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.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:9

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.

Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

Vs 11. "Than the king of the south (Ptolemy IV) moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north (Antiochus III); and he (Antiochus III) shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his (Ptolemy's) hand."

Vs 13. "But when the multitude is taken (Antiochus III's army defeated) his (Ptolemy's) heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail."

This is simply a description of the battle of Raphia. This was a particularly sizable battle that involved many tens of thousands of soldiers as well as elephants. When the battle was over Antiochus III had lost around 10,000 men on the battlefield.

But as the text indicates Ptolemy IV did not prevail. For Antiochus III, as we shall see, would return.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 13

Daniel 11:13

"For the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies."

As vs 12 indicated Ptolemy's victory would not last long. Antiochus III "bounced back", regrouped his forces, and returned for a "rematch" which did not go well for Ptolemy IV.

Vs 14. "In those times many shall rise against the king of the south; and the men of violence among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision; but they shall fail."

All along the Nile the Egyptians were defying and revolting against their Greek overlords ("many shall rise up&quotEye-wink. The south had a new king (Ptolemy V), and he was only a boy of six. Antiochus II also made an alliance with Philip of Macedon successor of Cassander in the west. All these rose up in hostility against the king of the south.

Interestingly the Rosetta Stone records concessions made to the Egyptian people by the regents of the boy king in an effort to prevent further trouble.

The "men of violence among your own people" in the Hebrew means literally "the breakers of your people". This can mean either trouble from within, or from "outsiders". The Hebrew is not clear on this point.

Vs 15. "Then the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall come and throw up siege works, and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, for there shall be not strength to stand."

Antiochus III defeated a well trained army led by Scopas, a skilled general in the Egyptian army. His troops retreated to Tyre, but Antiochus laid siege to this well fortified city. When he had accomplished his mission, the north or the Seleucid Empire had a firm grip on Judea. The southern or Ptolemic kingdom never regained these territories.

We are now getting down to the time in history that Rome begins to enter the picture.

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:16 -

Sorry for the delay. I have been otherwise involved lately on unavoidable issues.

The following verses can be interpreted to fit various figures in history. Therefore, what I will give is the ones that seem to be the best fit to me. Puzzle fitting if you want to think so.

I will go through these as quickly and briefly as possible, since this is not essential to proving.

Daniel 11:16

"But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and all of it shall be in his power."

A couple of things to note here. In Hebrew the word "he" is not used. This is not necessarily talking about a specific person, although it can be.

The second thing to note is that the author has suddenly stopped using the terms kings of the north and south. I believe this is because he is shifting his focus from the previously dominant powers (the Seleucids and Ptolemys), and now focusing on a new and powerful arising power (Rome).

"He" is referring to "Rome", and verse 16 is about the Roman armies under Pompey who campaigned through Syria, and into Palestine, including Jerusalem. He conquered all in his path.

At this point Pompey and Julius Cesar were in alliance with each other. That would change later.

Verses 16 also concerns Julius Cesar, and through 19 portrays the movements of Rome at this time, and Cesar's famous affair with Egypt's Cleopatra. Also his later exploits in the frontier "coast lands". 

Vs 17. "He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom; but it shall not stand or be to his advantage."

Vs 18. "Afterward he shall turn his face to the coast lands, and shall take many of them; but a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him."

Vs 19. "Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found."

Julius Cesar was assassinated at the hands of sixty fellow Romans led by G. Cassius Longinus the "commander" who "put an end to his insolence". Vs 19 is a repeat of the event in verse 18, but does not translate that well in language and style into English. The word "then" is an insert added by interpreters to make things "flow" for the reader.

I would like to again state that the above information is just history and easily verified with a quick search of Wikipedia, or ones favorite history books.

 

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:20 -

Daniel 11:20

"Than shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle."

This would be referring to Cesar Augustus who succeeded Julius Cesar and "established" the Roman Empire. He did not die in battle, or by assassination, but peacefully in his own bed.


 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Waiting for you to finish your "deciphering"

As I indicated, I'm waiting for you to finish your puzzle piece interpretation of Daniel 11 before I shred it.

I see you are almost halfway there.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Back on Line

Sorry for the delay. I am now back on line. Hopefully this old computer will not give me any more trouble.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:21 to...

The end of Daniel chapter 11 through Daniel chapter 12 have many interpretations given to them by many different scholars and theologians. I will give the one that seems to fit the best to me. Getting one or two of the powers mentioned off a bit is not nearly as important, as understanding the bigger picture presented.

11:21 "In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

vs 22. "Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, and the prince of the covenant also.

These verses refer to Tiberius Cesar (who was in power at the time of Christ) particularly, and Rome in general. Some suggest that there is a parallel reference to the papacy here with the reference to the prince of the covenant being figurative in reference to the obscuration of the ministry of Christ. These theological arguments may have something to them, but not necessarily.

vs 23. "And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully and he shall become strong with a small people."

vs 24. "Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province; and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers' fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time."

vs 25. "And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall wage war with a exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall hot stand for plots shall be devised against him."

vs 26. "Even those who eat his rich food shall be his undoing; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain."

vs 27. "And as for the two kings, their minds shall be bent on mischief; they shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail; for the end is yet to be at the time appointed".

vs 28. "And he shall return to his own land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land."

vs 29. "At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before."

vs 30. "For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant."

Verses 23 to 30 cover the period of pagan Rome.

"Ships from kittim" appear to be in reference to the ships the Vandals sailed into the Roman fleet and set on fire, nearly destroying the Roman naval capacity, and hastening the fall of Rome.

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:31 to

Daniel 11:31

"Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate."

Vs 32. "He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action."

Vs 33. "And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder,  for some days."

Vs 34. "When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery;"

Vs 35. "and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed."

Verses 31 to 35 appear to be covering the period of Papal supremacy. Governments were largely controlled or influenced by the established church, and those who stood up in opposition were severely persecuted. As the text states, persecution always has a refining effect on Gods people.

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:36 to

I haven't been able to log on to this website for a few days now. It seems as if the web site was down??

Daniel 11:36

"And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against The God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done."

Vs 37. "He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall  magnify himself above all."

Vs 38. "He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts."

Vs 39. "He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price."

We have been marching down through time. With this much time to cover, every detail of history can not be included. The writer of Daniel instead chooses to portray the various relevant aspects of each period of history briefly and than go on to the next. This has been done in a way that allows Gods people who live in those times and later to study and understand.

Verses 36 to 39 appear to be portraying "the age of reason", or atheistic communism. The previous kings of the north and south are long gone. A new king of the south arises. This time it is representative of spiritual Egypt.

Because of the abuses endured by Papal suppression, the nation of France rejected all belief in God. Napoleon, wanting control over Europe knew he must first overthrow the powerful Papacy. In 1798 he took the Pope (the now king of the north) captive.

Out of the rise of atheism, war was waged against the God of heaven. Darwin turned many away from their creator. Marx introduced Communistic Atheism, which took away the land from the people and gave it to the state. Freud taught the loss of morals and many turned from the desire of women.

A new era had began.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 11:40 to

Daniel 11:40. "At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him; but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through."

Vs 41. "He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites."

Vs 42. "He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape."

Vs 43. "He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train."

Vs 44. "But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many."

Vs 45. "And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him."

Verses 40 to 45 covers the re-establishment of the Papal Powers, the rapid fall of communism, and events still future.

1993 Reagan and Pope John Paul II met and agreed to undertake a clandestine campaign to hasten the fall of the communistic empire. The whole world was astonished at the rapid fall of this great empire. In the perspective of history it fell "like a whirlwind".

The power of the Papacy has been on the rise, and will continue to gain in power, and be a part of the end time events yet future.

Daniel chapter 11 should not end here. In the original scrolls there were no chapters and verses. As we shall see, chapter 12 to verse 3 is a continuation of chapter 11 so I will end my analogy of chapter 11 there.

 

 

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
There is only one "he" in

There is only one "he" in these verses. 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to the Gramster's

Response to the Gramster's Daniel 11 Fantasies

Gramps post 1040 wrote:


Chapter 11 follows the previous patterns of the other prophetic passages of "repeat and enlarge". It gives a closer look at the powers previously discussed.


Yes,  however since you ignored the point Daniel was a 2nd century BCE document, you then made them be what you required in order to propagate your Christian myths so the powers could be puzzle fit to your view to make the later rant in Revelation be something meaningful beyond the whining hate against Rome. Daniel has never been about Rome, only Antiochus IV.
Your separate discussion of Daniel chapters 10, 11, and 12 is really inappropriate as it really deals with only a single prophecy, but I'll play your game for now. You also should know by now that Cowles does not agree with your Roman view and indicates in great detail where your puzzle piece fitting is erroneous.


Gramps post 1040 wrote:

To someone not familiar with this period of history in this part of the world chapter 11 probably looks pretty confusing. A simple look into the events going on at this time makes this chapter much easier to understand.

vs 1 "And as for me (Probably Gabriel), in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him."

This verse states that at the beginning of the very short reign of Darius the Mede he was aided and influenced by an unseen helper.


One can construe the character to be conversing with any other fictional character one should choose.  Interesting it would seem  an angel wrote chapter 11  in the 1st person. So much for the god inspiring men to write.


Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.


Once again the writer of Daniel shows his  poor knowledge of history. And once again you show your puzzle piece technique of slamming square pegs into round holes. What Daniel 2 actually says is "And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.." JPS version. As this supposedly begins before any Persian kings it indicates Cyrus (549–529 BCE), Cambyses (529–522 BCE), Darius I (521–485 BCE). The 4th king is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus, 485–465 BCE) who attacks the  uncentralized Greek city states. Daniel ignores Bardiya (false Smerdis). Daniel only mentions the 4 kings and ignores there were 9 kings jumping to Alexander immediately after Xerxes. The other kings were Artaxerxes I (465–425 BCE), Darius II (425–405 BCE), Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE) and Darius III (338–330 BCE) who is defeated by Alexander and not mentioned by the writer of Daniel.


Gramps post 1040 wrote:

vs 3 "Than a mighty king (Alexander the Great) shall arise who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will."

vs 4 "And when he (Alexander) has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided towards the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these."

As we all know, Alexander the Great died soon after his great conquest. And his kingdom went to his leading generals. This would be Cassander (far west), Lysimachus (north), Seleucus (east), and Ptolemy (south).

I will give only one reference for the information above since it can all be easily found on Wikipedia by typing in the names in the search window. Numerous other sources can also be found to verify the above. Therefore Wikipedia is my reference given here.

Just so nobody will get offended, all the dates above are BC or BCE.

Next we will be discussing the kings of the North and of the South. We probably don't have any significant issues up to this point.


The writer of Daniel in the discussion here is accurate in regard to Alexander and the breakup of his conquests. Note - the Kingdom of the North is Syria and Babylon and the Kingdom of the South is Egypt.
Perhaps the term should be BTCM (before the Christ Myth).

Gramps post 1041 wrote:

Before discussing the kings of the North and the South, it will be good to give a few simple details for those who are not familiar with the geography and history at that time.

If one were standing in Jerusalem during the time period following Alexander the Great, directly North would be the Seleucid Empire in Syria and beyond. Directly South would be the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt and beyond.

The kings of the North (Seleucid kings) all went by the name Seleucus or Antiochus. The kings of the South (Ptolemic kings) all went by the name Ptolemy. This could be confusing. However it is simplified by the fact that they also had a number and "descriptive" name following. Example: Antiochus III the Great was followed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Pretty much.
Gramps post 1040 wrote:


Now all we have to do is follow history.

Oh that you would.
Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 5. "The king of the South (Ptolemy I Soter) shall be strong, but one of his princes (Seleucus I Nicator) shall be stronger than he and his dominion shall be a great dominion.

Seleucus I was originally one of Ptolemy I's generals. Through events that included the assistance of Ptolemy I Seleucus I ended up with a large territory mostly North and East of Jerusalem. Thus becoming the first king of the North.

What followed was a period of "feuding" between the Seleucud's and the Ptolemies, broken promises, assassinations, poisonings, and wars. The kind of stuff good books are made of.

Feuding hardly conveys the situation.

gramps post 1048 wrote:


Daniel 11:6

This one at first seems a bit more complicated. But as we will see, it still simply continues where vs 5 left off.

"After some years they (Antiochus II and Ptolemy II) shall make an alliance, and the daughter (Bernice) of the king of the south (Ptolemy II) shall come to the king of the north (Antiochus II) to make peace; but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he (Antiochus II) and her offspring (Bernice's baby) shall not endure; but she (Bernice) shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her (Anthichus II).

This looks much more complicated than it is. As was a common practice Antiochus II and Ptolemy II made an alliance. Antiochus II divorced his wife Laodice in order to marry Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy II. This was often done to help "cement" political relationships. When Ptolemy II died, Antiochus took Laodice back, but she had Antiochus II, Bernice, her baby, and attendants all killed. Look it up on Wikipedia or any other source you prefer. This is just what happened.

Interesting how you now recognize the interrelationships and marriages that you once upon a time denied.


Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.

Really what has occurred is a stalemate or detente where both sides are in a standoff mode.

gramps post 1051 wrote:

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.

Again, he fought back and recovered most of the territory in the east (Babylon) and pushed back in Syria, though the coast was still held by Egypt.
Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.
Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Vs 11. "Than the king of the south (Ptolemy IV) moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north (Antiochus III); and he (Antiochus III) shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his (Ptolemy's) hand."

Vs 13. "But when the multitude is taken (Antiochus III's army defeated) his (Ptolemy's) heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail."

This is simply a description of the battle of Raphia. This was a particularly sizable battle that involved many tens of thousands of soldiers as well as elephants. When the battle was over Antiochus III had lost around 10,000 men on the battlefield.

But as the text indicates Ptolemy IV did not prevail. For Antiochus III, as we shall see, would return.

