoroughly confused if the author had "broken" this poetic form right in the middle of it.

Not just Gramps. It is obvious as the color blue.

PJTS has been consistent in going back and forth between two "commands or words". He either tries to make the command or word "to" proceed, a prophecy "about" by Jeremiah in order to "pound" AE IV into the picture, or to insist that the incomplete "command or word" by Cyrus must be the one in order to try to discredit Jesus as the Messiah.

I have been consistent on just one "command or word". The one by Artaxeres in 457 BC that not only allows building to proceed, but also provides ample funding, and the restoration of civil self governance. Interestingly enough, there are two words in the prophecy "build and restore Jerusalem". This is the only command that allows for the restoration of Jerusalem to it's original position politically. All of the other commands address only the building activities.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
1844

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

Now you got it.

1844 had many notable events but apparently the lynching of Joseph Smith must have been what he was trying to tell us.

Or the election of James Polk as US President.

Or Samuel Morse sending the 1st telegraph message.

Or Jesus came back and took one look around, saw Jews were still being persecuted figured they kill him again so he departed for one of the other habitable planets where Daddy was also playing with his toys.

1844 puts us down in a time period referred to as the "latter days", or the "end times". This prophecy obviously did not refer to the "2nd coming", as the "Millerites" had wrongly predicted. The bible warns people against trying to put a date to the coming of the Lord.

Daniel had good reason to be confused and vexed about this prophecy from his perspective.

This date is about something else altogether. Something that the Hebrew's would have been very familiar with, but not so with us. I will give more on this later.

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

Now you got it.

1844 had many notable events but apparently the lynching of Joseph Smith must have been what he was trying to tell us.

Or the election of James Polk as US President.

Or Samuel Morse sending the 1st telegraph message.

Or Jesus came back and took one look around, saw Jews were still being persecuted figured they kill him again so he departed for one of the other habitable planets where Daddy was also playing with his toys.

1844 puts us down in a time period referred to as the "latter days", or the "end times". This prophecy obviously did not refer to the "2nd coming", as the "Millerites" had wrongly predicted. The bible warns people against trying to put a date to the coming of the Lord.

Daniel had good reason to be confused and vexed about this prophecy from his perspective.

This date is about something else altogether. Something that the Hebrew's would have been very familiar with, but not so with us. I will give more on this later.

 

So the "prophecy" only concerns the Hebrews back then and not us now? What happened to your "longer view"?

"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: Two sites

gramster wrote:

 

Two sites that I listed from wikipedia do illustrate the "poetic" structure of Daniel. The other site gives a brief discussion regarding the use of this literary style in Hebrew literature. The main point of these websites is to familiarize the reader with this very common literary style, and give illustrations of this from a source other than just "Gramps".

It is like introducing someone to western poetry that has never been exposed to it. Once they understand how it works, they can appreciate the works of Whitman, Poe, Auden, and the others. When happening upon a poem they would recognize and appreciate it as such.

In Hebrew literature "poetry" was more than just rhyme or rhythm. Poetry was used to emphasize a point, and can be utilized to help clarify a passage, as in Daniel. It is quite simple really.

In regards to decrees to build and restore Jerusalem, are you now saying that this is referring to Cyrus, instead of Jeremiah's "prophecy"?

As to the decree or word that I have suggested, it is the only one that "restores" the city to it's original standing, allowing a political structure of self government to be set up. Following that decree building of the wall commenced "but in troubled times", as prophesied. But it did not go well until Nehemiah came on to the scene.

  

The source you referenced did not specify that Daniel was also poetic, only that much of the OT was.

ancient-hebrew.org/2 wrote:

Approximately 75% of the Tenach (Old Testament) is poetry. All of Psalms and Proverbs are Hebrew poetry. Even the book of Genesis is full of Poetry.

and - Parallel poetry (as in Genesis 1 ....and - Psalms 119:105...... and - Proverbs 3:1..... and Psalm 15:1-3 . . .  and Isaiah 6:10 . . . and Proverbs 11:19-20.


Daniel is not specifically discussed here. Is it part of the 75%? Who can know what the author intended.

In the case of your Wiki quote:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel wrote:

Biblical authors, wishing to emphasize some point, often made use of a variety of Hebrew literary devices in the structure of their writings. Hebrew poetry consisted of juxapositions of related or contrasting ideas. A common structure was the chiasm. This has implications for the prophetic dreams and visions recorded in it. William H. Shea Ph.D. (Archeology)[1] has suggested that the book of Daniel could be viewed as a double chiasm (see enclosed figure). The proposed symmetry, however, is spoiled by the role given to 9:26.

Further, the Wiki article discusses Literary parallels.

In the wiki article on 70 weeks:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks wrote:

until the anointed king.

It is claimed by Jews for Judaism that it does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, it is to be rendered "a mashiach ["anointed one," "messiah"], a prince," and that the word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or a high priest.[5] The Judaica Press translation [2] translates it as "the anointed king." מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד "mashiyah-nagid" in Daniel 9:25 translates to "anointed prince" with no article (e.g. "the" messiah prince).

This is from the table in regard to Dan 9:25. The Jews see this one way and y'all see it another. Your goal is as always to have Jesus be "the one". This is from their religion and beliefs which was the unaltered original, yours is the morphing into a new belief.

Are you now trying to twist what I have said in regard to Jeremiah and Cyrus?

Jeremiah's "prophecy" was the Jews would be captive for 70 years, which is where Daniel got that, once again see - Jeremiah 25:11 - "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and a waste; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

Then in Jeremiah 31:37-39 he describes the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Note a timeframe is not given here -

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner. 38 And the measuring line shall yet go out straight forward unto the hill Gareb, and shall turn about unto Goah.39 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever."

The other references I gave you showed the Temple, the very most important thing in Jerusalem was rebuilt as indicated by Josephus and Ezra after Cyrus allowed the Jews and others to return to their homelands.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Cut off does not have to mean subtracted. It is simply that this time is "cut out" of the 2300 years for closer examination. That would not affect the time frame for the 2300 year prophecy. Seventy years are cut off, amputated, divided concerning your people. This time frame is being looked at in particular as pertaining to "Daniel's people" or the Jews. After this time period the rest of the 2300 years does not pertain to the Jews in particular.

What is relevant to Daniel has been explained. The Jews were given 490 years to get their act together. I will detail this when I finish my interpretation of Daniel 9.

You still haven't detailed what your plans are for the 2300 (years) days.

You have many other problems with what you have presented in regard to Daniel 9

1- There is more than 1 way that this prophecy can be fulfilled, therefore it fails the specific requirement of being a truly miraculous prophecy.

2- There was no decree given to Nehemiah. He had letters of safe passage, and authorization to cut wood for remodeling the Temple.

3 - The Temple had already been rebuilt 70 years before Nehemiah and he was only remodeling it.

See - Ezra 6:15 JPS - "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." - 516 to 520 BCE approx.

4 - Jews used a 365 day year though they used a lunar calendar month. They adjusted for this every few years by adding a month so that it came out to 365 day years.

5- The rest of the prophecies of Daniel were never fulfilled if this pertains to Jesus.

6 - You completely ignore the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks which result in 2 anointed ones.

7 - As I mentioned before, the text refers to A messiah, anointed one or moshiach not THE MESSIAH, as there is no definitive article before anointed one or messiah.

There are other problems I have mentioned along the way but you have made so many and they are scattered about it's not worth the time to go back and collect them all. I'll do that when you finally summarize chapter 9.

 

1. The road signs are all there. I will lay them all out when I finish with the chapter.

2. As you mentioned, the passage in the JPS uses the term "word". Ataxeres gave permission to return, put the finishing touches on the temple, and restore civil government. He also provided ample resources to do this. It was that "word of act" that cleared the way for the proper restoration of the city of Jerusalem. Both physically and politically.

3. The temple structure was "finished" by 520 BC as you say, but apparently still needed more "finishing". In Ezra 6:14 he writes "And they builded it, and finished it, according to the commandment of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxeres king of Persia."

It seems as if there are three "commands or decrees" that Ezra acknowledges here. And the temple is not the only subject here. The proper restoration of the city is also mentioned. "Build and Restore", the building continued on the temple, and the building and proper restoration to it's original was finally able to start taking place.

There are therefore 3 "words or commands" that we can consider. One of them has to be the starting point. We look at the other clues to determine exactly where to start. We cannot start just anywhere.

4. Correct.

5. The rest of the prophecies?

6. Four score and seven years ago, a frog ate a mouse, and a dragon swallowed a camel. I guess the frog ate the mouse four score years ago, and the dragon ate the camel seven years ago?

To the Jews, seven was a very special number. A writer could hardly resist the opportunity to use "seven sevens" in a passage. "Seven sevens, and three score sevens, and two sevens". This is a very poetic way of saying 69 weeks, or 483 years. Nothing more. One cannot read ancient Hebrew like we do English.

7. As to the anointed being "The Messiah", or another "anointed", we will look at that closer soon.

1- Your method of partial explanations and issue dodging is becoming apparent.

2-Cyrus did give the word, see Ezra and Josephus as well as the previously mentioned Cyrus cylinder.

3-Remodeling is not mentioned in Daniel. It was completed such that it could be used as intended in 520 BCE.

At issue for other people of the Persian empire was allowing the Jews to have walls around their city, fortifications etc. Their past indicated a rebellious people against those who were supposedly their rulers or to whom their kings had been vassals.

4-OK

5-You know, the entire rest of the Daniel "prophecies".

6- Once upon a time . . .

7- Once again you put off with an avoidance and/or a partial explanation.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:PJTS has been

gramster wrote:

PJTS has been consistent in going back and forth between two "commands or words". He either tries to make the command or word "to" proceed, a prophecy "about" by Jeremiah in order to "pound" AE IV into the picture, or to insist that the incomplete "command or word" by Cyrus must be the one in order to try to discredit Jesus as the Messiah.

I have been consistent on just one "command or word". The one by Artaxeres in 457 BC that not only allows building to proceed, but also provides ample funding, and the restoration of civil self governance. Interestingly enough, there are two words in the prophecy "build and restore Jerusalem". This is the only command that allows for the restoration of Jerusalem to it's original position politically. All of the other commands address only the building activities.

Actually gramster, I have been consistent, Jeremiah wrote the Jews would be captive 70 years. He also wrote Jeruslaem would be rebuilt. Cyrus in 2nd Isaiah is called an annointed one. Cyrus allows the captives of all lands to return to their homelands, see previous posts. The very important Temple was put back into service in 520 BCE.

No Jesus required.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
1844 CE or 163 BCE

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

Now you got it.

1844 had many notable events but apparently the lynching of Joseph Smith must have been what he was trying to tell us.

Or the election of James Polk as US President.

Or Samuel Morse sending the 1st telegraph message.

Or Jesus came back and took one look around, saw Jews were still being persecuted figured they kill him again so he departed for one of the other habitable planets where Daddy was also playing with his toys.

1844 puts us down in a time period referred to as the "latter days", or the "end times". This prophecy obviously did not refer to the "2nd coming", as the "Millerites" had wrongly predicted. The bible warns people against trying to put a date to the coming of the Lord.