This refers to the 4th Syrian war - see http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/4_syrian_war.html
In the end Antiochus III recaptured Seleucia (Antioch) and the coastal cities to Tyre. He is defeated at Raphia however territory was lost by Egypt and kept by Syria. More to come though.

gramps post 1052 wrote:

Daniel 11:13

"For the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall again raise a multitude greater than the former; and after some years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies."

As vs 12 indicated Ptolemy's victory would not last long. Antiochus III "bounced back", regrouped his forces, and returned for a "rematch" which did not go well for Ptolemy IV.

As Ptolemy IV was dead by the time of the 5th Syrian war not going well hardly covers it.
see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/5_syrian_war.html
gramps post 1052 wrote:

Vs 14. "In those times many shall rise against the king of the south; and the men of violence among your own people shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision; but they shall fail."

All along the Nile the Egyptians were defying and revolting against their Greek overlords ("many shall rise up&quotEye-wink. The south had a new king (Ptolemy V), and he was only a boy of six. Antiochus II also made an alliance with Philip of Macedon successor of Cassander in the west. All these rose up in hostility against the king of the south.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this or from what source you obtained it as it is filled with conjecture and accuracy issues. The agreement was between Antiochus III and Phillip V to expropriate the territories and possessions of Egypt and divide them.
What occurred after the assassination of Ptolemy IV and his wife-queen-sister was the conspirators including his father's mistress Agathoclea who killed them ruled as regents  for about 2 years .  Agathoclea and her family were lynched by a mob in Alexandria. This revolt was primarily instigated by general Tlepolemus. I don't see this as the many shall rise up in the puzzle fit way you do.


gramps post 1052 wrote:

Interestingly the Rosetta Stone records concessions made to the Egyptian people by the regents of the boy king in an effort to prevent further trouble.


Maybe you should actually read what is on the Rosetta Stone and take it in context to the customs of the Pharaohs and actual history of the time period, as:
"The stele is a late example of a class of donation stelae, which depicts the reigning monarch granting a tax exemption to the resident priesthood.[22] Pharaohs had erected these stelae over the previous 2,000 years, the earliest examples dating from the Egyptian Old Kingdom. In earlier periods all such decrees were issued by the king himself, but the Memphis decree was issued by the priests, as the maintainers of traditional Egyptian culture.[23] The decree records that Ptolemy V gave a gift of silver and grain to the temples.[24] It also records that in the eighth year of his reign during a particularly high Nile flood, he had the excess waters dammed for the benefit of the farmers.[24] In return for these concessions, the priesthood pledged that the king's birthday and coronation days would be celebrated annually, and that all the priests of Egypt would serve him alongside the other gods. The decree concludes with the instruction that a copy was to be placed in every temple, inscribed in the "language of the gods" (hieroglyphs), the "language of documents" (demotic), and the "language of the Greeks" as used by the Ptolemaic government.[25][26]" from WIKI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone
 

See also - http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_v_epiphanes.html

gramps post 1052 wrote:

The "men of violence among your own people" in the Hebrew means literally "the breakers of your people". This can mean either trouble from within, or from "outsiders". The Hebrew is not clear on this point.


But you seem to think you can fit marginal text to mean whatever you choose.


gramps post 1052 wrote:

Vs 15. "Then the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall come and throw up siege works, and take a well-fortified city. And the forces of the south shall not stand, for there shall be not strength to stand."

Antiochus III defeated a well trained army led by Scopas, a skilled general in the Egyptian army. His troops retreated to Tyre, but Antiochus laid siege to this well fortified city. When he had accomplished his mission, the north or the Seleucid Empire had a firm grip on Judea. The southern or Ptolemic kingdom never regained these territories.

We are now getting down to the time in history that Rome begins to enter the picture.


Rome as a power entered the picture when it declared war on Macedonia causing Antiochus to fend for himself against Egypt. Also Rome warned Antiochus III not to invade Egypt as they were Rome's major source of grain.
I'm sure you see this all as ordained by the god, but really it was related to spheres of influence and trade.
Before Rome involved itself, Antiochus III had used considerable resources and time in the siege of Jerusalem resulting in insufficient force to invade Egypt anyway.
see - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iii.html

gramps post 1053 wrote:

Daniel 11:16 -

Sorry for the delay. I have been otherwise involved lately on unavoidable issues.

The following verses can be interpreted to fit various figures in history. Therefore, what I will give is the ones that seem to be the best fit to me. Puzzle fitting if you want to think so.

You finally admit it.
gramps post 1053 wrote:

I will go through these as quickly and briefly as possible, since this is not essential to proving.


Everything has some relevance one way or the other perhaps not in a helpful way at times.


gramps post 1053 wrote:

Daniel 11:16

"But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and all of it shall be in his power."

A couple of things to note here. In Hebrew the word "he" is not used. This is not necessarily talking about a specific person, although it can be.

The second thing to note is that the author has suddenly stopped using the terms kings of the north and south. I believe this is because he is shifting his focus from the previously dominant powers (the Seleucids and Ptolemys), and now focusing on a new and powerful arising power (Rome).

Of course you'd see this as a point of divergence, I wondered which technique you'd use. Your fellow Christian Cowles mentions the various puzzle piece methods and point of departures and you have taken the 1st train to nowhere, see Cowles discussion pp  415-446

gramps post 1053 wrote:

"He" is referring to "Rome", and verse 16 is about the Roman armies under Pompey who campaigned through Syria, and into Palestine, including Jerusalem. He conquered all in his path.


Not hardly, it is still remains a discussion in regard to Antiochus IV.
See Cowles p420 discussion in regard to v16.


Why this is still Antiochus:
Antiochus in the 5th Syrian War  -
from Josephus see - http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Josephus,_Antiquities,_XII,_129-46:_Antiochus_III_conquers_Jerusalem
"(129) In the reign of Antiochus the Great 44 who ruled over all Asia, the Jews as well as the inhabitants of Celesyria, suffered greatly, and their land was greatly devastated. (130) For while he was at war with Ptolemy Philopater 45 and with his son, who was called Epiphanes, 46 it turned out that these nations suffered equally, both when he was defeated and when he was victorious. They were very much like a ship in a storm which is tossed by the waves on both sides, for they found themselves in the middle between Antiochus’s successes and the change to adversity. (131) But at length, when Antiochus had beaten Ptolemy, he seized Judea."
From - http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iii.html
 

He fits v16 to a T


1)None stood before him at this point anyway.
2)He took Syria aka the Beautiful Land from Egypt.
3)Many suffered, especially in Judea, see the Josephus quote above.


gramps post 1053 wrote:

At this point Pompey and Julius Cesar were in alliance with each other. That would change later.


Since neither has anything to do with this 2nd century BCE account and the alliance between them was 100 years away, you have jammed a piece where it does not fit.


gramps post 1053 wrote:


Verses 16 also concerns Julius Cesar, and through 19 portrays the movements of Rome at this time, and Cesar's famous affair with Egypt's Cleopatra. Also his later exploits in the frontier "coast lands".


Not at all.


gramps post 1053 wrote:


Vs 17. "He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. He shall give him the daughter of women to destroy the kingdom; but it shall not stand or be to his advantage."

Vs 18. "Afterward he shall turn his face to the coast lands, and shall take many of them; but a commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him."

Vs 19. "Then he shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found."

Julius Cesar was assassinated at the hands of sixty fellow Romans led by G. Cassius Longinus the "commander" who "put an end to his insolence". Vs 19 is a repeat of the event in verse 18, but does not translate that well in language and style into English. The word "then" is an insert added by interpreters to make things "flow" for the reader.


Antiochus after being denied the invasion of Egypt because Rome warned him not to mess with their food supplies, decided to invade by deceit using his own daughter as a wife to Ptolemy. In the end, she became loyal to her husband, bad plan on Antiochus the Great's part.


If this refers to Caesar, what daughter of women is meant? And how was this meant as a means to destroy the kingdom? And how did it supposedly fail? Please supply your conjecture and analysis to show relevance.
 Antiochus III after halting his plan to invade Egypt seized all the islands controlled by Egypt instead, see the 5th Syrian war again - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/5_syrian_war.html
The commander who put an end to his insolence was a Roman general named Sciopio when Antiochus III tried to invade Greece he was defeated at Magnesia in 190 BCE.
see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Magnesia
From Livius - "Peace of Apamea: cedes all territory north of the Taurus to the Roman ally Pergamon and agrees to pay an indemnity to Rome; his youngest son Antiochus is sent to Italy as hostage"
In the end Antiochus III is killed by a mob as he was looting temples as he was cash short after the crippling treaty imposed on him by the Romans.
I do not see any relationship with Julius Caesar in chapter 11 at all, you have not only put the wrong pieces in this puzzle, you have pieces from an entirely different puzzle.

gramps post 1053 wrote:

I would like to again state that the above information is just history and easily verified with a quick search of Wikipedia, or ones favorite history books.


History does indicate there were events in regard to Caesar, but it has nothing to do with Daniel 11 at all.  Your desperate attempt to construct a Roman relationship is built on self delusion.


Gramps post 1054 wrote:

Daniel 11:20

"Than shall arise in his place one who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle."

This would be referring to Cesar Augustus who succeeded Julius Cesar and "established" the Roman Empire. He did not die in battle, or by assassination, but peacefully in his own bed.


Again, not hardly. You have deluded yourself once more.
This refers to Seleucus IV who rules about 12 years far shorter than Antiochus the Great. He is killed not in war or anger but for power by Heliodorus who also kills his wife Laodice V. He sent Heliodorus to get cash from the Temple as he was very short of it thanks to Antiochus III.

Gramps post 1057 wrote:

Daniel 11:21 to...

The end of Daniel chapter 11 through Daniel chapter 12 have many interpretations given to them by many different scholars and theologians. I will give the one that seems to fit the best to me. Getting one or two of the powers mentioned off a bit is not nearly as important, as understanding the bigger picture presented.

You are lost in a world that never was  and never will be my friend.

Gramps post 1057 wrote:

11:21 "In his place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

vs 22. "Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, and the prince of the covenant also.

These verses refer to Tiberius Cesar (who was in power at the time of Christ) particularly, and Rome in general. Some suggest that there is a parallel reference to the papacy here with the reference to the prince of the covenant being figurative in reference to the obscuration of the ministry of Christ. These theological arguments may have something to them, but not necessarily.


The length you go to in creation of a prophecy is simply fantastic. Written in the 2nd century BCE who else would be meant by "a contemptible person" other than Antiochus IV. He came from Rome after his release as a hostage and no one saw him coming thanks to Heliodorus who killed Antiochus' brother and wife. He becomes king through the help of  King Eumenes Soter of Pergamon, which is intrigue or blandishments per JPS version.
 Let's not forget the 6th Syrian war mentioned in v22 see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/6_syrian_war.html
 

Gramps post 1057 wrote:

vs 23. "And from the time that an alliance is made with him he shall act deceitfully and he shall become strong with a small people."

vs 24. "Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province; and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers' fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time."

vs 25. "And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall wage war with a exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall hot stand for plots shall be devised against him."

vs 26. "Even those who eat his rich food shall be his undoing; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain."

vs 27. "And as for the two kings, their minds shall be bent on mischief; they shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail; for the end is yet to be at the time appointed".

vs 28. "And he shall return to his own land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, and return to his own land."

vs 29. "At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south; but it shall not be this time as it was before."

vs 30. "For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and give heed to those who forsake the holy covenant."

Verses 23 to 30 cover the period of pagan Rome.

"Ships from kittim" appear to be in reference to the ships the Vandals sailed into the Roman fleet and set on fire, nearly destroying the Roman naval capacity, and hastening the fall of Rome.


You amuse me with your fantasy here. Vandals, yeah sure and the Moon is made of Green Cheese.


I love how you skipped over all of this and avoided any real comments except your fantasy of Rome as a prophecy.


Why? Because it all fits Antiochus the IV of course.


v 23 - refers to the agreement made which after 3-1/2 years Antiochus breaks, killing Onais.
v 24 - refers to Antiochus venture into Armenia where he took the king captive, and he took much riches and booty and gave it very liberally to many individuals and cities just because.
v 25 - refers to his continuation of war against Egypt once again. He made an alliance with one brother Ptolemy VI against the other Ptolemy VII. There were at least 4 invasions of Egypt by Antiochus in this period.
v 26 - 27 refer to the 2 brothers Ptolemy VI and VII and the battle between them instigated and supported by Antiochus IV.
v 28 - In the Summer of 169 BCE ANtiochus returned to Judea with great riches amid the rumors he had been killed in Egypt as well. He took out his anger on Jerusalem, see 2 Mac  5. Supposedly killing over 40,000 and taking many captive and selling them into slavery.
v 29 - refers to Antiochus 3rd expedition into Egypt which unlike the others was not successful.
v 30 - In the 6th century BCE  "Kittim or Chittim" was in reference to Cyprus but in the 2nd century BCE it was understood as the Romans. And what happened was well known, the Roman Popilius Laenas ordered Antiochus to depart in the famous scene where he drew a circle in the sand. Antiochus IV returns to Judea and vents his anger violently upon the Jews.
And all of this is history, see Wiki,  Livius, Josephus, the Books of the Maccabees or whatever you'd like as a historical reference.

Gramps Post  1058 wrote:

Daniel 11:31
"Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate."
Vs 32. "He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action."
Vs 33. "And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder,  for some days."
Vs 34. "When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery;"
Vs 35. "and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed."
Verses 31 to 35 appear to be covering the period of Papal supremacy. Governments were largely controlled or influenced by the established church, and those who stood up in opposition were severely persecuted. As the text states, persecution always has a refining effect on Gods people.


You make an assertion that papal supremacy is discussed in these verses, no evidence provided, just your interpretations or one from some unnamed source you utilize.

Provide meticulous detail for this. Verse by verse, event by event.