Daniel had good reason to be confused and vexed about this prophecy from his perspective.

This date is about something else altogether. Something that the Hebrew's would have been very familiar with, but not so with us. I will give more on this later.

 

 

 

Since we seem to be here having a discussion perhaps your "end times" have been misunderstood by a few millennium. And as to what was meant by the " end of the war desolations are determined" in Dan 9:26 JPS and elsewhere.

____________________________________________________________
"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
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Error in link. Try this one. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Writings yes, My point is to demonstrate the chaistic structure of Daniel, especially chapter 9. Also this is my point with the websites. I do not necessarily agree with everything else on the sites.

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

gramster wrote:

You start with the "prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt" not with the "word or command to rebuild and restore". There is a lot of difference. Even the JPS translates this as "the word to" not "the prophecy that". It appears that even the Jews do not see this as referring to Jeremiah's prophecy.

After Cyrus conquered Babylon he commanded, that the inhabitants who had been displaced be allowed to return and  "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - from line 32 of the Cyrus Cylinder - see - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

And according to Josephus - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm in book XI Chapter 1 - "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea."

According to Josephus this order was in the 1st year of Cyrus' reign after conquering Babylon.

In Isaiah, specifically 2nd Isaiah chapters 40 - 55, written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid."

gramster wrote:

I start my time clock with the only command or word to both "rebuild" (physically), and "restore" (politically). This seems to be the best fit.

So in essence you start your clock erroneously only such that you can fit Jesus into your interpreted idea by back tracking from when he supposedly was executed. Your problem however is both scripture and secular documents are against you here.

gramster wrote:

One does not have to try to jam the square peg of "prophecy that" into the round hole of "word to" for this one to fit.

You have used a sledge hammer and beat the piece in with such force it shattered before your eyes.

gramster wrote:

The only reason for one not to use the best fit for the text is in effort to puzzle fit AE IV into this. He is still over 100 years off.

 

You have no best fit here, you have damaged the pieces to the point they have become unrecognizable.

Two sites that I listed from wikipedia do illustrate the "poetic" structure of Daniel. The other site gives a brief discussion regarding the use of this literary style in Hebrew literature. The main point of these websites is to familiarize the reader with this very common literary style, and give illustrations of this from a source other than just "Gramps".

It is like introducing someone to western poetry that has never been exposed to it. Once they understand how it works, they can appreciate the works of Whitman, Poe, Auden, and the others. When happening upon a poem they would recognize and appreciate it as such.

In Hebrew literature "poetry" was more than just rhyme or rhythm. Poetry was used to emphasize a point, and can be utilized to help clarify a passage, as in Daniel. It is quite simple really.

In regards to decrees to build and restore Jerusalem, are you now saying that this is referring to Cyrus, instead of Jeremiah's "prophecy"?

As to the decree or word that I have suggested, it is the only one that "restores" the city to it's original standing, allowing a political structure of self government to be set up. Following that decree building of the wall commenced "but in troubled times", as prophesied. But it did not go well until Nehemiah came on to the scene.

 

 

Again, all the poetic structure means is that the writer used this particular poetic structure. Any special meaning ascribed to that structure is coming  from you and not the text.

It's actually even simpler than you believe you're making it. And PJTS is not "just now saying it" about the decrees - he's been pretty consistent all the way through. Do you know which decree you're talking about or do you just rotate them in as needed?

"Poetic Structure". Alternating parallels and chaisms. It's not complicated.

Psalms 37:3-5

A. Trust in the Lord and do good;

B. so you will dwell in the land, and enjoy security.

A'. Take delight in the Lord,

B'. and he will give you the desires of your heart.

A". Commit your way to the Lord; trust him,

B". and he will act.

These lines alternate between two main subjects. A, A', and A", all relate to advice about how we should act towards God. B, B', and B", all relate to how God will respond.

A Hebrew writer would not "throw in" another subject, or stick one in out of place. That is what people are doing when they try to make AE IV fit into the lines of Daniel 9:25-27.

Since this type of literary structure was very common in Hebrew writings, a Jewish reader would be thoroughly confused if the author had "broken" this poetic form right in the middle of it.

Not just Gramps. It is obvious as the color blue.

PJTS has been consistent in going back and forth between two "commands or words". He either tries to make the command or word "to" proceed, a prophecy "about" by Jeremiah in order to "pound" AE IV into the picture, or to insist that the incomplete "command or word" by Cyrus must be the one in order to try to discredit Jesus as the Messiah.

I have been consistent on just one "command or word". The one by Artaxeres in 457 BC that not only allows building to proceed, but also provides ample funding, and the restoration of civil self governance. Interestingly enough, there are two words in the prophecy "build and restore Jerusalem". This is the only command that allows for the restoration of Jerusalem to it's original position politically. All of the other commands address only the building activities.

So now your saying that if the structure was broken a Jewish reader would somehow not know the meaning of the words that were written? At most, Gramster, a Jewish reader would notice the break in structure and question the skills of the writer rather than looking for "special" meanings to the words.

PJTS doesn't need to discredit Jesus as the Messiah - Jesus does a nice enough job of that on his own. http://jewishmessiah.netfirms.com/x22_is_jesus_messiah_examine_facts.htm

"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
Put a Date

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

Now you got it.

1844 had many notable events but apparently the lynching of Joseph Smith must have been what he was trying to tell us.

Or the election of James Polk as US President.

Or Samuel Morse sending the 1st telegraph message.

Or Jesus came back and took one look around, saw Jews were still being persecuted figured they kill him again so he departed for one of the other habitable planets where Daddy was also playing with his toys.

1844 puts us down in a time period referred to as the "latter days", or the "end times". This prophecy obviously did not refer to the "2nd coming", as the "Millerites" had wrongly predicted. The bible warns people against trying to put a date to the coming of the Lord.

Daniel had good reason to be confused and vexed about this prophecy from his perspective.

This date is about something else altogether. Something that the Hebrew's would have been very familiar with, but not so with us. I will give more on this later.

 

So the "prophecy" only concerns the Hebrews back then and not us now? What happened to your "longer view"?

"Put a date", not prophecy or discuss the event. I have never stated that the "prophecy" concerns only the Hebrew in BC times. No need to put words in my mouth.


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I see PJTS point.

We start with the word or command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

That makes the 490 years "cut off" from the front side of the 2300 years.

Subtracting 490 from 457 BC and compensating for not having a zero year (add one year), takes us to 34 AD.

2300 - 490 = 1810 AD.

When we come to 34 AD, what we have left is 1810 years.

1810 + 34 = 1844 AD.

Yes it is subtracted. Just a matter of perspective and semantics.

I stand corrected. I should have read his post more carefully.

Now you got it.

1844 had many notable events but apparently the lynching of Joseph Smith must have been what he was trying to tell us.

Or the election of James Polk as US President.

Or Samuel Morse sending the 1st telegraph message.

Or Jesus came back and took one look around, saw Jews were still being persecuted figured they kill him again so he departed for one of the other habitable planets where Daddy was also playing with his toys.

1844 puts us down in a time period referred to as the "latter days", or the "end times". This prophecy obviously did not refer to the "2nd coming", as the "Millerites" had wrongly predicted. The bible warns people against trying to put a date to the coming of the Lord.

Daniel had good reason to be confused and vexed about this prophecy from his perspective.

This date is about something else altogether. Something that the Hebrew's would have been very familiar with, but not so with us. I will give more on this later.

 

So the "prophecy" only concerns the Hebrews back then and not us now? What happened to your "longer view"?

"Put a date", not prophecy or discuss the event. I have never stated that the "prophecy" concerns only the Hebrew in BC times. No need to put words in my mouth.

Don't need to - you did.

"This date is about something else altogether. Something that the Hebrew's would have been very familiar with, but not so with us."

A critical element of a prophecy that you believe is long term was only for the Jews of that 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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Questions Answered

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed.

2 Princes - There are two very distinct princes being discussed here, a "good prince", and a "bad prince". It is important to know which one is being discussed.

C' 9:26b "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary...

B' 9:27a "And he shall make a covenant with many for one week: ...

Reading this from a "western readers" perspective, this looks like 9:27a is referring to the "bad prince" of 9:26b. But this is not the case. According to the chiasmatic structure, subject B' is related not to C', but to B. That means that 9:27a is referring to the "good prince" of 9:25b.

Putting subject B together with subject B' we get the following.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks.

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week..."

This does not refer to the "bad prince" Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. A 2nd century writer would not have written this like way if that were his intentions. Surely his intended audience would have been gravely confused.

This is referring the "good prince", and an anointed one.

Jerusalem Construction and Destruction - Another mistake that reading this text as a "westerner" can lead to, is the assumption that certain parts of this timetable is specifically referring to the construction or destruction of Jerusalem. 

Even thought the construction and destruction of Jerusalem is closely related to the rest of the text, no specific time passage addresses this directly. The events of the construction and destruction of Jerusalem are addressed here, and interrelated to the rest of the text, but no direct time tables are given to these events.

Time References - The time reference given here relates only to the "good prince" in these verses.

A. 9:25a - "... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" B. 9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

This gives us the time table for the arrival of an "anointed one". One may assume that this time table is broken up into specific and differing events. This is not necessarily so. One who is unfamiliar with the phrase "four score and seven years ago", may also assume that the "four score" refers to one event, while the "seven years" refers to another.

These are examples of "word plays". Various word plays were common in the Hebrew, and not uncommon in our language as well.

Since no specific event is tied in this literary structure to this time table except the arrival of an anointed one, it is evident that an anointed one would be expected to arrive after 69 weeks.

The next time reference given is in 9:26a. This is right in the middle of the chiasm, thus giving it special emphasis.

D. 9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing."

9:25a gives the time table for the "anointed one". 9:26 a gives us a very important event that follows closely.

The next reference to an "anointed one", and the one matching the one referenced in vs 9:25b, is in 9:27a.

"And he will make a covenant with many for one week: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Something will happen in the middle of the 70th week that will "do away" with the sacrificial system.

Now let's put the verses relating to the "anointed one" together and read it like a Jew of the time would understand it.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing."

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Now this makes perfect sense. The writer did not leave his audience guessing as to the meaning of this text. By using the common form of chiastic structure, the writer explicitly communicated to his readers just as he intended.   

All the twisting of meaning and squiming you are doing to beat these pieces into the puzzle so Jesus can be the one is fun to watch.

You know what I think, see post #952 and #951 neither of which you answered.

Also see post #957 where you come up with 1844 CE. See my response in #959 where Joseph Smith is murdered or Polk is elected President.

See posts: #872, #895,  #903, #910, #913, #931, # 946 where I'm clear as to what I think.

2 Annointed ones, Cyrus and Onias.

Daniel 9:25 JPS Hebrew version cited in post #913 - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks;.."

You combine the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks in what you call Dan 9:25 b).

However JPS shows them as 2 different periods. going on as "and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

Then in v26 JPS - "And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more;" this is anointed one #2 - who is killed namely Onais.

and in the 2nd part - Antiochus shows up - "and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

And continues in v27 - "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment."