However, as a 2nd century BCE rant regarding Antiochus IV, we still have a perfect fit:


v 31 - This is a very good description of the actions of Antiochus IV. In the Summer of 167 BCE he sent an army to Jerusalem, took it, put an idol in the Temple, sacrificed  pigs to Zeus, banned Jewish worship and sacrifice including the daily burnt offering. Sound like the glove fits.
v 32 - Many Jews according to the Books of the Maccabees disregarded the Jewish god and worship and were Hellenized, even to be idol worshipers. They accepted bribes, did the kings bidding and aided in persecuting those Jews who remained pious. See Maccabees and Cowles.
v 33- This is well documented in Maccabees and Josephus as the Jewish War or the War of the Maccabees.
v 34 - The God did not show up to help at all. (Funny how mythical constructs don't provide help isn't it) In addition, many treacherous acts befell the righteous Jews by their fellow countrymen, also well documented.
v 35 - Many of the leaders of the Jewish War fell and were killed, such as Jonathan and Judas. As the end of this particular period had not been reached as yet, the time of the end or the end of the persecution had not arrived at this point in the writing.
 

Gramps post 1059 wrote:

Daniel 11:36
"And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against The God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done."
Vs 37. "He shall give no heed to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women; he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall  magnify himself above all."
Vs 38. "He shall honor the god of fortresses instead of these; a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts."
Vs 39. "He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price."
We have been marching down through time. With this much time to cover, every detail of history can not be included. The writer of Daniel instead chooses to portray the various relevant aspects of each period of history briefly and than go on to the next. This has been done in a way that allows Gods people who live in those times and later to study and understand.


Yet, as a 2nd century BCE history it all is told without your fantasies and puzzle piece fitting of pieces from puzzles that have no place in this picture.


Gramps post 1059 wrote:

Verses 36 to 39 appear to be portraying "the age of reason", or atheistic communism. The previous kings of the north and south are long gone. A new king of the south arises. This time it is representative of spiritual Egypt.


What fantastic unsupported assertions out of thin air.


Meticulous proof is required from you on this.


Gramps post 1059 wrote:

Because of the abuses endured by Papal suppression, the nation of France rejected all belief in God. Napoleon, wanting control over Europe knew he must first overthrow the powerful Papacy. In 1798 he took the Pope (the now king of the north) captive.


Oh that it were true that the entire nation of France had become atheists at the time of Napoleon. The world may have developed in far better directions.

Do you have proof they were each and every one of them atheists in France at the time??? Is it by city, town or region?


Gramps post 1059 wrote:

Out of the rise of atheism, war was waged against the God of heaven. Darwin turned many away from their creator. Marx introduced Communistic Atheism, which took away the land from the people and gave it to the state. Freud taught the loss of morals and many turned from the desire of women.
A new era had began.


You are not in a church Gramps. These assertions are opinionated conjecture of your own delusions.


Provide meticulous detail for each of these claims.


First up, show the warfare against the god of the sky. You will have to now prove it exists to do that.


Ready, set, go.


Meanwhile, consider this:
v 36 - Antiochus did whatever he wanted as indicated in this verse. He disregarded the Jews god and forced beliefs in the Greek gods.
v 37 - The gods of his fathers were of Syria whom he also ordered the cessation of worship including the goddesses loved by women such as Astarte, Anath or Tammuz.
v 38 - Antiochus did honor the god of force, likely Mars or Ares perhaps even Hercules.
v 39 - As Antiochus rewarded well those who served him in his pursuits this also fits. He also did divide the land for a price in that he took cash for the appointment of the high priest for example.

Gramps post 1160 wrote:

Daniel 11:40. "At the time of the end the king of the south shall attack him; but the king of the north shall rush upon him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall come into countries and shall overflow and pass through."
Vs 41. "He shall come into the glorious land. And tens of thousands shall fall, but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the main part of the Ammonites."
Vs 42. "He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape."
Vs 43. "He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train."
Vs 44. "But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many."
Vs 45. "And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him."


Gramps post 1160 wrote:

Verses 40 to 45 covers the re-establishment of the Papal Powers, the rapid fall of communism, and events still future.


In your dreams.


v 40 - A summary of events in regard to Antiochus IV


v 41 - Antiochus did all of this, killing thousands.


v 42 - He attacked Egypt multiple times (at least 4) and their possessions elsewhere, well established by history.


v 43 - He seized treasures from Egypt in all of his successful wars. The JPS says "and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps" and as mercenaries they were.


v 44 - Antiochus fought battles in both the North (Armenia) and the East (Parthia) to keep control of his empire and to expand, see http://www.livius.org/am-ao/antiochus/antiochus_iv_epiphanes.html


v 45 - His end came after a failed attack on Susa in the East probably from an illness.


Gramps post 1160 wrote:

1993 Reagan and Pope John Paul II met and agreed to undertake a clandestine campaign to hasten the fall of the communistic empire. The whole world was astonished at the rapid fall of this great empire. In the perspective of history it fell "like a whirlwind".


Since Bill Clinton was president in 1993 and the USSR disintegrated in 1991 I think this is in error. What could an Ex-President do to bring about the collapse of the USSR 4 years after he left office, when it already had come about - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_%281982%E2%80%931991%29

Gramps post 1160 wrote:

The power of the Papacy has been on the rise, and will continue to gain in power, and be a part of the end time events yet future.


More assertions on your part. Please detail how the papacy is on the rise. As an Ex-Catholic I'm aware of even how US Catholics view the pope, pretty much as an adviser to be ignored when what he says goes against what they want. My Ex-wife, still a catholic took birth control pills most of the time we were married. Even with other pronouncements by the pope, they were taken as suggestions by most Catholics I knew.


Gramps post 1160 wrote:

Daniel chapter 11 should not end here. In the original scrolls there were no chapters and verses. As we shall see, chapter 12 to verse 3 is a continuation of chapter 11 so I will end my analogy of chapter 11 there.


What?

I'll address whatever it is you add later.



 

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

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 12:1-4

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation til that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Vs 2. "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Vs 3. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Vs 4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.

Now I will evaluate your claims and come up with a response.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Before

gramster wrote:

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people.

 

Ummm..... Jesus' name was/is really Michael?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Response to Gramster Dan 12:1-4 Views

gramster wrote:

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation til that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Vs 2. "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Vs 3. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Vs 4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.

Now I will evaluate your claims and come up with a response.

 

V1 comments-What is obvious here is the time mentioned "..at that time.." is the same as chapter 10 + 11. As you wanted this included with 11 it should have been obvious it was the same time. Instead you go forward to the Jesus myth and construe it applies to that character (real or not he was a character). So I beg to differ with your view. Cowles as well sees this as the same time, see p 447. The time of the persecution was occuring in the 2nd century BCE, it was as never before, see 1 & 2 Mac and Josephus as well as other accounts as to the violence done by Antiochus IV if you don't remember by now. Even Assyria and Babylon didn't persecute the Jews as Antiochus did. Those mentioned as written in the book is a reference to those who remained loyal and pious to the god, not those that left for the evil ways of the Greeks.

V2 comments - See Cowles p 449 - Here the writer suggests that "many" would wake to everlasting life, not all and he does not indicate when this may be either. It was not said here that this occurs "at that time", no it only indicates the writer believed this would occur at some point. When is not mentioned at all. What a 2nd century BCE writer thinks in regard to rising from the dead should be considered in light of the beliefs held by the various sects of Jews. Since this can't be shown as likely without further proof, (the god must be shown to be real for one), it only indicates a belief by the writer nothing else. It is part of the human way to believe there must be justice. Evil doers will pay for their evil forever after and the good will be rewarded. It helps the mind accept that evil people seem to have everything going for them when the good and righteous suffer and are oppressed.

V3- comments - Here the writer indicates his belief that those who are wise (pious, rightous, follow the god's way) will be rewarded. This reward in his opinion is forever. In the previous verse he indicated his view that those that were evil would be punished in some way as well. Both are unproved beliefs held by an ancient writer lacking knowledge in many things.

V4 comments - Here the writer indicates it was not yet time to be open about this discussion, Antiochus was either not yet dead, or the Jewish War was still in process. The time of the end of the persecution was not yet, but it was becoming close. See Cowles p 450 for his view.

No Jesus required here. No god required. No evil Roman conspiracy whether pagan or papal is needed. Only the evil deeds of one vile king named Antiochus IV.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Taking time to review

Greetings, I am currently taking some time to look into the viewpoints you have presented, and since much of it comes from Cowles, I am taking a closer look at his views as well. I am not ignoring anyone, and will respond in a few days.

Gramps.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Is time running out or is Camping another Wacko

gramster wrote:

Greetings, I am currently taking some time to look into the viewpoints you have presented, and since much of it comes from Cowles, I am taking a closer look at his views as well. I am not ignoring anyone, and will respond in a few days.

Gramps.

Maybe you should hurry up as one of your fellow doom sayer Christians, Harold Camping of familyradio.com predicts/claims that May 21st is the rapture. He and his followers have been transversing Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania in RVs disseminating this message, much of his derived views are from Daniel. One of his followers at ebiblefellowship uses Daniel 12:4 which you just cited in your posts.

I think he's just one more Wacko suffering from delusion.

What's your position on Camping's doom predictions?

tick....tick...tick

By the way, you can still sign up for message delivery to your loved ones if you get raptured at http://www.postrapturepost.com/ a site run by atheists that will delivery your messages after you have been taken.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Dates and Secret Raptures

I don't pay attention to "date setters", as the bible says that "no one knows the day or the hour" of the Lords return. I am also not a believer in the "secret rapture" theory. I hope he has fun "camping" in his RV's.

When the Lord comes, there will be no one "left behind" to send emails to. When it's over, it's over. I do not see myself as a doomsayer though. I view these prophecies as "good news", as it will put an end to all of the pain and suffering of this old world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Congrats on your 1st Year

By the way, Grampster, congratulations on making it a year on the site with us infidel heretic non-believers.

Many just come by and deliver the storytales and run. You at least make it more fun.

PJTS

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

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


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

Thanks,

It has been more than just interesting for me. I have enjoyed being able to have these conversations with those who have different views than I do.

And thanks for putting up with my "slowness", as it takes me much longer to do study and research than it used to.

I'll be back with a response to your comments on Daniel 11 hopefully soon.

Gramps

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Lost in Skeptispace

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Response to the Gramster's Daniel 11 Fantasies

Gramps post 1040 wrote:


Chapter 11 follows the previous patterns of the other prophetic passages of "repeat and enlarge". It gives a closer look at the powers previously discussed.

pjts wrote:


Yes,  however since you ignored the point Daniel was a 2nd century BCE document, you then made them be what you required in order to propagate your Christian myths so the powers could be puzzle fit to your view to make the later rant in Revelation be something meaningful beyond the whining hate against Rome. Daniel has never been about Rome, only Antiochus IV.

This is your problem from the start. One can hardly come to a rational conclusion by starting from an irrational assumption such as the one above.

Contrary to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still insist that the book of Daniel is not what it claims to be. That being prophecy written in the 5th century BC. You start out contracting the author from the outset, than continue to try to slam square pegs in round holes from there on.

I must continue to reject the highly irrational proposition that Daniel was written by a 2nd century author.

I find it interesting that the author is familiar with, and mentions by name the characters in the Babylonian and Early Persian Era. Daniel's own lifetime. And does not mention later characters by name such as Alexander the Great, or Antiochus IV. That would point to an early date. 

It is also interesting that this 2nd century BC author does not write this book in Greek like all of his 2nd century contemporaries. Instead the book of Daniel is written in Early Hebrew, Early Aramaic, with a few Early Akkadian, Old Persian, and Early Greek "loan words". The Early Greek being names of musical instruments. This also points strongly to an early date.

Also of interest is how the book of Daniel seemed to be accepted by the Qumran community, and Maccabees as early writings, and Daniel a real character. Not likely if this were written in the 2nd century BC. None of the references to Daniel found at Qumran indicate anything but the book being genuine of an early date, and Daniel being real.

The book of Daniel also should contain significant, verifiable historical errors in regards to the early periods of the book. None have been found! No not one!. Some of the events attributed to AE IV, and the 2nd century are however highly disputable. This also indicates an early date.

Daniel's knowledge of Belshazzar, and his being a co-regent is also not likely of a 2nd century BC author.

Daniel's knowledge of there being an interim ruler in Babylon directly after it's fall to Cyrus, and the appointment of satrap's at that time is also strongly indicative of an early date.

Daniel's usage of the term "Chaldean" is also indicative of an early date. As Herodotus circa 450 BC is referenced as using the term in the same way (that being a dual application). Both used the term to refer to the priestly caste, as well as in an ethnic sense. Not likely a 2nd century author would know to do this.

In the book of Daniel he is found to be fasting and mourning during passover. Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites taught the people not to fast during the passover shortly after Daniel's time. A 2nd century BC author would not likely have Daniel fasting during the passover.

Not to mention that Daniel is referred to by Jeremiah in his writings that clearly predate the 2nd century BC. I realize that liberals who refuse to acknowledge God try to make this a reference to someone else, but have failed to make much of a case.

This book has none of the earmarks of a late date authorship, and all of the earmarks of an early date. I can not imagine how one can claim to be rational and insist that this book is the product of a 2nd century writer. Therefore I must reject your completely unfounded assertion, and view this book as it claims to be, and as the overwhelming evidence points to. That being genuine 5th century BC prophecy.

Now I can proceed with the analysis of your "rebuttal" to my views.

 

 

 


 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Response to PJTS Square Pegs

 

gramster wrote:

vs 1 "And as for me (Probably Gabriel), in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him."

This verse states that at the beginning of the very short reign of Darius the Mede he was aided and influenced by an unseen helper.

pjts wrote:

One can construe the character to be conversing with any other fictional character one should choose.  Interesting it would seem  an angel wrote chapter 11  in the 1st person. So much for the god inspiring men to write.

Come now. You are brighter than that. This character is introduced by the author in chapter 10, and in chapter 11 he is still being "quoted".


Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

Once again the writer of Daniel shows his  poor knowledge of history. And once again you show your puzzle piece technique of slamming square pegs into round holes. What Daniel 2 actually says is "And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.." JPS version. As this supposedly begins before any Persian kings it indicates Cyrus (549–529 BCE), Cambyses (529–522 BCE), Darius I (521–485 BCE). The 4th king is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus, 485–465 BCE) who attacks the  uncentralized Greek city states. Daniel ignores Bardiya (false Smerdis). Daniel only mentions the 4 kings and ignores there were 9 kings jumping to Alexander immediately after Xerxes. The other kings were Artaxerxes I (465–425 BCE), Darius II (425–405 BCE), Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE) and Darius III (338–330 BCE) who is defeated by Alexander and not mentioned by the writer of Daniel.

Still playing ignorant? The author mentions the 1st three kings, than in order gives us details on the 4th (Artazeres II). There was no need to list the next 5 kings. They were not relevant to this part of the story.


Gramps post 1040 wrote:

vs 3 "Than a mighty king (Alexander the Great) shall arise who shall rule with great dominion and do according to his will."

vs 4 "And when he (Alexander) has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken and divided towards the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these."

As we all know, Alexander the Great died soon after his great conquest. And his kingdom went to his leading generals. This would be Cassander (far west), Lysimachus (north), Seleucus (east), and Ptolemy (south).

I will give only one reference for the information above since it can all be easily found on Wikipedia by typing in the names in the search window. Numerous other sources can also be found to verify the above. Therefore Wikipedia is my reference given here.

Just so nobody will get offended, all the dates above are BC or BCE.

Next we will be discussing the kings of the North and of the South. We probably don't have any significant issues up to this point.

pjts wrote:

The writer of Daniel in the discussion here is accurate in regard to Alexander and the breakup of his conquests. Note - the Kingdom of the North is Syria and Babylon and the Kingdom of the South is Egypt.
Perhaps the term should be BTCM (before the Christ Myth).

Your sarcasm is duly noted. Yes, Alexander of course. See below for K of North, and South.

Gramps post 1041 wrote:

Before discussing the kings of the North and the South, it will be good to give a few simple details for those who are not familiar with the geography and history at that time.

If one were standing in Jerusalem during the time period following Alexander the Great, directly North would be the Seleucid Empire in Syria and beyond. Directly South would be the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt and beyond.

The kings of the North (Seleucid kings) all went by the name Seleucus or Antiochus. The kings of the South (Ptolemic kings) all went by the name Ptolemy. This could be confusing. However it is simplified by the fact that they also had a number and "descriptive" name following. Example: Antiochus III the Great was followed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

pjts wrote:

Pretty much.


Gramps post 1040 wrote:


Now all we have to do is follow history.

pjts wrote:

Oh that you would.


Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 5. "The king of the South (Ptolemy I Soter) shall be strong, but one of his princes (Seleucus I Nicator) shall be stronger than he and his dominion shall be a great dominion.

Seleucus I was originally one of Ptolemy I's generals. Through events that included the assistance of Ptolemy I Seleucus I ended up with a large territory mostly North and East of Jerusalem. Thus becoming the first king of the North.

What followed was a period of "feuding" between the Seleucud's and the Ptolemies, broken promises, assassinations, poisonings, and wars. The kind of stuff good books are made of.

pjts wrote:

Feuding hardly conveys the situation.


gramps post 1048 wrote:


Daniel 11:6

This one at first seems a bit more complicated. But as we will see, it still simply continues where vs 5 left off.

"After some years they (Antiochus II and Ptolemy II) shall make an alliance, and the daughter (Bernice) of the king of the south (Ptolemy II) shall come to the king of the north (Antiochus II) to make peace; but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he (Antiochus II) and her offspring (Bernice's baby) shall not endure; but she (Bernice) shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her (Anthichus II).

This looks much more complicated than it is. As was a common practice Antiochus II and Ptolemy II made an alliance. Antiochus II divorced his wife Laodice in order to marry Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy II. This was often done to help "cement" political relationships. When Ptolemy II died, Antiochus took Laodice back, but she had Antiochus II, Bernice, her baby, and attendants all killed. Look it up on Wikipedia or any other source you prefer. This is just what happened.

pjts wrote:

Interesting how you now recognize the interrelationships and marriages that you once upon a time denied.



Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.

pjts wrote:

Really what has occurred is a stalemate or detente where both sides are in a standoff mode.

Your point exactly? He did not attack again. The text is accurate.

gramps post 1051 wrote:

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.

pjts wrote:

Again, he fought back and recovered most of the territory in the east (Babylon) and pushed back in Syria, though the coast was still held by Egypt.

Yes, he did have a "come back" later. Your point again?


Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

pjts wrote:

This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.


Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Vs 11. "Than the king of the south (Ptolemy IV) moved with anger, shall come out and fight with the king of the north (Antiochus III); and he (Antiochus III) shall raise a great multitude, but it shall be given into his (Ptolemy's) hand."

Vs 13. "But when the multitude is taken (Antiochus III's army defeated) his (Ptolemy's) heart shall be exalted, and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail."

This is simply a description of the battle of Raphia. This was a particularly sizable battle that involved many tens of thousands of soldiers as well as elephants. When the battle was over Antiochus III had lost around 10,000 men on the battlefield.

But as the text indicates Ptolemy IV did not prevail. For Antiochus III, as we shall see, would return.

pjts wrote:

This refers to the 4th Syrian war - see http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/4_syrian_war.html
In the end Antiochus III recaptured Seleucia (Antioch) and the coastal cities to Tyre. He is defeated at Raphia however territory was lost by Egypt and kept by Syria. More to come though.

Yes, more to come.
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
See, this kind of topic

See, this kind of topic really ignites my desire to learn history, but then I go to learn history and see it's just a giant gaping hole with a few narrow pathways that sometimes branch together or swell into small islands, and only semi-rarely do any of those branches or islands have sufficient support to walk on them with any certainty that you won't plunge into darkness.

It's pretty much exactly like the fossil record. Conditions had to be pretty well perfect in order for any records to survive, and even then they're usually broken and fragmented by the time we look at them. And occasionally you have to deal with a false specimen.

Couldn't decide which metaphor I liked better. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Gramps is Still Lost in the Land of Never Was

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Response to the Gramster's Daniel 11 Fantasies

Gramps post 1040 wrote:


Chapter 11 follows the previous patterns of the other prophetic passages of "repeat and enlarge". It gives a closer look at the powers previously discussed.

pjts wrote:


Yes,  however since you ignored the point Daniel was a 2nd century BCE document, you then made them be what you required in order to propagate your Christian myths so the powers could be puzzle fit to your view to make the later rant in Revelation be something meaningful beyond the whining hate against Rome. Daniel has never been about Rome, only Antiochus IV.

This is your problem from the start. One can hardly come to a rational conclusion by starting from an irrational assumption such as the one above.

Your whole thread is irrational with the assumption an invisible entity or "sky daddy" (© by Brian37) or invisible non-material brain (also © by Brian37) created, cares and plays with his playtoys in that which we perceive to be our reality. So let's not talk about irrational Gramps, you hold the award for it along with all other believers in such.

There is nothing rational in regards to the belief in such "sky daddy" (©Brian37) or any of the make belief fantasies that have been puzzle-piece fit to support the mythology or story-telling. You start with the fantasy that the story-telling myths of one group developed as explanations of what is and is not, taking their word for the fantasies on "faith" as you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the dimension that you occupy, that is the world of reality in which you are located. Nothing in reality supports your "sky daddy" (©Brian37) or any of the magic and Sci-Fi from the propaganda book you hold so dear as the book of the god any more than anything written by the Sumerians or Egyptians in their puzzle piece explanations of the world they found themselves. All such story telling episodes are based in ignorance of reality, lacking in understanding of the world and universe, and contain little more than the desire to find meaning in life by creating fantasies to support an answer to the burning question in their minds, "is there nothing more?" That you simply accept these fantasies "on faith" is irrational and all that proceeds from it is irrational.

Are we done with the insinuations of rationality and irrationality or would you like to just concentrate on that subject matter for the rest of this thread? I'd be glad to discuss how all of your beliefs are nothing but unsupported assertions based on story-telling of fantasy and beliefs in the dimension of Never Was and Never will Be.

gramster wrote:

Contrary to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still insist that the book of Daniel is not what it claims to be. That being prophecy written in the 5th century BC. You start out contracting the author from the outset, than continue to try to slam square pegs in round holes from there on.

Please directly quote the text where the writer of Daniel has copyrighted the work in the 5th century BCE, a new date for you actually as I thought you argued he wrote it in the 6th century BCE. Are you moving your date here?

gramster wrote:

I must continue to reject the highly irrational proposition that Daniel was written by a 2nd century author.

Of course, I'd not expect you to back off on your "sky daddy" ©Brian37 beliefs now. Keep on drinking the koolade.

gramster wrote:

I find it interesting that the author is familiar with, and mentions by name the characters in the Babylonian and Early Persian Era. Daniel's own lifetime. And does not mention later characters by name such as Alexander the Great, or Antiochus IV. That would point to an early date.

You are like my ex-wife, you keep bringing up the same ol' stuff that has been put out to pasture, over and over again.

As mentioned over a dozen times by now, the writer did a poor job with this especially in regard to both Babylonian leaders and events and Persian. You however simply claim none of this was important and ignore it.

gramster wrote:

It is also interesting that this 2nd century BC author does not write this book in Greek like all of his 2nd century contemporaries. Instead the book of Daniel is written in Early Hebrew, Early Aramaic, with a few Early Akkadian, Old Persian, and Early Greek "loan words". The Early Greek being names of musical instruments. This also points strongly to an early date.

From what source did you paraphrase this tidbit?

Aramaic was used extensively throughout the Persian empire and the later Greek kingdoms. It was supposedly the language of your character Jesus and his followers.

Previously pointed out to you was the use of Aramaic by the Jews in post 537

see - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1707&letter=A

For more on Aramaic see - http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/aramaic.htm

As the DSS was written and copied by hard core Jews, both Hebrew and Aramaic were their languages, not the pagan Greek infidel language.

gramster wrote:

Also of interest is how the book of Daniel seemed to be accepted by the Qumran community, and Maccabees as early writings, and Daniel a real character.

You have commentaries from the Qumran documents you would like to quote to support this assertion?

Previously, at least twice maybe 3 times by now, I have indicated the quantity of documents of Enoch versus Daniel in the DSS found at Qumran. Based on quantity, Enoch was held to be important and of extreme interest.

Do you hold the book of Enoch to be part of the god's word based exclusively on that as well?

see posts 1029, 544 among others.

There were 25 copies/ fragments of Enoch and only 8 of Daniel.

From this I suppose we can assert that Enoch was 300% more popular than Daniel or 300% more studied than Daniel.

Inclusion in the DSS documents only means it was preserved by them and does not show why they were. Neither assertion, Enoch or Daniel, should be held as meritorious without further support.

gramster wrote:

Not likely if this were written in the 2nd century BC. None of the references to Daniel found at Qumran indicate anything but the book being genuine of an early date, and Daniel being real.

What references at Qumran - cite your reference.

Since Enoch was 300% more popular than Daniel, it must clearly also be just as genuine based on your logic.

gramster wrote:

The book of Daniel also should contain significant, verifiable historical errors in regards to the early periods of the book. None have been found! No not one!. Some of the events attributed to AE IV, and the 2nd century are however highly disputable. This also indicates an early date.

This has been repeatedly at length argued in this thread and you have your fingers plugged into your ears and your eyes closed to anything that might burst your dreamworld fantasies.

See post #861 where I detailed some of the inaccuracies you ignore, not an inclusive list.

Repeatedly claiming this BS will not discredit the points presented multiple times to your viewing with blinders and a rose colored welding helmet.

gramster wrote:

Daniel's knowledge of Belshazzar, and his being a co-regent is also not likely of a 2nd century BC author.

The writer never mentioned Nabonidus even once and claimed Belshazzar was the king, which history shows that he was not.

See previous posts, repetition by you does not make it true.

gramster wrote:

Daniel's knowledge of there being an interim ruler in Babylon directly after it's fall to Cyrus, and the appointment of satrap's at that time is also strongly indicative of an early date.

Also repeatedly argued, do you think asserting this BS once more will make it true?

gramster wrote:

Daniel's usage of the term "Chaldean" is also indicative of an early date. As Herodotus circa 450 BC is referenced as using the term in the same way (that being a dual application). Both used the term to refer to the priestly caste, as well as in an ethnic sense. Not likely a 2nd century author would know to do this.

Daniel calls them magicians not an ethnic people. We have previously discussed this. In the 6th century BCE it referred to the people, later on it became the magicians and/or priests. This is actually evidence of a far newer dating than the 6th century. Go back and google search this thread for Chaldeans to see for yourself.

gramster wrote:

In the book of Daniel he is found to be fasting and mourning during passover. Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites taught the people not to fast during the passover shortly after Daniel's time. A 2nd century BC author would not likely have Daniel fasting during the passover.

Jewish practice on the Passover are well established and always included no leavening agents as well as basically low carbs-

see - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/holidaya.html

see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover

Whatever the character Daniel was doing did not necessarily reflect on the real world actions of all sects of Jews.

gramster wrote:

Not to mention that Daniel is referred to by Jeremiah in his writings that clearly predate the 2nd century BC. I realize that liberals who refuse to acknowledge God try to make this a reference to someone else, but have failed to make much of a case.

This we also argued. A simple mention of a name of a person does not in anyway validate the person and all events. Jeremiah wrote prior to the events in Babylon by the way.

gramster wrote:

This book has none of the earmarks of a late date authorship, and all of the earmarks of an early date. I can not imagine how one can claim to be rational and insist that this book is the product of a 2nd century writer. Therefore I must reject your completely unfounded assertion, and view this book as it claims to be, and as the overwhelming evidence points to. That being genuine 5th century BC prophecy.