See my previous post where I went into detail.

I especially love how you bounce from translation to translation in order to get your mangled puzzle pieces to fit.

 

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

Challenge the "specific requirements" of the prophecy. The prophecy is specific. Our understanding of the events in history and how they relate are in question. There are only maybe 3 or 4 dates that can possibly be considered. This is very limiting. One of these few dates has to match up to the fulfillment. One can not just "pick any date".

The rest of the prophecies in Daniel?? No specifics are given here.

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed.

2 Princes - There are two very distinct princes being discussed here, a "good prince", and a "bad prince". It is important to know which one is being discussed.

C' 9:26b "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary...

B' 9:27a "And he shall make a covenant with many for one week: ...

Reading this from a "western readers" perspective, this looks like 9:27a is referring to the "bad prince" of 9:26b. But this is not the case. According to the chiasmatic structure, subject B' is related not to C', but to B. That means that 9:27a is referring to the "good prince" of 9:25b.

Putting subject B together with subject B' we get the following.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks.

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week..."

This does not refer to the "bad prince" Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. A 2nd century writer would not have written this like way if that were his intentions. Surely his intended audience would have been gravely confused.

This is referring the "good prince", and an anointed one.

Jerusalem Construction and Destruction - Another mistake that reading this text as a "westerner" can lead to, is the assumption that certain parts of this timetable is specifically referring to the construction or destruction of Jerusalem. 

Even thought the construction and destruction of Jerusalem is closely related to the rest of the text, no specific time passage addresses this directly. The events of the construction and destruction of Jerusalem are addressed here, and interrelated to the rest of the text, but no direct time tables are given to these events.

Time References - The time reference given here relates only to the "good prince" in these verses.

A. 9:25a - "... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" B. 9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

This gives us the time table for the arrival of an "anointed one". One may assume that this time table is broken up into specific and differing events. This is not necessarily so. One who is unfamiliar with the phrase "four score and seven years ago", may also assume that the "four score" refers to one event, while the "seven years" refers to another.

These are examples of "word plays". Various word plays were common in the Hebrew, and not uncommon in our language as well.

Since no specific event is tied in this literary structure to this time table except the arrival of an anointed one, it is evident that an anointed one would be expected to arrive after 69 weeks.

The next time reference given is in 9:26a. This is right in the middle of the chiasm, thus giving it special emphasis.

D. 9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing."

9:25a gives the time table for the "anointed one". 9:26 a gives us a very important event that follows closely.

The next reference to an "anointed one", and the one matching the one referenced in vs 9:25b, is in 9:27a.

"And he will make a covenant with many for one week: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Something will happen in the middle of the 70th week that will "do away" with the sacrificial system.

Now let's put the verses relating to the "anointed one" together and read it like a Jew of the time would understand it.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing."

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Now this makes perfect sense. The writer did not leave his audience guessing as to the meaning of this text. By using the common form of chiastic structure, the writer explicitly communicated to his readers just as he intended.   

All the twisting of meaning and squiming you are doing to beat these pieces into the puzzle so Jesus can be the one is fun to watch.

You know what I think, see post #952 and #951 neither of which you answered.

Also see post #957 where you come up with 1844 CE. See my response in #959 where Joseph Smith is murdered or Polk is elected President.

See posts: #872, #895,  #903, #910, #913, #931, # 946 where I'm clear as to what I think.

2 Annointed ones, Cyrus and Onias.

Daniel 9:25 JPS Hebrew version cited in post #913 - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks;.."

You combine the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks in what you call Dan 9:25 b).

However JPS shows them as 2 different periods. going on as "and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

Then in v26 JPS - "And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more;" this is anointed one #2 - who is killed namely Onais.

and in the 2nd part - Antiochus shows up - "and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

And continues in v27 - "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment."

See my previous post where I went into detail.

I especially love how you bounce from translation to translation in order to get your mangled puzzle pieces to fit.

 

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

Challenge the "specific requirements" of the prophecy. The prophecy is specific. Our understanding of the events in history and how they relate are in question. There are only maybe 3 or 4 dates that can possibly be considered. This is very limiting. One of these few dates has to match up to the fulfillment. One can not just "pick any date".

The rest of the prophecies in Daniel?? No specifics are given here.

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 

Gramster, on what do you base your insistence that the literary form used in Daniel is more than just a literary form? You seem to be ascribing more meaning to the literary structure than the words in the text.

If there are 3-4 possible dates that can fit a prophecy, is it a prophecy or just a guess?

 

"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
PJTS View Recap

Here is my understanding of your take on Daniel 9:25-27.

1. The "start time" for this prophecy begins with Jeremiah's "prophecy about" the restoration of Jerusalem. This puts it at 586 BC.

2. The time periods are not a poetic way of saying a number, but broken down into separate events.

3. The first seven weeks or 49 years refer to Cyrus 537 BC.

4. The 62 weeks or 434 years which would take us to 152 BC, refers to Onais murder, or possibly Jannaeus'.

5. This also takes us to the covenant made by AE IV which was broken 3 1/2 years later.

6. You claim that the dates not matching is due to the obvious lack of historical knowledge of the 2nd century writer of the book of Daniel.

#1. Shaky at best, but we can let is slide for now.

#2. This is possible according to the text, but does not fit with the Hebrew literary style.

#3. This one fits pretty good.

#4. This one is way off. Onais was slain about 170 BC (18 years off). Jannaeus was slain in 103 BC (49 years off). 

#5. The "sacking of Jerusalem by AE IV happened on 167 BC. This is about 15 years off.

#6. There is Zero evidence of historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. There are a few unfounded allegations. There are however some pretty amazing bits of historical information a 2nd century BC writer would be very highly unlikely to know.

Belshazzar, being the 2nd ruler in the nation being one.

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

Not to mention the fact that most skeptics put the writing of the book of Daniel later than the death of Mattathias, who was quoted from his death bed, as speaking of Daniel as a real person. Interesting that Mattathias would have had the foresight to speak of a character that had not yet been invented?

This looks more like a constellation than a straight line. Most of your points are way off.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Hebrew literary structure - Decrees

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed.

2 Princes - There are two very distinct princes being discussed here, a "good prince", and a "bad prince". It is important to know which one is being discussed.

C' 9:26b "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary...

B' 9:27a "And he shall make a covenant with many for one week: ...

Reading this from a "western readers" perspective, this looks like 9:27a is referring to the "bad prince" of 9:26b. But this is not the case. According to the chiasmatic structure, subject B' is related not to C', but to B. That means that 9:27a is referring to the "good prince" of 9:25b.

Putting subject B together with subject B' we get the following.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks.

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week..."

This does not refer to the "bad prince" Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. A 2nd century writer would not have written this like way if that were his intentions. Surely his intended audience would have been gravely confused.

This is referring the "good prince", and an anointed one.

Jerusalem Construction and Destruction - Another mistake that reading this text as a "westerner" can lead to, is the assumption that certain parts of this timetable is specifically referring to the construction or destruction of Jerusalem. 

Even thought the construction and destruction of Jerusalem is closely related to the rest of the text, no specific time passage addresses this directly. The events of the construction and destruction of Jerusalem are addressed here, and interrelated to the rest of the text, but no direct time tables are given to these events.

Time References - The time reference given here relates only to the "good prince" in these verses.

A. 9:25a - "... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" B. 9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

This gives us the time table for the arrival of an "anointed one". One may assume that this time table is broken up into specific and differing events. This is not necessarily so. One who is unfamiliar with the phrase "four score and seven years ago", may also assume that the "four score" refers to one event, while the "seven years" refers to another.

These are examples of "word plays". Various word plays were common in the Hebrew, and not uncommon in our language as well.

Since no specific event is tied in this literary structure to this time table except the arrival of an anointed one, it is evident that an anointed one would be expected to arrive after 69 weeks.

The next time reference given is in 9:26a. This is right in the middle of the chiasm, thus giving it special emphasis.

D. 9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing."

9:25a gives the time table for the "anointed one". 9:26 a gives us a very important event that follows closely.

The next reference to an "anointed one", and the one matching the one referenced in vs 9:25b, is in 9:27a.

"And he will make a covenant with many for one week: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Something will happen in the middle of the 70th week that will "do away" with the sacrificial system.

Now let's put the verses relating to the "anointed one" together and read it like a Jew of the time would understand it.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing."

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Now this makes perfect sense. The writer did not leave his audience guessing as to the meaning of this text. By using the common form of chiastic structure, the writer explicitly communicated to his readers just as he intended.   

All the twisting of meaning and squiming you are doing to beat these pieces into the puzzle so Jesus can be the one is fun to watch.

You know what I think, see post #952 and #951 neither of which you answered.

Also see post #957 where you come up with 1844 CE. See my response in #959 where Joseph Smith is murdered or Polk is elected President.

See posts: #872, #895,  #903, #910, #913, #931, # 946 where I'm clear as to what I think.

2 Annointed ones, Cyrus and Onias.

Daniel 9:25 JPS Hebrew version cited in post #913 - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks;.."

You combine the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks in what you call Dan 9:25 b).

However JPS shows them as 2 different periods. going on as "and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

Then in v26 JPS - "And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more;" this is anointed one #2 - who is killed namely Onais.

and in the 2nd part - Antiochus shows up - "and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

And continues in v27 - "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment."

See my previous post where I went into detail.

I especially love how you bounce from translation to translation in order to get your mangled puzzle pieces to fit.

 

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

Challenge the "specific requirements" of the prophecy. The prophecy is specific. Our understanding of the events in history and how they relate are in question. There are only maybe 3 or 4 dates that can possibly be considered. This is very limiting. One of these few dates has to match up to the fulfillment. One can not just "pick any date".

The rest of the prophecies in Daniel?? No specifics are given here.

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 

Gramster, on what do you base your insistence that the literary form used in Daniel is more than just a literary form? You seem to be ascribing more meaning to the literary structure than the words in the text.

If there are 3-4 possible dates that can fit a prophecy, is it a prophecy or just a guess?

 

Greetings once again.

Here is a link to a website that is not Christian giving a bit more light on the relevance of Hebrew parallelism. Note at the end of the article "Exegetical Importance".

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letters=P&search=parallelism

This link is a long one. I will try it after I post to make sure it goes through.

Chaistic structure is determined by the text. If it follows the ABBA, OR ABCDCBA, OR ABBCBBA, etc, it is a chaism. Daniel 9:24-27 clearly follow that structure. That being ABCDCBA. The subjects being Jerusalem construction, and the anointed one. The exegetical relevance of this is that subject A matches subject A, B matches B, C matches C, etc. Since D is alternating in sync with B would match B as an alternating parallel.

This is not Gramps. Study the links. A Hebrew writer would never throw this out of balance. The intended reader would be quite confused.

As to the 3 or 4 dates. This can hardly be a guess. The odds of the fulfillment of this prophecy falling on one of even 20 specific dates are astronomical. When the fulfillment happens, and one goes back to confirm the prophecy odds are that there would be no event that would even come close to matching.

The prophecy is specific enough. From a word or command...to the coming of a messiah (anointed one) will be 69 weeks, or 483 years. From the only one that gives permission to properly restore Jerusalem to it's original standing politically in 457 BC, that brings us down to 27 AD. Exactly.

The odds of this "just landing" on this date by chance are astronomical.

The Hebrew literary structure fits perfectly, The time fits perfectly, there is no need to wiggle around and make excuses for dates not fitting. Just prophecy fulfilled. But you can't except that.

"There is no God, so it can't be prophecy". That is your philosophy, and only real argument. That is why Hebrew poetry and literary structure "must not have significance" to you.

 

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 gramster wrote:#951 and

 

gramster wrote:

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

Did I? What I challenged was your link which you claimed substantiated that Daniel was poetic form. It specifically does not mention Daniel.

See your link again - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

What I said:

PJTS #951 wrote:

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

So did I say Daniel was not poetry? No, I said your link does not say it is.

gramster wrote:

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

I gave you 3 different pieces of information that make the claim that Cyrus allowed the Jews to return as well as others that Babylon had displaced.

1- The Cyrus Cylinder - "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

What is it you think " I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings" means exactly?

Apparently Josephus thought it meant the Jews returned and rebuilt the Temple and returned to their city.

As -

2- "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea." - from - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm

Here we have Cyrus as the one foretold supposedly and the claim he ordered the Temple to be rebuilt.

Then we have:

3- "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid." - from 2nd Isaiah - written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 written circa time of Cyrus.

Here we have the claim he ordered Jerusalem to be built as well as the Temple.

gramster wrote:

Challenge the "specific requirements" of the prophecy. The prophecy is specific. Our understanding of the events in history and how they relate are in question. There are only maybe 3 or 4 dates that can possibly be considered. This is very limiting. One of these few dates has to match up to the fulfillment. One can not just "pick any date".

You have done exactly that in backtracking to fit Jesus in.

The evidence indicated:

Cyrus ordered the people of all nations relocated could return to their homes. It is claimed that he ordered the Temple to be rebuilt. Even Ezra indicated it was in Ezra 6:15. Do you think the people were living in tents outside the city or something? The Temple was put into operation, people were "returned to their dwellings" what more do you want?

gramster wrote:

 

The rest of the prophecies in Daniel?? No specifics are given here.

As you say, I will come back to this later and specify where your views fail after you finally put forth your entire scenario as to how Jesus is the one.

gramster wrote:

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 

You insist on ignoring that the originators of the God beliefs the Jews see 2 anointed ones and beat in your morphed beliefs derived from the original Yahweh believers to fit Jesus in as the only anointed one.

Are you saying that the originators the Jews read this from a western viewpoint? Even your links show they see 2 "anointed ones" not one.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Gramps recap of PJTS views analyzed

gramster wrote:

Here is my understanding of your take on Daniel 9:25-27.

1. The "start time" for this prophecy begins with Jeremiah's "prophecy about" the restoration of Jerusalem. This puts it at 586 BC.

The start time is the claim in Jeremiah, whether it was written before or after the time of Cyrus is not known. Supposedly the date is the beginning of the captivity in 586 BCE.

gramster wrote:

2. The time periods are not a poetic way of saying a number, but broken down into separate events.

Whether or not Daniel is poetry has nothing to do with whether or not there were 2 events. As mentioned repeatedly, the originators of Yahweh beliefs see 2 anointed ones, not one.

gramster wrote:

3. The first seven weeks or 49 years refer to Cyrus 537 BC.

Right

gramster wrote:

4. The 62 weeks or 434 years which would take us to 152 BC, refers to Onais murder, or possibly Jannaeus'.

Somewhere in that vicinity.

gramster wrote:

5. This also takes us to the covenant made by AE IV which was broken 3 1/2 years later.

Right

gramster wrote:

6. You claim that the dates not matching is due to the obvious lack of historical knowledge of the 2nd century writer of the book of Daniel.

Right, shown repeatedly by his lack of historical knowledge of Babylon, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc . . .

gramster wrote:

#1. Shaky at best, but we can let is slide for now.

Thanks for your gracious consideration.

gramster wrote:

#2. This is possible according to the text, but does not fit with the Hebrew literary style.

Since the Jews see this as 2 you should probably try to discredit all of their beliefs, oh wait you agree with some of them and pick and choose what to accept and what to reject don't you?

gramster wrote:

#3. This one fits pretty good.

Y'all think so?

gramster wrote:

#4. This one is way off. Onais was slain about 170 BC (18 years off). Jannaeus was slain in 103 BC (49 years off).

I'm not partial to either one being "dead nuts on", though I agree more with Onais than Alexander Jannaeus who I'd really have trouble seeing as any sort of good guy, but you never know.

Since you are going to round off and allow for inaccuracies to "fit in" Jesus, so can I, what's a few +/- years over 500 years?

gramster wrote:

#5. The "sacking of Jerusalem by AE IV happened on 167 BC. This is about 15 years off.

Is it any worse than any other claims based on "kings' ruling dates"?

gramster wrote:

#6. There is Zero evidence of historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. There are a few unfounded allegations. There are however some pretty amazing bits of historical information a 2nd century BC writer would be very highly unlikely to know.

Belshazzar, being the 2nd ruler in the nation being one.

No Nabonidus not being discussed at all is very indicative of how accurate Daniel was. Nabonidus who was the one that caused extreme dissatisfaction of the Babylonians opening the doorway for the Persians under Cyrus to virtually walk in and take over not being included is more than enough to indicate it was not written in the 6th century BCE.

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

You do have the link for this tidbit right? I tried google for Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Asphenaz, Asphenaz pottery etc and did not find it. Please supply the link, thank you.

 

gramster wrote:

Not to mention the fact that most skeptics put the writing of the book of Daniel later than the death of Mattathias, who was quoted from his death bed, as speaking of Daniel as a real person. Interesting that Mattathias would have had the foresight to speak of a character that had not yet been invented?

We already discussed the mention of Daniel in 1 Mac 2. Are legends making people and all their supposed actions now admissible as proof? All that is said in 1 Mac 2 was Daniel was saved out of the mouths of lions. Hercules was the son of Zeus. I guess that means all the stories of Hercules are true including the gods of the Greeks as they are mentioned in many ancient Greek texts. All praise be to Zeus and Hera.

gramster wrote:

This looks more like a constellation than a straight line. Most of your points are way off.

My points are way off from your perspective since you are apparently wearing a rose colored welding helmet?

____________________________________________________________
"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: Greetings

gramster wrote:

 

Greetings once again.

Hola. Buenos Dias!

gramster wrote:

Here is a link to a website that is not Christian giving a bit more light on the relevance of Hebrew parallelism. Note at the end of the article "Exegetical Importance".

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letters=P&search=parallelism

This link is a long one. I will try it after I post to make sure it goes through.

Your link does not work. I did find it though by typing in parallelism.

gramster wrote:

Chaistic structure is determined by the text. If it follows the ABBA, OR ABCDCBA, OR ABBCBBA, etc, it is a chaism. Daniel 9:24-27 clearly follow that structure. That being ABCDCBA. The subjects being Jerusalem construction, and the anointed one. The exegetical relevance of this is that subject A matches subject A, B matches B, C matches C, etc. Since D is alternating in sync with B would match B as an alternating parallel.

This is not Gramps. Study the links. A Hebrew writer would never throw this out of balance. The intended reader would be quite confused.

Yet, the Jews still see Daniel 9 differently than you. Wonder why?

see for example - http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25:daniel-925-translation&catid=45:daniel&Itemid=490

gramster wrote:

As to the 3 or 4 dates. This can hardly be a guess. The odds of the fulfillment of this prophecy falling on one of even 20 specific dates are astronomical. When the fulfillment happens, and one goes back to confirm the prophecy odds are that there would be no event that would even come close to matching.

Are these odds better than roulette?

gramster wrote:

The prophecy is specific enough. From a word or command...to the coming of a messiah (anointed one) will be 69 weeks, or 483 years. From the only one that gives permission to properly restore Jerusalem to it's original standing politically in 457 BC, that brings us down to 27 AD. Exactly.

I was under the impression most Christians think the legendary Jesus walked the Earth in 30 CE.

Are you going to be off +/- here a few years?

Then what happened to the 70 weeks mentioned? And what was the 7 weeks mentioned in Daniel about. What was the 62 weeks, are you saying to ignore this and just add them together as 69 weeks>

Then we have the 1 week covenant broken in 1/2 week, how does this fit together for your view?

gramster wrote:

The odds of this "just landing" on this date by chance are astronomical.

Not when you fiddle with the numbers as you are doing. The odds are you should hit it "dead nuts on", but you don't.

gramster wrote:

The Hebrew literary structure fits perfectly, The time fits perfectly, there is no need to wiggle around and make excuses for dates not fitting. Just prophecy fulfilled.

Prophecy created.

gramster wrote:

But you can't except that.

I accept many things, but not backtracked creative puzzle piece fitting to validate a belief in an unsubstantiated legend.

gramster wrote:

"There is no God, so it can't be prophecy". That is your philosophy, and only real argument.

It's not prophecy because its filled with holes, errors, Sci-Fi, magic, historical problems, etc . .

We could go back and start with where did the god Yahweh originate and determine its origin is from ancient Canaanite legends with multiple god beliefs. Over time the god Yahweh becomes a single deity, his wife-consort Asherah, Ashtoreth or whatever her name is slowly  erradicated by priests as they manipulated Jewish belief in a national definition to unite the Jews.

Are any gods real beyond the minds of men that dream them up? In the mind of the men who were the god's creator they were. In the harsh light of reality none have basis, only as an escapism to justify their ignorance and evasion of responsibilities for actions they have done.

gramster wrote:

That is why Hebrew poetry and literary structure "must not have significance" to you.

 

Nope.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Daniel 9 verses 25 to 27 need a proper understanding of ancient Hebrew literary structure to be read and understood properly. Here we will need the "Johnny Quest decoder ring". And fortunately we have one on hand.

The overwhelming majority of the Toreh was written in "poetic form". or "Hebrew Parallelism". This is much different than how we do things in English, so we will take a brief look at this.

Daniel 9:25 to 27 forms a "chiastic pattern". I am including the following links so that the reader can 1. know that this is not just a fabrication of Gramps. 2. gain a basic understanding of this principle.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

Jeff A Benner, a linguist gives a brief introduction to ancient Hebrew poetic parallelism commonly used in the old testament books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_parallels_in_the_Book_of_Daniel

Here it is demonstrated how the Book of Daniel is laid out in a double chaismatic formation for the purpose of emphasis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here historicist Shea has a very simple visual graphic (of Daniel 9: 25 to 27 in particular) that demonstrates very clearly the existing chaistic pattern of the text.

This is a most fascinating principle, and well worth the time and effort to get acquainted with.

In short, the subjects being discussed can be represented by simple letters of the alphabet for demonstration purposes.

The subjects in Daniel 9 under discussion are "Jerusalem", and "The anointed".

The chaistic structure is simply ABCDCBA. Below is the basic structure.