Now I can proceed with the analysis of your "rebuttal" to my views. 
 

Again you bring up rational. Do you really want to discuss your fantasies in regards to a "sky daddy"©Brian37 or "disembodied brain"©Brian37?

We can just sidetrack from here on and discuss your views in your adult Santa fantasies and dispel with the rest of this analysis if you persist in using such language.

And keep it straight Gramps, you claim that Daniel was a 6th Century BCE author and repeatedly screw up and type 5th century BCE.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Lost in Skeptispace - Repaired

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Response to the Gramster's Daniel 11 Fantasies



Gramps post 1040 wrote:


Chapter 11 follows the previous patterns of the other prophetic passages of "repeat and enlarge". It gives a closer look at the powers previously discussed.

pjts wrote:


Yes,  however since you ignored the point Daniel was a 2nd century BCE document, you then made them be what you required in order to propagate your Christian myths so the powers could be puzzle fit to your view to make the later rant in Revelation be something meaningful beyond the whining hate against Rome. Daniel has never been about Rome, only Antiochus IV.

This is your problem from the start. One can hardly come to a rational conclusion by starting from an irrational assumption such as the one above.

Contrary to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you still insist that the book of Daniel is not what it claims to be. That being prophecy written in the 5th century BC. You start out contracting the author from the outset, than continue to try to slam square pegs in round holes from there on.

I must continue to reject the highly irrational proposition that Daniel was written by a 2nd century author.

I find it interesting that the author is familiar with, and mentions by name the characters in the Babylonian and Early Persian Era. Daniel's own lifetime. And does not mention later characters by name such as Alexander the Great, or Antiochus IV. That would point to an early date. 

It is also interesting that this 2nd century BC author does not write this book in Greek like all of his 2nd century contemporaries. Instead the book of Daniel is written in Early Hebrew, Early Aramaic, with a few Early Akkadian, Old Persian, and Early Greek "loan words". The Early Greek being names of musical instruments. This also points strongly to an early date.

Also of interest is how the book of Daniel seemed to be accepted by the Qumran community, and Maccabees as early writings, and Daniel a real character. Not likely if this were written in the 2nd century BC. None of the references to Daniel found at Qumran indicate anything but the book being genuine of an early date, and Daniel being real.

The book of Daniel also should contain significant, verifiable historical errors in regards to the early periods of the book. None have been found! No not one!. Some of the events attributed to AE IV, and the 2nd century are however highly disputable. This also indicates an early date.

Daniel's knowledge of Belshazzar, and his being a co-regent is also not likely of a 2nd century BC author.

Daniel's knowledge of there being an interim ruler in Babylon directly after it's fall to Cyrus, and the appointment of satrap's at that time is also strongly indicative of an early date.

Daniel's usage of the term "Chaldean" is also indicative of an early date. As Herodotus circa 450 BC is referenced as using the term in the same way (that being a dual application). Both used the term to refer to the priestly caste, as well as in an ethnic sense. Not likely a 2nd century author would know to do this.

In the book of Daniel he is found to be fasting and mourning during passover. Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites taught the people not to fast during the passover shortly after Daniel's time. A 2nd century BC author would not likely have Daniel fasting during the passover.

Not to mention that Daniel is referred to by Jeremiah in his writings that clearly predate the 2nd century BC. I realize that liberals who refuse to acknowledge God try to make this a reference to someone else, but have failed to make much of a case.

This book has none of the earmarks of a late date authorship, and all of the earmarks of an early date. I can not imagine how one can claim to be rational and insist that this book is the product of a 2nd century writer. Therefore I must reject your completely unfounded assertion, and view this book as it claims to be, and as the overwhelming evidence points to. That being genuine 5th century BC prophecy.

Now I can proceed with the analysis of your "rebuttal" to my views.

 

 


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

Greetings cj,

In ancient languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic there are no such words such as he, she, is, etc. These are added by the interpreters and are not always true to the meaning of the text. That is why it is important to go back to the original and read a direct translation in order to determine what interpretation best fits the text.


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

 

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

vs 1 "And as for me (Probably Gabriel), in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him."

This verse states that at the beginning of the very short reign of Darius the Mede he was aided and influenced by an unseen helper.

pjts wrote:

One can construe the character to be conversing with any other fictional character one should choose.  Interesting it would seem  an angel wrote chapter 11  in the 1st person. So much for the god inspiring men to write.

Come now. You are brighter than that. This character is introduced by the author in chapter 10, and in chapter 11 he is still being "quoted".

Quoted or written by an invisible being is just one more piece of fantasy added to this adventure in the Land of Never Was. The invisible fantasy being introduced is named in the previous story telling chapter which in fact dates it to a later period as well. Jews did not name the creatures called angels until the later periods. Search on this subject on google yourself.

gramster wrote:

Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

Once again the writer of Daniel shows his  poor knowledge of history. And once again you show your puzzle piece technique of slamming square pegs into round holes. What Daniel 2 actually says is "And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.." JPS version. As this supposedly begins before any Persian kings it indicates Cyrus (549–529 BCE), Cambyses (529–522 BCE), Darius I (521–485 BCE). The 4th king is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus, 485–465 BCE) who attacks the  uncentralized Greek city states. Daniel ignores Bardiya (false Smerdis). Daniel only mentions the 4 kings and ignores there were 9 kings jumping to Alexander immediately after Xerxes. The other kings were Artaxerxes I (465–425 BCE), Darius II (425–405 BCE), Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE) and Darius III (338–330 BCE) who is defeated by Alexander and not mentioned by the writer of Daniel.

Still playing ignorant? The author mentions the 1st three kings, than in order gives us details on the 4th (Artazeres II). There was no need to list the next 5 kings. They were not relevant to this part of the story.

Remember your statement of relevance later. Even from the perspective of the Jews, who was more relevant to them? Xerxes? Or Artaxexes II?

So which king was the 4th king? Xerxes or Artaxerxes II? You indicate in your comments both were.

 

gramster wrote:

 

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

gramster wrote:


Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.

pjts wrote:

Really what has occurred is a stalemate or detente where both sides are in a standoff mode.

Your point exactly? He did not attack again. The text is accurate.

Is it? Only if you accept certain records and ignore others.

gramster wrote:


gramps post 1051 wrote:

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.

pjts wrote:

Again, he fought back and recovered most of the territory in the east (Babylon) and pushed back in Syria, though the coast was still held by Egypt.

Yes, he did have a "come back" later. Your point again?

Your summary was not accurate is the point.

gramster wrote:


Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

pjts wrote:

This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

gramster wrote:

Yes, more to come.

I await your further comments and conjecture.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Greetings

gramster wrote:

Greetings cj,

In ancient languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic there are no such words such as he, she, is, etc. These are added by the interpreters and are not always true to the meaning of the text. That is why it is important to go back to the original and read a direct translation in order to determine what interpretation best fits the text.

 

This does not explain why those verses seemingly imply one person rather than many different people.  You quoted the text as translated into English.  If the original text is more clearly many people, perhaps you could find a translation that better demonstrates this? 

So far your analysis of Daniel has not convinced me that this is prophecy.  It appears to be only a text that is attempting to make Israel/Judea into more than the rather dismal reality of being back country poor cousins of the real powers in the area at that time.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Post #861 Nothing Here !!!

 

gramster wrote:

Inaccuracies?

PJTS wrote:

Yep.

gramster wrote:

Crown Prince "Belshazzar" named "sole" ruler?? Now who's inserting words into the text?

PJTS wrote:

Yep, that's  the the story line in Daniel.

Show me where in Daniel it says that Belshazzar was the "sole ruler" in Babylon. You are really having to stretch things to try to get this one. Belshazzar is called "king". From the cylinders it has been made clear that Belshazzar was co regent with Nabonidus. Belshazzar ruled in Babylon, while Nabonidus was in Tema.

I would not imagine that it would go well for one of Belshazzar's subjects to start claiming that he was not a "real king". If Daniel were to refer to him as anything less, his life would probably be in jeopardy. Please tell me what title you think that a Hebrew author would have used at that time???

You take "non issues", and play them up as if they really meant something. This is a non issue. Nada!

PJTS wrote:

Number of times Nabonidus is mentioned in Daniel = 0

Number of times Nabonidus is mentioned in any OT book = 0

Another "non issue". Where in the book of Daniel would the mention of Nabonidus fit in?? Maybe the author of Daniel could have said "by the way while the bloodless hand was writing on the wall, Nabonidus was sleeping in the other room". The stories were not about him. It was Nebochadnezzar and than Belshazzar that were ruling in the city of Babylon at that time. Not Nebonidus.

PJTS wrote:

Number of times Daniel is mentioned in Babylonian records such as:

the Nabonidus Chronicles = 0

Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar = 0

Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur = 0

Verse Account of Nabonidus = 0

Date of discovery and translation of ancient Babylonian clay tablets = 19th century (1854 to 1880 approximate)

Time span of Christian distortion and promotion of BS in regard to Babylon and Daniel = 1800 years.

Still playing ignorant??? Now why would Daniel be mentioned in the cylinder of Sippar or Ur when these are about Nabonidus rebuilding 3 temples and a ziggurat. Unless of course Daniel was a foreman on the construction crew.

Or how about the Nabonidus chronicles which talks about the deaths of kings, major military events, and notable religious events??

Maybe Daniel should have been mentioned in the Verse Accounts?? Which is an attack on the character of Nabonidus, contrasting him with Cyrus and Cambyses?? They could have said that Nabonidus was not nearly as righteous as Daniel???

These are really good arguments. I am deeply impressed.

PJTS wrote:

Belshazzar who is not related to Nebucahdnezzar is claimed in Daniel to be his son whereas the Nabonidus documents say he was his son.

See above. The word for "father" can mean ancestor, family member, forefather, grandfather, relative, successor, and can have a literal, immediate, or figurative application. I think you are the one ignoring the evidence here. King Nebuchadnezzar would certainly not have any trouble fitting into this list.

 

It is typical for an atheist to go to the extremes trying to prove that there "may" be inaccuracies in the Bible. Especially in regards to prophecy. What is incredible is how amazingly accurate the Bible proves to be when further evidence is actually "dug up".

PJTS wrote:

It is typical for a hard core Bible believer to accept magic and Sci-Fi as real from ancient texts, but only from the ancient Bible texts that is, magic and Sci-Fi from other ancients are clearly myths and meaderings of the ancient ignorant, right?

Magic and Sci-Fi in Daniel such as :

a disembodied hand writing on a wall,

men tossed in furnace and not charred,

man tossed in a den of lions and survived,

telling and interpretating a dream of someone else.

These all must be real because these assertions show the power of the man created god of the Jews. Never mind that they are all fantasy based and fly in the face of reality.

This is your only argument. It can't be prophecy because you don't believe in God. Therefore any miracles are proof that this book is not of God, but fiction??

 

 


 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Grams. your only argument

Grams. your only argument seems to be that Daniel must be prophecy because he is mentioned nowhere in history and he gets stuff wrong.

"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
What is it about . . .

What is it about "no known historical errors" that you don't understand. Nothing! Nada! I have not yet been shown a single proven historical error in the whole book of Daniel. Even the alleged "questionable" texts have been exaggerated and taken out of context. There is nothing in the whole book that is not entirely consistent with having been written by a 6th century BC author.

You guys amaze me!

PuzzledPuzzled Puzzled


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

gramster wrote:

What is it about "no known historical errors" that you don't understand. Nothing! Nada! I have not yet been shown a single proven historical error in the whole book of Daniel. Even the alleged "questionable" texts have been exaggerated and taken out of context. There is nothing in the whole book that is not entirely consistent with having been written by a 6th century BC author.

You guys amaze me!

PuzzledPuzzled Puzzled

You have been shown these things repeatedly. You choose to redefine history to make sure it fits the conclusion you want to support and damn the facts.

I used to be shocked when I saw a dishonest Christian - now my jaw drops when an honest one shows up.

"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
Shown What Exactly??


gramster wrote:

What is it about "no known historical errors" that you don't understand. Nothing! Nada! I have not yet been shown a single proven historical error in the whole book of Daniel. Even the alleged "questionable" texts have been exaggerated and taken out of context. There is nothing in the whole book that is not entirely consistent with having been written by a 6th century BC author.

You guys amaze me!

PuzzledPuzzled Puzzled

gadfly wrote:

You have been shown these things repeatedly. You choose to redefine history to make sure it fits the conclusion you want to support and damn the facts.

I used to be shocked when I saw a dishonest Christian - now my jaw drops when an honest one shows up.

I have been shown just what exactly?? How the name of Daniel does not appear on the Nabonidus cylinder at Sippar which is about Nabonidus repairing 3 temples?? Or how the book of Daniel refers to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's "son" which could mean relative or successor??

I have been shown NOTHING exactly! Nothing indicative of a late date except for the resistance of some to accept the existence of prophecy.

I find it highly interesting that you have a strong tendency to start labeling Christians as "dishonest" every time you have no real argument to stand on.

I am not offended or shocked by your bad behavior since I know that it is your only defense.

 


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

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

Inaccuracies?

PJTS wrote:

Yep.

gramster wrote:

Crown Prince "Belshazzar" named "sole" ruler?? Now who's inserting words into the text?

PJTS wrote:

Yep, that's  the the story line in Daniel.

Show me where in Daniel it says that Belshazzar was the "sole ruler" in Babylon. You are really having to stretch things to try to get this one. Belshazzar is called "king". From the cylinders it has been made clear that Belshazzar was co regent with Nabonidus. Belshazzar ruled in Babylon, while Nabonidus was in Tema.

I would not imagine that it would go well for one of Belshazzar's subjects to start claiming that he was not a "real king". If Daniel were to refer to him as anything less, his life would probably be in jeopardy. Please tell me what title you think that a Hebrew author would have used at that time???