 

A Jerusalem Construction

   B Anointed One

      C Jerusalem Construction

         D Anointed One

      C' Jerusalem Destroyed

   B' Anointed One

A' Jerusalem Destroyed

 

The first subject A will correspond with the last subject A'. The second subject B will correspond with the next to last subject B' etc. Knowing this literary structure is crucial to determining just which subject is being discussed in each text.

We will be exploring this more as we move ahead.

 

Now that we have established Parallelism and chiastic structures as common in ancient Hebrew literature, we will take a closer look at Daniel 9:25-27. I will be using Shea's format for clarity.

A. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25a) ASV

   "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem."

       B. Anointed One (Daniel 9:25b)

          "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score plus 2 weeks:"

              C. Jerusalem Construction (Daniel 9:25c)

                 "It shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times"

                     D. Anointed One (Daniel 9:26a)

                         "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing"

              C'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:26b)

                  "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary, and the end there of shall be .                  with a flood, and even to the end shall be war, desolation, and destruction."

       B'. Anointed One (Daniel 9:27a)

          "And he will make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the                  sacrifice and oblation to cease;"

A'. Jerusalem Destroyed (Daniel 9:27b)

   "And upon the wing of  abominations shall come one that  makes desolate; one even unto the full end, and that     .   determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."

What has been established in the links above is that this type of literary structure was not only used, but quite common in the Hebrew writings. It is only rational to believe that a Jewish reader on the time would readily pick up on this, and understand it's ramifications.

As redneF pointed out previously, it is essential for us to understand the various principles and idiosyncrasies of the language being translated. This principle in particular is valuable especially in the interpretation of this text, as without it some confusion exists as to the subjects being discussed.

2 Princes - There are two very distinct princes being discussed here, a "good prince", and a "bad prince". It is important to know which one is being discussed.

C' 9:26b "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary...

B' 9:27a "And he shall make a covenant with many for one week: ...

Reading this from a "western readers" perspective, this looks like 9:27a is referring to the "bad prince" of 9:26b. But this is not the case. According to the chiasmatic structure, subject B' is related not to C', but to B. That means that 9:27a is referring to the "good prince" of 9:25b.

Putting subject B together with subject B' we get the following.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks.

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week..."

This does not refer to the "bad prince" Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC. A 2nd century writer would not have written this like way if that were his intentions. Surely his intended audience would have been gravely confused.

This is referring the "good prince", and an anointed one.

Jerusalem Construction and Destruction - Another mistake that reading this text as a "westerner" can lead to, is the assumption that certain parts of this timetable is specifically referring to the construction or destruction of Jerusalem. 

Even thought the construction and destruction of Jerusalem is closely related to the rest of the text, no specific time passage addresses this directly. The events of the construction and destruction of Jerusalem are addressed here, and interrelated to the rest of the text, but no direct time tables are given to these events.

Time References - The time reference given here relates only to the "good prince" in these verses.

A. 9:25a - "... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" B. 9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

This gives us the time table for the arrival of an "anointed one". One may assume that this time table is broken up into specific and differing events. This is not necessarily so. One who is unfamiliar with the phrase "four score and seven years ago", may also assume that the "four score" refers to one event, while the "seven years" refers to another.

These are examples of "word plays". Various word plays were common in the Hebrew, and not uncommon in our language as well.

Since no specific event is tied in this literary structure to this time table except the arrival of an anointed one, it is evident that an anointed one would be expected to arrive after 69 weeks.

The next time reference given is in 9:26a. This is right in the middle of the chiasm, thus giving it special emphasis.

D. 9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing."

9:25a gives the time table for the "anointed one". 9:26 a gives us a very important event that follows closely.

The next reference to an "anointed one", and the one matching the one referenced in vs 9:25b, is in 9:27a.

"And he will make a covenant with many for one week: in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Something will happen in the middle of the 70th week that will "do away" with the sacrificial system.

Now let's put the verses relating to the "anointed one" together and read it like a Jew of the time would understand it.

9:25b "unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks:"

9:26a "And after the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and have nothing."

9:27a "And he will make a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease;"

Now this makes perfect sense. The writer did not leave his audience guessing as to the meaning of this text. By using the common form of chiastic structure, the writer explicitly communicated to his readers just as he intended.   

All the twisting of meaning and squiming you are doing to beat these pieces into the puzzle so Jesus can be the one is fun to watch.

You know what I think, see post #952 and #951 neither of which you answered.

Also see post #957 where you come up with 1844 CE. See my response in #959 where Joseph Smith is murdered or Polk is elected President.

See posts: #872, #895,  #903, #910, #913, #931, # 946 where I'm clear as to what I think.

2 Annointed ones, Cyrus and Onias.

Daniel 9:25 JPS Hebrew version cited in post #913 - "Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks;.."

You combine the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks in what you call Dan 9:25 b).

However JPS shows them as 2 different periods. going on as "and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times."

Then in v26 JPS - "And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more;" this is anointed one #2 - who is killed namely Onais.

and in the 2nd part - Antiochus shows up - "and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

And continues in v27 - "And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment."

See my previous post where I went into detail.

I especially love how you bounce from translation to translation in order to get your mangled puzzle pieces to fit.

 

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

Challenge the "specific requirements" of the prophecy. The prophecy is specific. Our understanding of the events in history and how they relate are in question. There are only maybe 3 or 4 dates that can possibly be considered. This is very limiting. One of these few dates has to match up to the fulfillment. One can not just "pick any date".

The rest of the prophecies in Daniel?? No specifics are given here.

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 

Gramster, on what do you base your insistence that the literary form used in Daniel is more than just a literary form? You seem to be ascribing more meaning to the literary structure than the words in the text.

If there are 3-4 possible dates that can fit a prophecy, is it a prophecy or just a guess?

 

Greetings once again.

Here is a link to a website that is not Christian giving a bit more light on the relevance of Hebrew parallelism. Note at the end of the article "Exegetical Importance".

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letters=P&search=parallelism

This link is a long one. I will try it after I post to make sure it goes through.

Chaistic structure is determined by the text. If it follows the ABBA, OR ABCDCBA, OR ABBCBBA, etc, it is a chaism. Daniel 9:24-27 clearly follow that structure. That being ABCDCBA. The subjects being Jerusalem construction, and the anointed one. The exegetical relevance of this is that subject A matches subject A, B matches B, C matches C, etc. Since D is alternating in sync with B would match B as an alternating parallel.

This is not Gramps. Study the links. A Hebrew writer would never throw this out of balance. The intended reader would be quite confused.

As to the 3 or 4 dates. This can hardly be a guess. The odds of the fulfillment of this prophecy falling on one of even 20 specific dates are astronomical. When the fulfillment happens, and one goes back to confirm the prophecy odds are that there would be no event that would even come close to matching.

The prophecy is specific enough. From a word or command...to the coming of a messiah (anointed one) will be 69 weeks, or 483 years. From the only one that gives permission to properly restore Jerusalem to it's original standing politically in 457 BC, that brings us down to 27 AD. Exactly.

The odds of this "just landing" on this date by chance are astronomical.

The Hebrew literary structure fits perfectly, The time fits perfectly, there is no need to wiggle around and make excuses for dates not fitting. Just prophecy fulfilled. But you can't except that.

"There is no God, so it can't be prophecy". That is your philosophy, and only real argument. That is why Hebrew poetry and literary structure "must not have significance" to you.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if we're understanding each other. How can you get the meaning "Jesus Christ is the anointed one that Daniel was writing about" simply from the literary structure?

All I can see from what you pointed out is:

1. Jerusalem will be rebuilt and destroyed

2. 1-2 anointed ones will come.

Is this the sort of understanding that led you to the Popes being emperors?

"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


anyuta34i (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Do not eat 1 a heavy meal

Do not eat 1 a heavy meal fore several hours before your class. yoga is best practiced on an empty stomach. Do new york escorts drink water, both before and after your practice in order to keep your new york asian escort body well hydrated.yoga for a beginner is the first step on a journey of ever new york asian escorts increasing self-awareness, a greater level of strength, endurance, and flexibility, and a nyc asian escorts deeper sense of peace. Have fun and enjoy everything along the way!Della Menechella is a yoga and fitness enthusiast who has been involved in fitness for over thirty years.tel : 212-655-5444

 


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

[quote-PJTS]

Did I? What I challenged was your link which you claimed substantiated that Daniel was poetic form. It specifically does not mention Daniel.

See your link again - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

What I said:

PJTS #951 wrote:

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

 

So did I say Daniel was not poetry? No, I said your link does not say it is

You are mentioning just one link of the three I posted. One link shows examples of the common poetic form in Hebrew literature, another one shows the exegetical importance of this literary form in understanding ancient Hebrew texts, and the third demonstrated the parallel and chaistic form of Daniel 9:25-27 in particular.

That is why I posted all three. Go back and read all three, and you will see that the above is true.

gramster wrote:

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

PJTS wrote:

I gave you 3 different pieces of information that make the claim that Cyrus allowed the Jews to return as well as others that Babylon had displaced.

1- The Cyrus Cylinder - "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

What is it you think " I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings" means exactly?

Apparently Josephus thought it meant the Jews returned and rebuilt the Temple and returned to their city.

As -

2- "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea." - from - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm

Here we have Cyrus as the one foretold supposedly and the claim he ordered the Temple to be rebuilt.

Then we have:

3- "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid." - from 2nd Isaiah - written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 written circa time of Cyrus.

Here we have the claim he ordered Jerusalem to be built as well as the Temple.

Yes, Cyrus did as the prophecy foretold clear the way for the will of the Lord to be accomplished. His permission to rebuild the temple can be considered as a possibility, but not the only one. It wasn't until Artaxeres gave permission for the political restoration that the prophecy came into complete fulfillment. I am sure we will never agree on this one.

gramster wrote:

Challenge the "specific requirements" of the prophecy. The prophecy is specific. Our understanding of the events in history and how they relate are in question. There are only maybe 3 or 4 dates that can possibly be considered. This is very limiting. One of these few dates has to match up to the fulfillment. One can not just "pick any date".

You have done exactly that in backtracking to fit Jesus in.

The evidence indicated:

Cyrus ordered the people of all nations relocated could return to their homes. It is claimed that he ordered the Temple to be rebuilt. Even Ezra indicated it was in Ezra 6:15. Do you think the people were living in tents outside the city or something? The Temple was put into operation, people were "returned to their dwellings" what more do you want?

gramster wrote:

 

The rest of the prophecies in Daniel?? No specifics are given here.

As you say, I will come back to this later and specify where your views fail after you finally put forth your entire scenario as to how Jesus is the one.

gramster wrote:

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 

PJTS wrote:

You insist on ignoring that the originators of the God beliefs the Jews see 2 anointed ones and beat in your morphed beliefs derived from the original Yahweh believers to fit Jesus in as the only anointed one.

Are you saying that the originators the Jews read this from a western viewpoint? Even your links show they see 2 "anointed ones" not one.

Imagine that! The Jews who don't wish to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah having a different view than the Christians. As I have stated before, I do not take any translation as unbiased or 100% accurate. That is why I critically examine them all.

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Just imagine, indeed!Paul

Just imagine, indeed!

Paul and his converts manipulating the Old Testament and reworking prophecies so they can fit their newly minted God-Man as the Messiah!

Modern Christians having to bend over backwards to make "Jesus prophecies" out of texts which say nothing about the Messiah (let alone Jesus being one)!

 

"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
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Here is my understanding of your take on Daniel 9:25-27.

1. The "start time" for this prophecy begins with Jeremiah's "prophecy about" the restoration of Jerusalem. This puts it at 586 BC.

The start time is the claim in Jeremiah, whether it was written before or after the time of Cyrus is not known. Supposedly the date is the beginning of the captivity in 586 BCE.

gramster wrote:

2. The time periods are not a poetic way of saying a number, but broken down into separate events.

Whether or not Daniel is poetry has nothing to do with whether or not there were 2 events. As mentioned repeatedly, the originators of Yahweh beliefs see 2 anointed ones, not one.

gramster wrote:

3. The first seven weeks or 49 years refer to Cyrus 537 BC.

Right

gramster wrote:

4. The 62 weeks or 434 years which would take us to 152 BC, refers to Onais murder, or possibly Jannaeus'.

Somewhere in that vicinity.

gramster wrote:

5. This also takes us to the covenant made by AE IV which was broken 3 1/2 years later.

Right

gramster wrote:

6. You claim that the dates not matching is due to the obvious lack of historical knowledge of the 2nd century writer of the book of Daniel.

Right, shown repeatedly by his lack of historical knowledge of Babylon, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc . . .

gramster wrote:

#1. Shaky at best, but we can let is slide for now.

PJTS wrote:

Thanks for your gracious consideration.

Anytime

gramster wrote:

#2. This is possible according to the text, but does not fit with the Hebrew literary style.

PJTS wrote:

Since the Jews see this as 2 you should probably try to discredit all of their beliefs, oh wait you agree with some of them and pick and choose what to accept and what to reject don't you?

I don't believe "all" of what "anybody" believes. I look at the evidence and believe what makes sense to me. You may believe what you are told just because of the source not the content if you choose. That does not seem to meet the definition of a "skeptic" very well though. You may want to change your title.

gramster wrote:

#3. This one fits pretty good.

PJTS wrote:

Y'all think so?

It'll do for now.

gramster wrote:

#4. This one is way off. Onais was slain about 170 BC (18 years off). Jannaeus was slain in 103 BC (49 years off).

PJTS wrote:

I'm not partial to either one being "dead nuts on", though I agree more with Onais than Alexander Jannaeus who I'd really have trouble seeing as any sort of good guy, but you never know.

Since you are going to round off and allow for inaccuracies to "fit in" Jesus, so can I, what's a few +/- years over 500 years?

"dead nuts on"?? Try "Rigel" or "Betelgeuse".

gramster wrote:

#5. The "sacking of Jerusalem by AE IV happened on 167 BC. This is about 15 years off.

PJTS wrote:

Is it any worse than any other claims based on "kings' ruling dates"?

The Kings and their ruling dates are "claimed" to be at most a year or two off. And even this doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

gramster wrote:

#6. There is Zero evidence of historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. There are a few unfounded allegations. There are however some pretty amazing bits of historical information a 2nd century BC writer would be very highly unlikely to know.

Belshazzar, being the 2nd ruler in the nation being one.

PJTS wrote:

No Nabonidus not being discussed at all is very indicative of how accurate Daniel was. Nabonidus who was the one that caused extreme dissatisfaction of the Babylonians opening the doorway for the Persians under Cyrus to virtually walk in and take over not being included is more than enough to indicate it was not written in the 6th century BCE.

That's right. Nabonidus was not discussed in any of the stories (that was not about him). There was no reason to bring him in. None. That's all you have. Daniel was offered position of 3rd in the kingdom. A 2nd century BC author that thought Belshazzar was #1 would most likely have had Daniel being offered the position of 2nd in the kingdom. Third?. Why third? Because the 6th century BC author knew that Belshazzar was 2nd, and therefore could only offer the 3rd position. This example is a bad one for you.

Once again. The book of Daniel is not written for the purpose of recording the facts of history, or the rulers of the day. It focused on specific events, and prophecies.

Still no inaccuracies. Except for Onais, Jannaeus, and the events relating to AE IV.

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

PJTS wrote:

You do have the link for this tidbit right? I tried google for Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Asphenaz, Asphenaz pottery etc and did not find it. Please supply the link, thank you.

I'm still waiting for a source that claims Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. I'll wait and trade.

 

gramster wrote:

Not to mention the fact that most skeptics put the writing of the book of Daniel later than the death of Mattathias, who was quoted from his death bed, as speaking of Daniel as a real person. Interesting that Mattathias would have had the foresight to speak of a character that had not yet been invented?

PJTS wrote:

We already discussed the mention of Daniel in 1 Mac 2. Are legends making people and all their supposed actions now admissible as proof? All that is said in 1 Mac 2 was Daniel was saved out of the mouths of lions. Hercules was the son of Zeus. I guess that means all the stories of Hercules are true including the gods of the Greeks as they are mentioned in many ancient Greek texts. All praise be to Zeus and Hera.

Interesting, when the book of Maccabees "appear" to be at odds with the Bible it has great credibility, but when it gives support to Christian beliefs suddenly it is on par with Greek myths. Why can't atheists be intellectually honest?

gramster wrote:

This looks more like a constellation than a straight line. Most of your points are way off.

My points are way off from your perspective since you are apparently wearing a rose colored welding helmet?

Apparently you have been welding too much without any welding helmet.


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

#951 and #952, You:

Challenge the "poetic form" of Daniel 9:25-27. The proof is in the text. The subjects "alternate" as in "alternating parallels", which is "Common Hebrew Poetic Form". The works of Poe, Whitman, Auden, and others are not poetry because someone says so. They are poetry because of the rhythm and flow of the text. Daniel 9:25-27 in form are "alternating parallels", and form a perfect "chaism" as well. Therefore they are by definition "Hebrew Poetry".

[quote-PJTS]

Did I? What I challenged was your link which you claimed substantiated that Daniel was poetic form. It specifically does not mention Daniel.

See your link again - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html

What I said:

PJTS #951 wrote:

So? The site you mention does not specify that Daniel is poetry, I'm aware a lot of the Hebrew Bible is poetry, but right now we aren't discussing Psalms, Proverbs or Genesis. A whole lot of it is also allegory and story-telling aka parables. One of the purposes of the scriptures to a Jew was examples of how to lead a life of which the god would approve.

 

So did I say Daniel was not poetry? No, I said your link does not say it is

You are mentioning just one link of the three I posted. One link shows examples of the common poetic form in Hebrew literature, another one shows the exegetical importance of this literary form in understanding ancient Hebrew texts, and the third demonstrated the parallel and chaistic form of Daniel 9:25-27 in particular.

That is why I posted all three. Go back and read all three, and you will see that the above is true.

 

I already discussed the others earlier. My comment in this post only referenced this link.

What is true? That this link doesn't discuss Daniel? That the other links aren't in my post? That I never said what you claim?

Back and forth on an Internet forum can lose information between posts due to time lag, specific discussion analyzed and mentioned by each respondent, misunderstanding of the points raised by each player.

That seems to be what is going on in regards to this specific case.

 

gramster wrote:

Point out that the temple was already built. Yes, but according to Ezra, Artaxeres is listed as one of the kings involved in this building. His part came later. The text refers to the restoration of Jerusalem which included more than just building the temple structure. Artaxeres was the only one to give permission for the full restoration of the city both physically and politically. I am sure we will never agree on a starting date. Cyrus' date gave permission to rebuild the temple, but lacked the permission for full restoration of the city to it's original standing.

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

I gave you 3 different pieces of information that make the claim that Cyrus allowed the Jews to return as well as others that Babylon had displaced.

1- The Cyrus Cylinder - "I returned the images of the gods, who had resided there [i.e., in Babylon], to their places and I let them dwell in eternal abodes. I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings." - http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html

What is it you think " I gathered all their inhabitants and returned to them their dwellings" means exactly?

Apparently Josephus thought it meant the Jews returned and rebuilt the Temple and returned to their city.

As -

2- "Thus saith Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty hath appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is that God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judea." - from - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm

Here we have Cyrus as the one foretold supposedly and the claim he ordered the Temple to be rebuilt.

Then we have:

3- "That saith of Cyrus: 'He is My shepherd, and shall perform all My pleasure'; even saying of Jerusalem: 'She shall be built'; and to the temple: 'My foundation shall be laid." - from 2nd Isaiah - written around the time of Cyrus we have this in Isaiah 44:28 written circa time of Cyrus.

Here we have the claim he ordered Jerusalem to be built as well as the Temple.

Yes, Cyrus did as the prophecy foretold clear the way for the will of the Lord to be accomplished. His permission to rebuild the temple can be considered as a possibility, but not the only one. It wasn't until Artaxeres gave permission for the political restoration that the prophecy came into complete fulfillment. I am sure we will never agree on this one.

 

No, we won't agree.

Do any of the writers specify that " political restoration " was required??

 

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

You insist on two anointed ones despite the fact that they go against the literary form of the text. We will never agree on this as long as you insist on reading this from a western point of view.

 

PJTS wrote:

You insist on ignoring that the originators of the God beliefs the Jews see 2 anointed ones and beat in your morphed beliefs derived from the original Yahweh believers to fit Jesus in as the only anointed one.

Are you saying that the originators the Jews read this from a western viewpoint? Even your links show they see 2 "anointed ones" not one.

Imagine that! The Jews who don't wish to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah having a different view than the Christians. As I have stated before, I do not take any translation as unbiased or 100% accurate. That is why I critically examine them all.

 

 

The view of 2 anointed ones predates Jesus however. Feel free to visit the Jewish websites I have already given you to confirm this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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 - quote mess

Your post #991 is again a mess of open and closed quotes.

Once again, just count the number that are open and look for where you want them to start and end. It's not that hard, it's like computer programming.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Here is my understanding of your take on Daniel 9:25-27.

1. The "start time" for this prophecy begins with Jeremiah's "prophecy about" the restoration of Jerusalem. This puts it at 586 BC.

The start time is the claim in Jeremiah, whether it was written before or after the time of Cyrus is not known. Supposedly the date is the beginning of the captivity in 586 BCE.

gramster wrote:

2. The time periods are not a poetic way of saying a number, but broken down into separate events.

Whether or not Daniel is poetry has nothing to do with whether or not there were 2 events. As mentioned repeatedly, the originators of Yahweh beliefs see 2 anointed ones, not one.

gramster wrote:

3. The first seven weeks or 49 years refer to Cyrus 537 BC.

Right

gramster wrote:

4. The 62 weeks or 434 years which would take us to 152 BC, refers to Onais murder, or possibly Jannaeus'.

Somewhere in that vicinity.

gramster wrote:

5. This also takes us to the covenant made by AE IV which was broken 3 1/2 years later.

Right

gramster wrote:

6. You claim that the dates not matching is due to the obvious lack of historical knowledge of the 2nd century writer of the book of Daniel.

Right, shown repeatedly by his lack of historical knowledge of Babylon, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc . . .

gramster wrote:

#1. Shaky at best, but we can let is slide for now.