You take "non issues", and play them up as if they really meant something. This is a non issue. Nada!

 

Show me in Daniel where Belshazzar is ever called the Crown Prince.

Show me in Daniel where Belshalzzar is ever mentioned as the coregent with Nabonidus or just called the coregent.

In the cylinders Belshalzzar is called the Crown Prince never the king, that's what the Hebrew writer should have called him.

In the following records of the kings of Akkad/Babylon notice Belshalzzar is not listed.

from the Uruk king list:

line 9 - Neriglissar - 3 years 8 months - 559-556 BCE

line 10 - Labasi-Marduk - 3 months - 556 BCE

line 11 - Nabonidus - 17 years - 555- 539 BCE

line 12 - Cyrus - [ x years ] - 539 - 530 BCE

Note - There is no Belshalzzzar listed.

 

see - http://www.livius.org/k/kinglist/uruk.html

 

Frpm Ptolemy's canon

number 19 - Neriglissar - 4 years - 559-556 BCE

number 20 - Nabonidus - 17 years - 555-539 BCE

number 21 - Cyrus - 9 years - 539 - 530 BCE

Note the 3 month reign of Labasi-Marduk is not included, a speck in the history.

Also note - No Belshalzzar named as king or co regent with Nabonidus.

 

see - http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronology/canon.html

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

Number of times Nabonidus is mentioned in Daniel = 0

Number of times Nabonidus is mentioned in any OT book = 0

Another "non issue". Where in the book of Daniel would the mention of Nabonidus fit in?? Maybe the author of Daniel could have said "by the way while the bloodless hand was writing on the wall, Nabonidus was sleeping in the other room". The stories were not about him. It was Nebochadnezzar and than Belshazzar that were ruling in the city of Babylon at that time. Not Nebonidus.

Nabonidus was the direct cause of Babylon's fall to Cyrus and the Persians because of his inattention to Cyrus activities and his preoccupation with Arabia and the Moongod Sin over Bel (Marduk)

You do not wish to consider the error of the writer who knew not of Nabonidus when he wrote in the 2nd century BCE as it shows he lacked complete knowledge of the events depicted in the tablets and records of the Babylonians, and Cyrus. These tablets are clear as to why and how Babylon is conquered and the writer of Daniel errors by these omissions.

In the event Daniel was such a high official from the time of Nebucadnezzar to Cyrus, somewhere his name would be on one of the 100s of thousands of tablets and records.

So far, nothing.

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

Number of times Daniel is mentioned in Babylonian records such as:

the Nabonidus Chronicles = 0

Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar = 0

Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur = 0

Verse Account of Nabonidus = 0

Date of discovery and translation of ancient Babylonian clay tablets = 19th century (1854 to 1880 approximate)

Time span of Christian distortion and promotion of BS in regard to Babylon and Daniel = 1800 years.

Still playing ignorant??? Now why would Daniel be mentioned in the cylinder of Sippar or Ur when these are about Nabonidus rebuilding 3 temples and a ziggurat. Unless of course Daniel was a foreman on the construction crew.

Or how about the Nabonidus chronicles which talks about the deaths of kings, major military events, and notable religious events??

Maybe Daniel should have been mentioned in the Verse Accounts?? Which is an attack on the character of Nabonidus, contrasting him with Cyrus and Cambyses?? They could have said that Nabonidus was not nearly as righteous as Daniel???

These are really good arguments. I am deeply impressed.

In the verse account Daniel easily could have been mentioned as evidence of his disregard of the gods by placing a Jew non-believer over the righteous god believers of Bel (Marduk). Nothing mentioned though was there?

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

Belshazzar who is not related to Nebucahdnezzar is claimed in Daniel to be his son whereas the Nabonidus documents say he was his son.

See above. The word for "father" can mean ancestor, family member, forefather, grandfather, relative, successor, and can have a literal, immediate, or figurative application. I think you are the one ignoring the evidence here. King Nebuchadnezzar would certainly not have any trouble fitting into this list.

 

It is typical for an atheist to go to the extremes trying to prove that there "may" be inaccuracies in the Bible. Especially in regards to prophecy. What is incredible is how amazingly accurate the Bible proves to be when further evidence is actually "dug up".

You choose to use what fits your need to make this mean ancestor or succesor, neither of which was Belshalzzar to Nebucadnezzar as evidenced by the tablets that only name Nabonidus as king.

Daniel calling Belshalzzar king multiple times over and over is further evidence of his omissions that you wish to push under the rug. He was the crown prince, not the king and that's what is shown in the tablets.

gramster wrote:

PJTS wrote:

It is typical for a hard core Bible believer to accept magic and Sci-Fi as real from ancient texts, but only from the ancient Bible texts that is, magic and Sci-Fi from other ancients are clearly myths and meaderings of the ancient ignorant, right?

Magic and Sci-Fi in Daniel such as :

a disembodied hand writing on a wall,

men tossed in furnace and not charred,

man tossed in a den of lions and survived,

telling and interpretating a dream of someone else.

These all must be real because these assertions show the power of the man created god of the Jews. Never mind that they are all fantasy based and fly in the face of reality.

This is your only argument. It can't be prophecy because you don't believe in God. Therefore any miracles are proof that this book is not of God, but fiction??

 

Daniel is story telling not prophecy.

It has issues you wish to ignore, this thread is filled with them.

If you believe in this magic produce it. Put the magic claimed here on the lab table. In other words, prove these impossible events described actually happened or could happen.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

What is it about "no known historical errors" that you don't understand. Nothing! Nada! I have not yet been shown a single proven historical error in the whole book of Daniel. Even the alleged "questionable" texts have been exaggerated and taken out of context. There is nothing in the whole book that is not entirely consistent with having been written by a 6th century BC author.

You guys amaze me!

PuzzledPuzzled Puzzled

gadfly wrote:

You have been shown these things repeatedly. You choose to redefine history to make sure it fits the conclusion you want to support and damn the facts.

I used to be shocked when I saw a dishonest Christian - now my jaw drops when an honest one shows up.

I have been shown just what exactly?? How the name of Daniel does not appear on the Nabonidus cylinder at Sippar which is about Nabonidus repairing 3 temples?? Or how the book of Daniel refers to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's "son" which could mean relative or successor??

I have been shown NOTHING exactly! Nothing indicative of a late date except for the resistance of some to accept the existence of prophecy.

I find it highly interesting that you have a strong tendency to start labeling Christians as "dishonest" every time you have no real argument to stand on.

I am not offended or shocked by your bad behavior since I know that it is your only defense.

 

You've been shown that the history that the writer tries to tell is wrong.

You've been shown that the "prophecy" that you claim has only the meaning that you claim it does in fact has many meanings.

You've been shown research from others that you dispute for no other reason than you can't fit the Jesus into it.

You've earned the label of dishonest because you have displayed examples of dishonesty in this thread for all to see.

If telling you the truth is bad behavior then expect me to get downright unruly.

 

"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
Nothing huh?

gramster wrote:


I have been shown NOTHING exactly! Nothing indicative of a late date except for the resistance of some to accept the existence of prophecy.


 

 

NOTHING huh?

I knew it was rather a pointless exercise in having this discussion with you. I thought there you learned a few things, guess not.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Backing ones claim


gramster wrote:

I have been shown NOTHING exactly! Nothing indicative of a late date except for the resistance of some to accept the existence of prophecy.

pjts wrote:

NOTHING huh?

I knew it was rather a pointless exercise in having this discussion with you. I thought there you learned a few things, guess not. 

Yes, it is rather pointless to continue to argue a point when there is no real evidence to back ones claim.

You continue to make the claim, but can not back it up with a rational argument. I have answered every argument you have put forward with evidence and common sense. Take common sense away and what do you have? A skeptic I guess?

By that definition I cannot allow myself to be one. Things must make rational sense to me.

Now that we have established that there is no evidence for a late date for the Book of Daniel, I will get back to the evaluation of the text.

 

 

 


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

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

I have been shown NOTHING exactly! Nothing indicative of a late date except for the resistance of some to accept the existence of prophecy.

pjts wrote:

NOTHING huh?

I knew it was rather a pointless exercise in having this discussion with you. I thought there you learned a few things, guess not. 

Yes, it is rather pointless to continue to argue a point when there is no real evidence to back ones claim.

You continue to make the claim, but can not back it up with a rational argument. I have answered every argument you have put forward with evidence and common sense. Take common sense away and what do you have? A skeptic I guess?

By that definition I cannot allow myself to be one. Things must make rational sense to me.

Now that we have established that there is no evidence for a late date for the Book of Daniel, I will get back to the evaluation of the text.

 

 

 

Grams, the ninth commandment is not supposed to be optional for you. Please stop treating it like it is. That would go so far in removing the "dishonest" tag.

You've essentially responded to pjts' research and arguments with "huh-uh! I'm right cause Jesus said so!".

Actually I should thank you - allyou've done is establish a late date for Daniel (though I'm sure you didn't mean to).

"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: pjts

gramster wrote:

 

pjts wrote:

NOTHING huh?

I knew it was rather a pointless exercise in having this discussion with you. I thought there you learned a few things, guess not. 

Yes, it is rather pointless to continue to argue a point when there is no real evidence to back ones claim.

Yet you  continue to do so for 100s of posts.

The pointless exercise was even having this discussion regarding Daniel with you. It was clear early on that you would ignore any and everything that challenged your beliefs in fantasy.

If and when you ever finish your presentation, I will list all of the open issues you bypassed, ignored, dismissed without cause, accepted for no apparent reason and interpolated between lines of poorly understood ancient texts that are unclear as to exact translation.

gramster wrote:

Now that we have established that there is no evidence for a late date for the Book of Daniel, I will get back to the evaluation of the text.

 

Since no we established anything, unless you are using someone else's text that you are copying without credit it is only you that is convinced a late date is not correct.

 

Only you have convinced yourself it cannot be of a late date, no we was involved.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Still Waiting

Empty blogging does will not make your non arguments any more rational. I am still waiting for some real evidence that would make a rational person doubt the 6th century authorship of the Book of Daniel. As of yet I have not seen any. Nada!.

The name of Daniel not being mentioned in the accounts of Nabonidus building and restoration projects are certainly less than impressive.

The term used for "father, relative, successor, etc" being applied to Nebuchadnezzar is also much less than impressive.

Daniel not mentioning Nebonidus, since he was not physically present and ruling in Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were is also much less than impressive.

The claim that Belshazzar died in the battle of Opis has never been established. No references to ancient documents for this have ever been located.

It appears that all you have to offer is old, stale, recycled arguments that have been successfully and thoroughly refuted many times over.

You are left with all that Sci-Fi garbage atheists spout endlessly. God can't exist because I don't believe in anything I can not understand.

And Gadfly can only parrot his claims that theists are dishonest. I have not been dishonest. I have offered a challenge that has not been met. And that is what is getting his goat.

Show me something real. Something rational. Something that can honestly be called evidence. So far I have been given nothing.


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

gramster wrote:

Empty blogging does will not make your non arguments any more rational.

You complain about others farting around, yet that's what you have been doing now for several weeks.

Finish already!

gramster wrote:

I am still waiting for some real evidence that would make a rational person doubt the 6th century authorship of the Book of Daniel. As of yet I have not seen any. Nada!.

The point was never to find evidence to doubt a 6th century BCE origin but to prove it originated then. On this you have failed.

I thought your point of this discussion was to show that Daniel was prophecy therefore the god is real. You have always needed to show that the writer without any doubt had to have written before the events that are described. That there are reasonable doubts as expressed in countless posts shows you have failed to dispel other possibilities. As shown to you throughout this discussion there are other interpretations possible that explain the story presented in Daniel. These interpretations do so without magic or a "sky daddy" ©Brian37. How can one accept the magic which flies in the face of reality just like any other ancient story by ignorant to the laws of physics and science people, and here I don't just mean the Jews, I mean all of those who believed a god/gods/goddess did it as an explanation. Even other Christians, Catholics and Jews interpret Daniel far different than you as shown by Cowles, the Catholic Church, and Jewish commentaries.

 

gramster wrote:

The name of Daniel not being mentioned in the accounts of Nabonidus building and restoration projects are certainly less than impressive.

The term used for "father, relative, successor, etc" being applied to Nebuchadnezzar is also much less than impressive.

Daniel not mentioning Nebonidus, since he was not physically present and ruling in Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were is also much less than impressive.

The claim that Belshazzar died in the battle of Opis has never been established. No references to ancient documents for this have ever been located.

You argue like my ex-wife. Concentrate on one little thing, misrepresent and distort and claim you have won.

gramster wrote:

It appears that all you have to offer is old, stale, recycled arguments that have been successfully and thoroughly refuted many times over.

Now you are simply projecting. You argue with the same worn out arguments that have been discarded by the majority of Christians and Catholics as well as the Jewish originators of the god.

gramster wrote:

You are left with all that Sci-Fi garbage atheists spout endlessly. God can't exist because I don't believe in anything I can not understand.

The book of Daniel does not exist in a vacuum, it is a continuation of the Sci-Fi mythology of one group of ancients trying to explain their world just like all the other god myths of their time. The Sumerians, Canaanites and the Egyptians also have their own story telling that shows ignorance to reality.

You cannot get to where you want using Daniel.

gramster wrote:

And Gadfly can only parrot his claims that theists are dishonest. I have not been dishonest. I have offered a challenge that has not been met. And that is what is getting his goat.

Show me something real. Something rational. Something that can honestly be called evidence. So far I have been given nothing.

I'm not making the claim Daniel shows the god is real, you are.

You produce the proof the god is real, it's your claim.

Still waiting.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Honesty and Farting Around


gramster wrote:

Empty blogging does will not make your non arguments any more rational.

pjts wrote:

You complain about others farting around, yet that's what you have been doing now for several weeks.

Finish already!