PJTS wrote:

Thanks for your gracious consideration.

Anytime

gramster wrote:

#2. This is possible according to the text, but does not fit with the Hebrew literary style.

PJTS wrote:

Since the Jews see this as 2 you should probably try to discredit all of their beliefs, oh wait you agree with some of them and pick and choose what to accept and what to reject don't you?

I don't believe "all" of what "anybody" believes. I look at the evidence and believe what makes sense to me. You may believe what you are told just because of the source not the content if you choose. That does not seem to meet the definition of a "skeptic" very well though. You may want to change your title.

gramster wrote:

#3. This one fits pretty good.

PJTS wrote:

Y'all think so?

It'll do for now.

gramster wrote:

#4. This one is way off. Onais was slain about 170 BC (18 years off). Jannaeus was slain in 103 BC (49 years off).

PJTS wrote:

I'm not partial to either one being "dead nuts on", though I agree more with Onais than Alexander Jannaeus who I'd really have trouble seeing as any sort of good guy, but you never know.

Since you are going to round off and allow for inaccuracies to "fit in" Jesus, so can I, what's a few +/- years over 500 years?

"dead nuts on"?? Try "Rigel" or "Betelgeuse".

gramster wrote:

#5. The "sacking of Jerusalem by AE IV happened on 167 BC. This is about 15 years off.

PJTS wrote:

Is it any worse than any other claims based on "kings' ruling dates"?

The Kings and their ruling dates are "claimed" to be at most a year or two off. And even this doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

gramster wrote:

#6. There is Zero evidence of historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. There are a few unfounded allegations. There are however some pretty amazing bits of historical information a 2nd century BC writer would be very highly unlikely to know.

Belshazzar, being the 2nd ruler in the nation being one.

PJTS wrote:

No Nabonidus not being discussed at all is very indicative of how accurate Daniel was. Nabonidus who was the one that caused extreme dissatisfaction of the Babylonians opening the doorway for the Persians under Cyrus to virtually walk in and take over not being included is more than enough to indicate it was not written in the 6th century BCE.

That's right. Nabonidus was not discussed in any of the stories (that was not about him). There was no reason to bring him in. None. That's all you have. Daniel was offered position of 3rd in the kingdom. A 2nd century BC author that thought Belshazzar was #1 would most likely have had Daniel being offered the position of 2nd in the kingdom. Third?. Why third? Because the 6th century BC author knew that Belshazzar was 2nd, and therefore could only offer the 3rd position. This example is a bad one for you.

Once again. The book of Daniel is not written for the purpose of recording the facts of history, or the rulers of the day. It focused on specific events, and prophecies.

Still no inaccuracies. Except for Onais, Jannaeus, and the events relating to AE IV.

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

PJTS wrote:

You do have the link for this tidbit right? I tried google for Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Asphenaz, Asphenaz pottery etc and did not find it. Please supply the link, thank you.

I'm still waiting for a source that claims Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. I'll wait and trade.

 

gramster wrote:

Not to mention the fact that most skeptics put the writing of the book of Daniel later than the death of Mattathias, who was quoted from his death bed, as speaking of Daniel as a real person. Interesting that Mattathias would have had the foresight to speak of a character that had not yet been invented?

PJTS wrote:

We already discussed the mention of Daniel in 1 Mac 2. Are legends making people and all their supposed actions now admissible as proof? All that is said in 1 Mac 2 was Daniel was saved out of the mouths of lions. Hercules was the son of Zeus. I guess that means all the stories of Hercules are true including the gods of the Greeks as they are mentioned in many ancient Greek texts. All praise be to Zeus and Hera.

Interesting, when the book of Maccabees "appear" to be at odds with the Bible it has great credibility, but when it gives support to Christian beliefs suddenly it is on par with Greek myths. Why can't atheists be intellectually honest?

gramster wrote:

This looks more like a constellation than a straight line. Most of your points are way off.

My points are way off from your perspective since you are apparently wearing a rose colored welding helmet?

Apparently you have been welding too much without any welding helmet.

Because he's burned away the cataracts of your religion and sees it for what it is?

"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
Gramps

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Here is my understanding of your take on Daniel 9:25-27.

1. The "start time" for this prophecy begins with Jeremiah's "prophecy about" the restoration of Jerusalem. This puts it at 586 BC.

The start time is the claim in Jeremiah, whether it was written before or after the time of Cyrus is not known. Supposedly the date is the beginning of the captivity in 586 BCE.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

2. The time periods are not a poetic way of saying a number, but broken down into separate events.

Whether or not Daniel is poetry has nothing to do with whether or not there were 2 events. As mentioned repeatedly, the originators of Yahweh beliefs see 2 anointed ones, not one.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

3. The first seven weeks or 49 years refer to Cyrus 537 BC.

Right

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

4. The 62 weeks or 434 years which would take us to 152 BC, refers to Onais murder, or possibly Jannaeus'.

Somewhere in that vicinity.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

5. This also takes us to the covenant made by AE IV which was broken 3 1/2 years later.

Right

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

6. You claim that the dates not matching is due to the obvious lack of historical knowledge of the 2nd century writer of the book of Daniel.

Right, shown repeatedly by his lack of historical knowledge of Babylon, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc . . .

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#1. Shaky at best, but we can let is slide for now.

Thanks for your gracious consideration.

Anytime

See how easy that was.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#2. This is possible according to the text, but does not fit with the Hebrew literary style.

Since the Jews see this as 2 you should probably try to discredit all of their beliefs, oh wait you agree with some of them and pick and choose what to accept and what to reject don't you?

I don't believe "all" of what "anybody" believes. I look at the evidence and believe what makes sense to me. You may believe what you are told just because of the source not the content if you choose. That does not seem to meet the definition of a "skeptic" very well though. You may want to change your title.

Y'all haven't paid much attention to what I say  have you?

I know what you think a skeptic is, you claimed to be one early on in this discussion.

However, I think this way, if in doubt, set it aside. If you can't prove it to be true it probably should be held as unsupportable and looked at with questionable acceptance if any at all.

 

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#3. This one fits pretty good.

Y'all think so?

It'll do for now.

 Alirighty.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#4. This one is way off. Onais was slain about 170 BC (18 years off). Jannaeus was slain in 103 BC (49 years off).

I'm not partial to either one being "dead nuts on", though I agree more with Onais than Alexander Jannaeus who I'd really have trouble seeing as any sort of good guy, but you never know.

Since you are going to round off and allow for inaccuracies to "fit in" Jesus, so can I, what's a few +/- years over 500 years?

"dead nuts on"?? Try "Rigel" or "Betelgeuse".

You know, CEFGW.

"Dead nuts on" is a quote from "My Cousin Vinny".

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#5. The "sacking of Jerusalem by AE IV happened on 167 BC. This is about 15 years off.

Is it any worse than any other claims based on "kings' ruling dates"?

The Kings and their ruling dates are "claimed" to be at most a year or two off. And even this doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Again, CEFGW.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#6. There is Zero evidence of historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. There are a few unfounded allegations. There are however some pretty amazing bits of historical information a 2nd century BC writer would be very highly unlikely to know.

Belshazzar, being the 2nd ruler in the nation being one.

No Nabonidus not being discussed at all is very indicative of how accurate Daniel was. Nabonidus who was the one that caused extreme dissatisfaction of the Babylonians opening the doorway for the Persians under Cyrus to virtually walk in and take over not being included is more than enough to indicate it was not written in the 6th century BCE.

That's right. Nabonidus was not discussed in any of the stories (that was not about him). There was no reason to bring him in. None. That's all you have. Daniel was offered position of 3rd in the kingdom. A 2nd century BC author that thought Belshazzar was #1 would most likely have had Daniel being offered the position of 2nd in the kingdom. Third?. Why third? Because the 6th century BC author knew that Belshazzar was 2nd, and therefore could only offer the 3rd position. This example is a bad one for you.

Once again. The book of Daniel is not written for the purpose of recording the facts of history, or the rulers of the day. It focused on specific events, and prophecies.

Still no inaccuracies. Except for Onais, Jannaeus, and the events relating to AE IV.

Whatever you'd like to think.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

You do have the link for this tidbit right? I tried google for Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Asphenaz, Asphenaz pottery etc and did not find it. Please supply the link, thank you.

I'm still waiting for a source that claims Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. I'll wait and trade.

If you go back and look y'all will notice I've given sources for this several times in this thread.

Once with my discussions with Freeminer.

The last time was in post #885. Roux also discusses Belshazzar's end as do the links in livius.org. Does this mean you didn't read the links or Roux's book?

 

Or is Alzheimeers setting in?

 

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

Not to mention the fact that most skeptics put the writing of the book of Daniel later than the death of Mattathias, who was quoted from his death bed, as speaking of Daniel as a real person. Interesting that Mattathias would have had the foresight to speak of a character that had not yet been invented?

We already discussed the mention of Daniel in 1 Mac 2. Are legends making people and all their supposed actions now admissible as proof? All that is said in 1 Mac 2 was Daniel was saved out of the mouths of lions. Hercules was the son of Zeus. I guess that means all the stories of Hercules are true including the gods of the Greeks as they are mentioned in many ancient Greek texts. All praise be to Zeus and Hera.

Interesting, when the book of Maccabees "appear" to be at odds with the Bible it has great credibility, but when it gives support to Christian beliefs suddenly it is on par with Greek myths. Why can't atheists be intellectually honest?

Not at all.

Quote from 1 Mac 2:60 DRO - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions."

Hercules was the son of Zeus.

Enki ejaculated and made the Tigris.

All 3 are unproved statements.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

This looks more like a constellation than a straight line. Most of your points are way off.

My points are way off from your perspective since you are apparently wearing a rose colored welding helmet?

Apparently you have been welding too much without any welding helmet.

You obviously missed the analogy.

Welding helmets limit your vision. Rose coloring distorts the image.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
           gramste


 

 


 




 


 


 


 

 



 

 


 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#4. This one is way off. Onais was slain about 170 BC (18 years off). Jannaeus w[qas slain in 103 BC (49 years off).

I'm not partial to either one being "dead nuts on", though I agree more with Onais than Alexander Jannaeus who I'd really have trouble seeing as any sort of good guy, but you never know.

Since you are going to round off and allow for inaccuracies to "fit in" Jesus, so can I, what's a few +/- years over 500 years?

"dead nuts on"?? Try "Rigel" or "Betelgeuse".

PJTS wrote:

You know, CEFGW.

"Dead nuts on" is a quote from "My Cousin Vinny".

Yes, and Rigel and Betelgeuse are light years off track. Even the government workers can't manage to do that.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#5. The "sacking of Jerusalem by AE IV happened on 167 BC. This is about 15 years off.

Is it any worse than any other claims based on "kings' ruling dates"?

The Kings and their ruling dates are "claimed" to be at most a year or two off. And even this doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Again, CEFGW.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

#6. There is Zero evidence of historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel. There are a few unfounded allegations. There are however some pretty amazing bits of historical information a 2nd century BC writer would be very highly unlikely to know.

Belshazzar, being the 2nd ruler in the nation being one.

No Nabonidus not being discussed at all is very indicative of how accurate Daniel was. Nabonidus who was the one that caused extreme dissatisfaction of the Babylonians opening the doorway for the Persians under Cyrus to virtually walk in and take over not being included is more than enough to indicate it was not written in the 6th century BCE.

That's right. Nabonidus was not discussed in any of the stories (that was not about him). There was no reason to bring him in. None. That's all you have. Daniel was offered position of 3rd in the kingdom. A 2nd century BC author that thought Belshazzar was #1 would most likely have had Daniel being offered the position of 2nd in the kingdom. Third?. Why third? Because the 6th century BC author knew that Belshazzar was 2nd, and therefore could only offer the 3rd position. This example is a bad one for you.

Once again. The book of Daniel is not written for the purpose of recording the facts of history, or the rulers of the day. It focused on specific events, and prophecies.

Still no inaccuracies. Except for Onais, Jannaeus, and the events relating to AE IV.

Whatever you'd like to think.

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

Asphenaz being the master of the eunuch's is another example. This small detail was disputed until a piece of pottery was found confirming it fairly recently. It is now in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. This type of detail a 2nd century BC writer would not have known.

You do have the link for this tidbit right? I tried google for Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Asphenaz, Asphenaz pottery etc and did not find it. Please supply the link, thank you.

I'm still waiting for a source that claims Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. I'll wait and trade.

PJTS wrote:

If you go back and look y'all will notice I've given sources for this several times in this thread.

Once with my discussions with Freeminer.

The last time was in post #885. Roux also discusses Belshazzar's end as do the links in livius.org. Does this mean you didn't read the links or Roux's book?

."

I went back over the Cyrus and Nebonidus Cylinders in Livis.org, and there is still no support for your claim. The closest I have found is that around 545 or 544 BC "the crown prince and his officials and his army was in Akkad." Than 6 years later "Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Cyrus) massacred the inhabitants."

It is a very huge stretch to "assume" Belshazzar was still there personally in Akkad, and that he did not escape". He, like Nebonidus, very likely ended up fleeing to the great walled city of Babylon for safety. There is no way of knowing from the ancient tablets.

I haven't gone over the Roux book again, but will do so. I was hoping you would actually have some real evidence.

PJTS wrote:
 

Or is Alzheimeers setting in?

No, I just require a bit more than gross speculation, and a re-writing of history. 

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

Not to mention the fact that most skeptics put the writing of the book of Daniel later than the death of Mattathias, who was quoted from his death bed, as speaking of Daniel as a real person. Interesting that Mattathias would have had the foresight to speak of a character that had not yet been invented?

We already discussed the mention of Daniel in 1 Mac 2. Are legends making people and all their supposed actions now admissible as proof? All that is said in 1 Mac 2 was Daniel was saved out of the mouths of lions. Hercules was the son of Zeus. I guess that means all the stories of Hercules are true including the gods of the Greeks as they are mentioned in many ancient Greek texts. All praise be to Zeus and Hera.

Interesting, when the book of Maccabees "appear" to be at odds with the Bible it has great credibility, but when it gives support to Christian beliefs suddenly it is on par with Greek myths. Why can't atheists be intellectually honest?

PJTS wrote:

Not at all.

Quote from 1 Mac 2:60 DRO - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions."

Hercules was the son of Zeus.

Enki ejaculated and made the Tigris.

All 3 are unproved statements.

Whether "Daniel being delivered out of the mouth's of lions" is proved or unproved is not the point. The point is that Mattathias saw Daniel as a real person before the time that most critical scholars date the writing of the book of Daniel. If this book were "fiction written in the 2nd century BC", it is not likely that this would be the case. 

 

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

gramster wrote:

This looks more like a constellation than a straight line. Most of your points are way off.

My points are way off from your perspective since you are apparently wearing a rose colored welding helmet?

Apparently you have been welding too much without any welding helmet.

PJTS wrote:

You obviously missed the analogy.

Welding helmets limit your vision. Rose coloring distorts the image.

No missed analogy, just one of my own. Welding without a helmet impairs ones vision permanently.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gramster, you're the only


Gramster, you're the only one I know who can refer to seeing things about your religion clearly as an impairment.

As for Mattathias, could it also mean the the legend is older than the written form?

I won't get into tho other stuff because it's the same old "If it doesn't support my views, it's not real evidence" crap you've been giving since this started.

 

"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 went back

gramster wrote:

I went back over the Cyrus and Nebonidus Cylinders in Livis.org, and there is still no support for your claim. The closest I have found is that around 545 or 544 BC "the crown prince and his officials and his army was in Akkad." Than 6 years later "Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Cyrus) massacred the inhabitants."

It is a very huge stretch to "assume" Belshazzar was still there personally in Akkad, and that he did not escape". He, like Nebonidus, very likely ended up fleeing to the great walled city of Babylon for safety. There is no way of knowing from the ancient tablets.

I haven't gone over the Roux book again, but will do so. I was hoping you would actually have some real evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. See pp 386-87 in Roux's book. His sources are for the paragraph where Belshalzzar is killed in Opis and Nabonidus either dying in Babylon or being appointed governor by Cyrus - the following -

Josephus Contra Apionnem, 1, 21: Eusebius, Praep. Evang. IX, 41

He cited the following for the battle at Opis - Nabonidus Chronicle III, 12-19 (ABC, pp 109-10; ANET, p 306

See his Bibliography on page 491.

I've read this in other places but of course I can't always find these things when I live in 2 states. Right now I'm in Denver, so its probably in my stack of reference material in Florida.

Sometimes these things are in actual paper books and not on the webs, It may necessitate a trip to the library.

*Edit - added* see also Israel in Exile: the history and literature of the 6th century BCE by Rainer Albertz pp 69-70

 

gramster wrote:

 

PJTS wrote:

Not at all.

Quote from 1 Mac 2:60 DRO - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions."

Hercules was the son of Zeus.

Enki ejaculated and made the Tigris.

All 3 are unproved statements.

Whether "Daniel being delivered out of the mouth's of lions" is proved or unproved is not the point. The point is that Mattathias saw Daniel as a real person before the time that most critical scholars date the writing of the book of Daniel. If this book were "fiction written in the 2nd century BC", it is not likely that this would be the case.

Mattathias probably thought the Earth was flat, it was on pillars, and heaven was out amongst the stars somewhere.

So What?

A man of legend named Daniel is one thing. If the book of Daniel existed, why didn't he discuss it?? The parallels to his time would have jumped out and bit him. He could have cited or quoted Daniel verbatim in his dying words. Daniel said blah blah and in the end we will win out.

Nada.

 

Which Robin Hood legends do you hold as real? And why?

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

I went back over the Cyrus and Nebonidus Cylinders in Livis.org, and there is still no support for your claim. The closest I have found is that around 545 or 544 BC "the crown prince and his officials and his army was in Akkad." Than 6 years later "Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Cyrus) massacred the inhabitants."

It is a very huge stretch to "assume" Belshazzar was still there personally in Akkad, and that he did not escape". He, like Nebonidus, very likely ended up fleeing to the great walled city of Babylon for safety. There is no way of knowing from the ancient tablets.

I haven't gone over the Roux book again, but will do so. I was hoping you would actually have some real evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. See pp 386-87 in Roux's book. His sources are for the paragraph where Belshalzzar is killed in Opis and Nabonidus either dying in Babylon or being appointed governor by Cyrus - the following -

Josephus Contra Apionnem, 1, 21: Eusebius, Praep. Evang. IX, 41

He cited the following for the battle at Opis - Nabonidus Chronicle III, 12-19 (ABC, pp 109-10; ANET, p 306

See his Bibliography on page 491.

I've read this in other places but of course I can't always find these things when I live in 2 states. Right now I'm in Denver, so its probably in my stack of reference material in Florida.

Sometimes these things are in actual paper books and not on the webs, It may necessitate a trip to the library.

*Edit - added* see also Israel in Exile: the history and literature of the 6th century BCE by Rainer Albertz pp 69-70

 

I have studied these references thoroughly. Here is what I have discovered.

1. Roux, in his book "Ancient Iraq" p. 386-387 claims that Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. He gives reference as you listed above to Josephus and Eusebius. 

2. In his works Contra Apionnem, Josephus makes no reference to the death of Belshazzar. None.

3. In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Ch 11 however, Josephus gives an account of Belshazzar's feast much like the account in Daniel. That seems to be pretty much all Josephus has to say about Belshazzar.

4. Eusebius, in his work Praeparatio Evangelica also fails to mention Belshazzar. Here is a summary of what this says.

   a. Cyrus invades Babylon.

   b. Nebonidus (Nabonnedus) and his army is defeated by Cyrus.

   c. Nebonidus flees to Borsippus.

   d. Cyrus takes Babylon and demo's the outer walls because the city had been "very troublesome" to him. 

   e. Cyrus' army goes to Borsippus to "besiege" Nabonidus.

   f. Nebonidus gives up peaceably "without a siege", and is therefore treated kindly by Cyrus.

   g. Nebonidus is given charge of Carminia.

 Nothing here about Belshazzar either. It seems as if Roux just pulled this one out of his "Arse".

What we can get from this is that According to Eusebius and Josephus, it appears that Nebonidus was not in Babylon when it fell, but in Borsippus. And that he was treated "kindly" because he gave up peaceably.

However, if Belshazzar was in Babylon which was a royal pain to Cyrus, and it is already known that Cyrus did not like Belshazzar, his fate would likely have been much worse. This all seems to correspond very well with the account in the book of Daniel.

It is only the unsubstantiated claim by Roux that is out of line here.

 

gramster wrote:
 

PJTS wrote:

Not at all.

Quote from 1 Mac 2:60 DRO - "Daniel in his innocency was delivered out of the mouth of the lions."

Hercules was the son of Zeus.

Enki ejaculated and made the Tigris.

All 3 are unproved statements.

Whether "Daniel being delivered out of the mouth's of lions" is proved or unproved is not the point. The point is that Mattathias saw Daniel as a real person before the time that most critical scholars date the writing of the book of Daniel. If this book were "fiction written in the 2nd century BC", it is not likely that this would be the case.

PJTS wrote:

Mattathias probably thought the Earth was flat, it was on pillars, and heaven was out amongst the stars somewhere.

So What?

A man of legend named Daniel is one thing. If the book of Daniel existed, why didn't he discuss it?? The parallels to his time would have jumped out and bit him. He could have cited or quoted Daniel verbatim in his dying words. Daniel said blah blah and in the end we will win out.

Nada. 

Which Robin Hood legends do you hold as real? And why?

OK? Mattathias on his deathbed trying to give courage to those fighting for the cause said something similar to "Think of how Robin Hood successfully fought against the odds of evil, and have courage knowing you will prevail". Go out and put your life on the line taking courage from a fairytale.

If that is what you believe?? We'll leave it at that.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ranier "Israel in Eile"

Oh yes, you also listed "Israel in Exile" by Ranier.

I looked up this quote also. Here is all that is said about Belshazzar. "It is possible Belshazzar was slain when the city was taken". pg 69.

This quote doesn't look too good for you either.

Thanks