 

gramster wrote:

I am still waiting for some real evidence that would make a rational person doubt the 6th century authorship of the Book of Daniel. As of yet I have not seen any. Nada!.

pjts wrote:

The point was never to find evidence to doubt a 6th century BCE origin but to prove it originated then. On this you have failed.

I thought your point of this discussion was to show that Daniel was prophecy therefore the god is real. You have always needed to show that the writer without any doubt had to have written before the events that are described. That there are reasonable doubts as expressed in countless posts shows you have failed to dispel other possibilities. As shown to you throughout this discussion there are other interpretations possible that explain the story presented in Daniel. These interpretations do so without magic or a "sky daddy" ©Brian37. How can one accept the magic which flies in the face of reality just like any other ancient story by ignorant to the laws of physics and science people, and here I don't just mean the Jews, I mean all of those who believed a god/gods/goddess did it as an explanation. Even other Christians, Catholics and Jews interpret Daniel far different than you as shown by Cowles, the Catholic Church, and Jewish commentaries.

 

gramster wrote:

The name of Daniel not being mentioned in the accounts of Nabonidus building and restoration projects are certainly less than impressive.

The term used for "father, relative, successor, etc" being applied to Nebuchadnezzar is also much less than impressive.

Daniel not mentioning Nebonidus, since he was not physically present and ruling in Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were is also much less than impressive.

The claim that Belshazzar died in the battle of Opis has never been established. No references to ancient documents for this have ever been located.

pjts wrote:

You argue like my ex-wife. Concentrate on one little thing, misrepresent and distort and claim you have won.

gramster wrote:

It appears that all you have to offer is old, stale, recycled arguments that have been successfully and thoroughly refuted many times over.

pjst wrote:

Now you are simply projecting. You argue with the same worn out arguments that have been discarded by the majority of Christians and Catholics as well as the Jewish originators of the god.

gramster wrote:

You are left with all that Sci-Fi garbage atheists spout endlessly. God can't exist because I don't believe in anything I can not understand.

pjts wrote:

The book of Daniel does not exist in a vacuum, it is a continuation of the Sci-Fi mythology of one group of ancients trying to explain their world just like all the other god myths of their time. The Sumerians, Canaanites and the Egyptians also have their own story telling that shows ignorance to reality.

You cannot get to where you want using Daniel.

gramster wrote:

And Gadfly can only parrot his claims that theists are dishonest. I have not been dishonest. I have offered a challenge that has not been met. And that is what is getting his goat.

Show me something real. Something rational. Something that can honestly be called evidence. So far I have been given nothing.

pjts wrote:

I'm not making the claim Daniel shows the god is real, you are.

You produce the proof the god is real, it's your claim.

Still waiting.

This could have all be avoided if you would just stop making claims you can not back up. Throughout this post you have repeatedly made the claim that the book of Daniel is just "full of historical errors". You and I know that is not true. At best there are a couple of questionable passages that are easily explainable.

The absence of ANY known historical errors is however a strong argument for an early date of authorship. One would be hard pressed to find a single secular writer from the 2nd or 3rd century BC who included so many historical details in their writing about that period who's writings were not full of actual provable historical errors.

Ezekiel's mentioning of Daniel twice in his writings also points to an early date. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and wrote this after Daniel had been in captivity around 14 years. Ezekiel's audience would have been very aware of Daniel by that time and his name being included in that application makes perfect sense.

I am sure however you will claim Ezekiel was written after the book of Daniel, or that he was referring to someone else. You cannot admit that the Book of Daniel is was in existence before the 2nd century because that would validate prophecy.

I will not call you dishonest since you are generally pretty straight about things. Maybe you are blinded by your passion. When you make these claims however, and have no evidence to back them up, I am left with no alternative but to address them once again. Someone who is not familiar with this issue may stumble upon your claims and actually believe them.

Yes, I am anxious to stop "farting around" and get back to the discussion at hand. Hopefully we can put this non issue behind us and move ahead.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
http://www.amazon.com/New-Jer

http://www.amazon.com/New-Jerome-Biblical-Commentary/dp/0136149340/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

I wouldn't buy it as it is darn expensive, but it should be available through interlibrary loan.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary by Raymond Edward Brown, et al.

Brief quote from Wiki on the book of Daniel:

Quote:
The traditionalist view dates Daniel to the 6th century. However, in the critical view, "there would be few modern biblical scholars ... who would now seriously defend such an opinion."[2][3] Modern biblical scholarship dates the book to the 2nd century BC:[4][4] "The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming."[2] 

The reference to 2 is the NJBC. 

I haven't read this book, nor have I made a serious study of Daniel.  PJTS has more chops and I'm happy to let him do the heavy lifting in this conversation.  But I don't feel that this is a side issue.  Most of the stuff you are claiming is prophecy is in reality a revision of history in a time when the average person could neither read or write.  The stuff about the future is vague enough to fit almost any interpretation - like all "prophecies".  If you are trying to win over atheists, you are behind the curve.  If you are trying to soothe theists, you might be succeeding.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


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

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Empty blogging does will not make your non arguments any more rational.

pjts wrote:

You complain about others farting around, yet that's what you have been doing now for several weeks.

Finish already!

 

gramster wrote:

I am still waiting for some real evidence that would make a rational person doubt the 6th century authorship of the Book of Daniel. As of yet I have not seen any. Nada!.

pjts wrote:

The point was never to find evidence to doubt a 6th century BCE origin but to prove it originated then. On this you have failed.

I thought your point of this discussion was to show that Daniel was prophecy therefore the god is real. You have always needed to show that the writer without any doubt had to have written before the events that are described. That there are reasonable doubts as expressed in countless posts shows you have failed to dispel other possibilities. As shown to you throughout this discussion there are other interpretations possible that explain the story presented in Daniel. These interpretations do so without magic or a "sky daddy" ©Brian37. How can one accept the magic which flies in the face of reality just like any other ancient story by ignorant to the laws of physics and science people, and here I don't just mean the Jews, I mean all of those who believed a god/gods/goddess did it as an explanation. Even other Christians, Catholics and Jews interpret Daniel far different than you as shown by Cowles, the Catholic Church, and Jewish commentaries.

 

gramster wrote:

The name of Daniel not being mentioned in the accounts of Nabonidus building and restoration projects are certainly less than impressive.

The term used for "father, relative, successor, etc" being applied to Nebuchadnezzar is also much less than impressive.

Daniel not mentioning Nebonidus, since he was not physically present and ruling in Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were is also much less than impressive.

The claim that Belshazzar died in the battle of Opis has never been established. No references to ancient documents for this have ever been located.

pjts wrote:

You argue like my ex-wife. Concentrate on one little thing, misrepresent and distort and claim you have won.

gramster wrote:

It appears that all you have to offer is old, stale, recycled arguments that have been successfully and thoroughly refuted many times over.

pjst wrote:

Now you are simply projecting. You argue with the same worn out arguments that have been discarded by the majority of Christians and Catholics as well as the Jewish originators of the god.

gramster wrote:

You are left with all that Sci-Fi garbage atheists spout endlessly. God can't exist because I don't believe in anything I can not understand.

pjts wrote:

The book of Daniel does not exist in a vacuum, it is a continuation of the Sci-Fi mythology of one group of ancients trying to explain their world just like all the other god myths of their time. The Sumerians, Canaanites and the Egyptians also have their own story telling that shows ignorance to reality.

You cannot get to where you want using Daniel.

gramster wrote:

And Gadfly can only parrot his claims that theists are dishonest. I have not been dishonest. I have offered a challenge that has not been met. And that is what is getting his goat.

Show me something real. Something rational. Something that can honestly be called evidence. So far I have been given nothing.

pjts wrote:

I'm not making the claim Daniel shows the god is real, you are.

You produce the proof the god is real, it's your claim.

Still waiting.

 

 

gramster wrote:

This could have all be avoided if you would just stop making claims you can not back up.

You have made the assertion from the beginning of the Daniel discussion that you can prove Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE. In order to do so you must show without any possible doubt that no other explanation is possible. You have failed to do so throughout this discussion as several alternatives have been provided that create reasonable doubt.

gramster wrote:

Throughout this post you have repeatedly made the claim that the book of Daniel is just "full of historical errors". You and I know that is not true. At best there are a couple of questionable passages that are easily explainable.

As I have shown, there are multiple problems with the history according to Daniel the writer, which I will meticulously detail for you in our final summary on this topic.

Please stop putting me in your pocket by insisting "you and I" or "we" in your assertions. I'm not on board with your erroneous views.

gramster wrote:

The absence of ANY known historical errors is however a strong argument for an early date of authorship. One would be hard pressed to find a single secular writer from the 2ND or 3rd century BC who included so many historical details in their writing about that period who's writings were not full of actual provable historical errors.

As I have said to you, repeatedly mentioning your claim, distorting the discussion, twisting the argument, and claiming you have won does not make your interpretations valid.

We will both get the chance to provide our views in a conclusion after your finish to present all of the arguments for and against your assertion and premise on Daniel.

 

gramster wrote:

Ezekiel's mentioning of Daniel twice in his writings also points to an early date. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and wrote this after Daniel had been in captivity around 14 years. Ezekiel's audience would have been very aware of Daniel by that time and his name being included in that application makes perfect sense.

You wish to open a new discussion on the merits of the book of Ezekiel now, before you finish on Daniel?

I assume you refer to the following:

Ezekiel 14:12-20 - JPS, where a Daniel is mentioned between Noah and Job in verses 14 and 20.

v 14 - "though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD."

v 20 - " though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness."

Ezekiel 28:3 - JPS " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel! there is no secret that they can hide from thee!"

Ezekiel has many problems of its own that would take a long discourse to examine so I won't do so now. We can examine it later on if you continue to visit RRS.

For now, there is no certainty who is meant in these quotes. This subject has been examined and studied and contains much conjecture, assumptions and pre-conceived views. The parties involved all have a bias one way on the other.

From the bible.org article which is obviously biased as are you in presenting some basis for showing Daniel the writer was in the 6th century:

http://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel

In this article various views are presented with the names of the researcher/writer holding the position, I'd suggest one should go to the originals and read their entire discourse, and not simply accept the conclusions of an obviously biased writer from Bible.org.

Then we have this from a blog from a researcher: http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-in-ezekiel-14-part-2.html

His conclusion on the Daniel in Ezekiel is that no conclusion is possible. I agree with this point. Was there another Daniel of history that was a hero type that has been misunderstood, lost, or somehow forgotten? Perhaps so. As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

And you error as to the dating of Ezekiel's supposed writing of these verses at 14 years it has been claimed to be about 36 years. Both however are estimates.

 

gramster wrote:

I am sure however you will claim Ezekiel was written after the book of Daniel, or that he was referring to someone else. You cannot admit that the Book of Daniel is was in existence before the 2nd century because that would validate prophecy.

Clearly Ezekiel was written prior to the Book of Daniel. Who exactly Ezekiel was discussing is not clear and remains conjecture not proof, see the above discussions in the links I gave.

It is on you as always to prove beyond all doubt that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, you still have not done so using Ezekiel.

gramster wrote:

I will not call you dishonest since you are generally pretty straight about things. Maybe you are blinded by your passion. When you make these claims however, and have no evidence to back them up, I am left with no alternative but to address them once again. Someone who is not familiar with this issue may stumble upon your claims and actually believe them.

Big of you.

We will see in our closing arguments on this discussion what evidence there is and is not and people can decide for themselves if you have provided undisputed beyond all reasonable doubt proof positive the Book of Daniel was penned in the 6th century BCE.

gramster wrote:

Yes, I am anxious to stop "farting around" and get back to the discussion at hand. Hopefully we can put this non issue behind us and move ahead.

I clearly understand your need to challenge, though you have been bringing these discussions on yourself by your repeated assertions and claims that you have proven your premise when you have not done so. I will not allow you to misconstrue or distort.

Then please proceed.

____________________________________________________________
"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
  gramster wrote:This

 

 

gramster wrote:

This could have all be avoided if you would just stop making claims you can not back up.

pjts wrote:

You have made the assertion from the beginning of the Daniel discussion that you can prove Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE. In order to do so you must show without any possible doubt that no other explanation is possible. You have failed to do so throughout this discussion as several alternatives have been provided that create reasonable doubt.

This does not eliminate your responsibility to back up the claims that you repeatedly make. So far you have not. You can't squirm out of it that easy. So far you have not even given reasonable reason to doubt the early date. 

gramster wrote:

Throughout this post you have repeatedly made the claim that the book of Daniel is just "full of historical errors". You and I know that is not true. At best there are a couple of questionable passages that are easily explainable.

pjts wrote:

As I have shown, there are multiple problems with the history according to Daniel the writer, which I will meticulously detail for you in our final summary on this topic.

Please stop putting me in your pocket by insisting "you and I" or "we" in your assertions. I'm not on board with your erroneous views.

So far you have not shown a single problem with the history according to Daniel. I keep asking for something. So far NADA.

Sorry for the "you and I". I was going on the false assumption that you were capable of being rational on this one. Obviously your goggles have gotten "fogged up" by your bias.

gramster wrote:

The absence of ANY known historical errors is however a strong argument for an early date of authorship. One would be hard pressed to find a single secular writer from the 2ND or 3rd century BC who included so many historical details in their writing about that period who's writings were not full of actual provable historical errors.

pjts wrote:

As I have said to you, repeatedly mentioning your claim, distorting the discussion, twisting the argument, and claiming you have won does not make your interpretations valid.

We will both get the chance to provide our views in a conclusion after your finish to present all of the arguments for and against your assertion and premise on Daniel.

Your arguments for a late date get shakier every day. I find great comfort in knowing that you really don't have anything here.

 

gramster wrote:

Ezekiel's mentioning of Daniel twice in his writings also points to an early date. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and wrote this after Daniel had been in captivity around 14 years. Ezekiel's audience would have been very aware of Daniel by that time and his name being included in that application makes perfect sense.

pjts wrote:

You wish to open a new discussion on the merits of the book of Ezekiel now, before you finish on Daniel?

I assume you refer to the following:

Ezekiel 14:12-20 - JPS, where a Daniel is mentioned between Noah and Job in verses 14 and 20.

v 14 - "though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD."

v 20 - " though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness."

Ezekiel 28:3 - JPS " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel! there is no secret that they can hide from thee!"

Ezekiel has many problems of its own that would take a long discourse to examine so I won't do so now. We can examine it later on if you continue to visit RRS.

For now, there is no certainty who is meant in these quotes. This subject has been examined and studied and contains much conjecture, assumptions and pre-conceived views. The parties involved all have a bias one way on the other.

From the bible.org article which is obviously biased as are you in presenting some basis for showing Daniel the writer was in the 6th century:

http://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel

In this article various views are presented with the names of the researcher/writer holding the position, I'd suggest one should go to the originals and read their entire discourse, and not simply accept the conclusions of an obviously biased writer from Bible.org.

Then we have this from a blog from a researcher: http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-in-ezekiel-14-part-2.html

His conclusion on the Daniel in Ezekiel is that no conclusion is possible. I agree with this point. Was there another Daniel of history that was a hero type that has been misunderstood, lost, or somehow forgotten? Perhaps so. As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

And you error as to the dating of Ezekiel's supposed writing of these verses at 14 years it has been claimed to be about 36 years. Both however are estimates.

Interesting isn't it. A Jewish writer that would have been a contemporary of Daniel, writing at a time when Daniel would have been very well known and respected in the community, just happens to write these things about a "Daniel". Now we just can't imagine who he may be referring to?

Yes, there are those who like you are scrambling for an explanation to this. And the best they can come up with is a shadowy figure that has been pretty much forgotten about. Interesting that Noah and Job are still well known to this day, as is Daniel.

Pretty sad how desperately one grabs at straws to try to defend ones beliefs.

 

gramster wrote:

I am sure however you will claim Ezekiel was written after the book of Daniel, or that he was referring to someone else. You cannot admit that the Book of Daniel is was in existence before the 2nd century because that would validate prophecy.

pjts wrote:

Clearly Ezekiel was written prior to the Book of Daniel. Who exactly Ezekiel was discussing is not clear and remains conjecture not proof, see the above discussions in the links I gave.

It is on you as always to prove beyond all doubt that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, you still have not done so using Ezekiel.

I am sure that if someone dug up a Nebuchadnezzar Cylinder with the whole Daniel story on it you would still doubt. I cannot be held responsible for your lack of rational thinking.

gramster wrote:

I will not call you dishonest since you are generally pretty straight about things. Maybe you are blinded by your passion. When you make these claims however, and have no evidence to back them up, I am left with no alternative but to address them once again. Someone who is not familiar with this issue may stumble upon your claims and actually believe them.

pjts wrote:

Big of you.

We will see in our closing arguments on this discussion what evidence there is and is not and people can decide for themselves if you have provided undisputed beyond all reasonable doubt proof positive the Book of Daniel was penned in the 6th century BCE.

I'm sure you will ignore the evidence and still continue to doubt contrary to reason.

gramster wrote:

Yes, I am anxious to stop "farting around" and get back to the discussion at hand. Hopefully we can put this non issue behind us and move ahead.

pjts wrote:

I clearly understand your need to challenge, though you have been bringing these discussions on yourself by your repeated assertions and claims that you have proven your premise when you have not done so. I will not allow you to misconstrue or distort.

Then please proceed.

I have not yet claimed to have proven my premise. I have, however exposed the fact that your claims that Daniel is full of historical errors has no bases.


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

 

 

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

This could have all be avoided if you would just stop making claims you can not back up.

pjts wrote:

You have made the assertion from the beginning of the Daniel discussion that you can prove Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE. In order to do so you must show without any possible doubt that no other explanation is possible. You have failed to do so throughout this discussion as several alternatives have been provided that create reasonable doubt.

This does not eliminate your responsibility to back up the claims that you repeatedly make. So far you have not. You can't squirm out of it that easy. So far you have not even given reasonable reason to doubt the early date.

Really now, all of the quoted references I have given showing why there are problems with your interpretations from Daniel 1 to Daniel 11 isn't backing up what I presented?

I guess we'll see in our summaries and conclusions who has references and evidence and who is presenting a puzzle piece wishful interpretation.

gramster wrote:
 

gramster wrote:

Throughout this post you have repeatedly made the claim that the book of Daniel is just "full of historical errors". You and I know that is not true. At best there are a couple of questionable passages that are easily explainable.

pjts wrote:

As I have shown, there are multiple problems with the history according to Daniel the writer, which I will meticulously detail for you in our final summary on this topic.

Please stop putting me in your pocket by insisting "you and I" or "we" in your assertions. I'm not on board with your erroneous views.

So far you have not shown a single problem with the history according to Daniel. I keep asking for something. So far NADA.

Sorry for the "you and I". I was going on the false assumption that you were capable of being rational on this one. Obviously your goggles have gotten "fogged up" by your bias.

The history according to Daniel is about equal to the history according to Xena. They both mention the Greeks, so Xena must also be accurate.

Again, I'm not going to get repetitive and go through it all again until the summary and conclusion just because you are inattentive.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

The absence of ANY known historical errors is however a strong argument for an early date of authorship. One would be hard pressed to find a single secular writer from the 2ND or 3rd century BC who included so many historical details in their writing about that period who's writings were not full of actual provable historical errors.

pjts wrote:

As I have said to you, repeatedly mentioning your claim, distorting the discussion, twisting the argument, and claiming you have won does not make your interpretations valid.

We will both get the chance to provide our views in a conclusion after your finish to present all of the arguments for and against your assertion and premise on Daniel.

Your arguments for a late date get shakier every day. I find great comfort in knowing that you really don't have anything here.

That's nice. Enjoy your dimension of imaginary reality.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Ezekiel's mentioning of Daniel twice in his writings also points to an early date. Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and wrote this after Daniel had been in captivity around 14 years. Ezekiel's audience would have been very aware of Daniel by that time and his name being included in that application makes perfect sense.

pjts wrote:

You wish to open a new discussion on the merits of the book of Ezekiel now, before you finish on Daniel?

I assume you refer to the following:

Ezekiel 14:12-20 - JPS, where a Daniel is mentioned between Noah and Job in verses 14 and 20.

v 14 - "though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD."

v 20 - " though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness."

Ezekiel 28:3 - JPS " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel! there is no secret that they can hide from thee!"

Ezekiel has many problems of its own that would take a long discourse to examine so I won't do so now. We can examine it later on if you continue to visit RRS.

For now, there is no certainty who is meant in these quotes. This subject has been examined and studied and contains much conjecture, assumptions and pre-conceived views. The parties involved all have a bias one way on the other.

From the bible.org article which is obviously biased as are you in presenting some basis for showing Daniel the writer was in the 6th century:

http://bible.org/article/who-ezekiels-daniel

In this article various views are presented with the names of the researcher/writer holding the position, I'd suggest one should go to the originals and read their entire discourse, and not simply accept the conclusions of an obviously biased writer from Bible.org.

Then we have this from a blog from a researcher: http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-in-ezekiel-14-part-2.html

His conclusion on the Daniel in Ezekiel is that no conclusion is possible. I agree with this point. Was there another Daniel of history that was a hero type that has been misunderstood, lost, or somehow forgotten? Perhaps so. As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

And you error as to the dating of Ezekiel's supposed writing of these verses at 14 years it has been claimed to be about 36 years. Both however are estimates.

Interesting isn't it. A Jewish writer that would have been a contemporary of Daniel, writing at a time when Daniel would have been very well known and respected in the community, just happens to write these things about a "Daniel". Now we just can't imagine who he may be referring to?

Yes, there are those who like you are scrambling for an explanation to this. And the best they can come up with is a shadowy figure that has been pretty much forgotten about. Interesting that Noah and Job are still well known to this day, as is Daniel.

Pretty sad how desperately one grabs at straws to try to defend ones beliefs.

It is sad that you are so desperate. You claimed to be s skeptic in the early posts in this thread. You have more than adequately shown that you most certainly aren't with the choices you have made throughout your interpretation of Daniel. I do understand, you need something to justify all the cash you give to the churches.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

I am sure however you will claim Ezekiel was written after the book of Daniel, or that he was referring to someone else. You cannot admit that the Book of Daniel is was in existence before the 2nd century because that would validate prophecy.

pjts wrote:

Clearly Ezekiel was written prior to the Book of Daniel. Who exactly Ezekiel was discussing is not clear and remains conjecture not proof, see the above discussions in the links I gave.

It is on you as always to prove beyond all doubt that the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, you still have not done so using Ezekiel.

I am sure that if someone dug up a Nebuchadnezzar Cylinder with the whole Daniel story on it you would still doubt. I cannot be held responsible for your lack of rational thinking.

In the event a Babylonian cylinder was found that dated to this period describing Daniel and all of his narratives it would be very interesting and possibly something that could change my views.

Alas though, there is no such thing except in your wishes. No, the reality still is that Daniel is the likely product of a 2nd century BCE writer.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride!

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

I will not call you dishonest since you are generally pretty straight about things. Maybe you are blinded by your passion. When you make these claims however, and have no evidence to back them up, I am left with no alternative but to address them once again. Someone who is not familiar with this issue may stumble upon your claims and actually believe them.

pjts wrote:

Big of you.

We will see in our closing arguments on this discussion what evidence there is and is not and people can decide for themselves if you have provided undisputed beyond all reasonable doubt proof positive the Book of Daniel was penned in the 6th century BCE.

I'm sure you will ignore the evidence and still continue to doubt contrary to reason.

If you had any evidence you could have convinced me 100s of posts ago. You don't. You just have conjecture, assertions, &  your interpretations (or those of others that you use and don't give as a reference).

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Yes, I am anxious to stop "farting around" and get back to the discussion at hand. Hopefully we can put this non issue behind us and move ahead.

pjts wrote:

I clearly understand your need to challenge, though you have been bringing these discussions on yourself by your repeated assertions and claims that you have proven your premise when you have not done so. I will not allow you to misconstrue or distort.

Then please proceed.

I have not yet claimed to have proven my premise. I have, however exposed the fact that your claims that Daniel is full of historical errors has no bases.

I wasn't  aware we were playing baseball. There aren't any bases in Daniel. No 1st base, no 2nd base, no 3rd base and most definitely no homeplate.

I have presented plenty to discredit Daniel as having historical basis. And Daniel still does not have an infield.

 

Yes you have made a run to claim victory!

Gramps post #1025 wrote:

Your only argument remains "it can't be prophecy, it just can't be". "There is no God, so it can't be prophecy".

The book of Daniel was indeed written before the events prophesied. That is my proof!

 

This looks like you running up to the podium to claim victory while blowing your horn.

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

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
4 Esdras? One must be getting desperate

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

I can't believe you are actually trying to use 4 Esdras as a source of "reasonable doubt".

Neither the Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant Cannons include this book. Most universally it is considered to be a fabrication written in the 1st or 2nd century AD. Yes, AD. Not even BC. That means it post dates pretty much all of the OT scripture found at Qumran.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that doesn't make sense.

I am really impressed. I find it fascinating what means one will go to in order to defend ones beliefs.

tsk-tsk

I will be anxiously waiting to find out what evidence you have for "historical errors" in Daniel when we finish our discussion on chapters 11 and 12. So far nothing that comes close to holding water.

Now maybe we can get back to business??

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Looking forward to it,

Looking forward to it, grams. Your fiction is almost as enjoyable as that of the Book of Mormon.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Now you suddenly agree with scholars

gramster wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

I can't believe you are actually trying to use 4 Esdras as a source of "reasonable doubt".

Neither the Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant Cannons include this book. Most universally it is considered to be a fabrication written in the 1st or 2nd century AD. Yes, AD. Not even BC. That means it post dates pretty much all of the OT scripture found at Qumran.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that doesn't make sense.

I am really impressed. I find it fascinating what means one will go to in order to defend ones beliefs.

tsk-tsk

I will be anxiously waiting to find out what evidence you have for "historical errors" in Daniel when we finish our discussion on chapters 11 and 12. So far nothing that comes close to holding water.

Now maybe we can get back to business??

 

There are so many issues you have ignored and pushed under the rug. This one here is just a minor little tidbit and is of no consequence.

Funny how you are willing to go with a scholarly position on 4 Esdras but ignore their views on the origin and dating of Daniel.

Could this be you picking and choosing to put together your puzzle piece views.

Hopefully you finally stop "farting around" and finish, though I won't hold my breath.

____________________________________________________________
"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
Dementia setting in?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

I can't believe you are actually trying to use 4 Esdras as a source of "reasonable doubt".

Neither the Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant Cannons include this book. Most universally it is considered to be a fabrication written in the 1st or 2nd century AD. Yes, AD. Not even BC. That means it post dates pretty much all of the OT scripture found at Qumran.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that doesn't make sense.

I am really impressed. I find it fascinating what means one will go to in order to defend ones beliefs.

tsk-tsk

I will be anxiously waiting to find out what evidence you have for "historical errors" in Daniel when we finish our discussion on chapters 11 and 12. So far nothing that comes close to holding water.

Now maybe we can get back to business??

 

There are so many issues you have ignored and pushed under the rug. This one here is just a minor little tidbit and is of no consequence.

Funny how you are willing to go with a scholarly position on 4 Esdras but ignore their views on the origin and dating of Daniel.

Could this be you picking and choosing to put together your puzzle piece views.

Hopefully you finally stop "farting around" and finish, though I won't hold my breath.

Esdras really?

I'm really beginning to worry about you. I guess the signs were there all along. One day you are competent and making perfect sense, and the next you are just babbling. Lately you seem to be just babbling most of the time.

I have had friends with the same symptoms. One day they seem to be "slipping" mentally and the next thing you know they don't even know their own relatives.

Maybe you should get in to see a specialist.

Esdras really?