pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Daniel 3
This chapter has the story of king Nebuchadrezzar's golden image or idol with the myth of 3 men surviving being tossed into a fiery furnace. This is a case of “magic” or storytelling as far as I’m concerned. This requires extraordinary proof because it is an extraordinary claim. Can people survive being tossed into basically a blast furnace? I have doubts that this can be so. Anyone want to volunteer to try this out? As Gramps would say “common sense” would indicate this was not possible. Until there is proof, this claim should be held to be storytelling from the ancients.

Gramps does not supply any proof that this myth actually occurred. He also did not volunteer to be a test subject at an open hearth at a steel mill. Don't blame him, it wouldn't work out.

We had a fun discussion on this during Gramps summary see posts 1113 c); 1192; 1194; 1198; 1199.

Gramps demonstrated his ignorance of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian gods, religions, and practices. He concluded this image was King Neb being vain.

Post 1192 - Gramps said "Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". "

This assertion by Gramps was not proved. Gramps would need to show the Babylonians (Akaddians/Sumerians) had a common practice of a ruler creating an image that was not one of the revered gods of antiquity. Instead, Gramps claims this without merit using unrelated cultures as his proof.

 In post 1199 Gramps said"There are many instances where Rulers in history have portrayed themselves as a deity or tried to be viewed as such. Nebuchadnezzar with his extreme vanity would easily fit that profile. It would be absurd to suggest that in the situation described in Daniel this would be highly unlikely to happen would be blind assumption."

I informed him that this may be true for Egypt and Rome but was not so for the descendants of Sumer/Akkad called Babylonians. I know of no case where a ruler in Babylon, Assyria, Akkad or Sumer did this. The closest may be Gilgamesh, but this was later after he had become a legend and was dead, so he didn't do it. Some of the stories regard him as a demi-god in any event.

There is not much point in wasting much time on this one. If you believe in God this story is entirely within reason. If you don't believe in God, it is not. Since it is the existence of God we are discussing, we would both be relying on circular reasoning to make our points here.

pjts wrote:

Is that your extraordinary proof?

You don't read very well. Not too quick on the uptake I guess. I am not claiming any kind of "proof" or "extraordinary proof" on this chapter. This chapter makes sense if there is a God, and does not if there is not. It's that simple.

pjts wrote:

You actually are doing circular reasoning and don't see it.

You: If Daniel is shown to be prophecy only a god could be involved. So you are in fact trying to prove the existence of a god.

The problem being, the text includes stories that are not possible in the reality we occupy. One must supply extraordinary proof they can happen.

You have not, you avoid the subject.

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere. 

Daniel 6
The lions den adventure is told in this chapter. Do we really need to go into more fantasy and magic? Guess so.

This story is part of the court stories and intrigue in Daniel. Here, the Babylonian officials/advisers were apparently jealous of Daniel’s quick rise to fame and the power he held. They devised a plan to be rid of him.

When Daniel does not worship the golden image he is condemned to the lions den. Instead, an angel shows up and shuts the lions mouths so they don't make a snack out of the main character in this myth.

As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Any volunteers to recreate this myth?

See also my comments in regard to Daniel 3 as they apply to this myth as well.
 

Daniel 4
Chapter 4 details king Nebuchadrezzar's tree dream and his supposed affliction.

Later on Gramps argues that King Neb was mad as indicated in BM 34113 where he claimed in his post 1162 that this supported Dan 4:19-37.

In post 1167 I refuted this by posting the full translation from A K Grayson and I took a position that instead of King Neb being mad that the whole tablet was about a traitor in the court.

As so much of the text is missing it could be about anything one wishes to insert.

Chapter 4 does not add anything to Gramps arguments at all. More on this later.

gramps wrote:

Once again, you are having serious comprehension issues. Maybe dementia is setting in. I am not trying to use this chapter to prove anything. Therefore I am not doing circular reasoning. I am straightforward admitting that I do not have proof that this actually happened.

I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not. Ones belief in whether this happened depends upon their belief in God. But proof does not exist.

pjts wrote:

Once again Gramps, all of Daniel is open for comment and consideration, not just the parts you wish to cherry pick.

Claims that are outside of reality such as this chapter, define and expand the story telling.

The same thing occurs in the story telling of the ancient Sumerians, where fantastic events occur. You do not accept those because of the "magic" as it defines the content. Daniel is no different. The "magic" content must be included, which automatically should put the entire content into the area of skepticism.

Reason and observed reality are against this particular episode, which moves it from your position of : "I can not prove it did. You can not prove it did not" to it is highly unlikely.

I understand that you think that simply claiming that a god can do anything is an out. It is not. You may believe you can change lead into gold but reality suggests otherwise.

This does not work for you anymore than it does for any of the ancients that explained thunder and lightning was the act of a god.

Thanks for taking a stand that you have no proof, just conjecture and your belief in an unproven god as evidence.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

You also ignore your generalization in regard to Nebuchadrezzar setting himself up as a god. Something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia in the history of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, or Babylon. Babylon was not Egypt or Rome, your generalization is erroneous.

Given the circumstances "something not shown to occur in Mesopotamia" could have taken place. Unusual circumstances often generate unusual behaviors. But this is not an essential part of my case anyway. I am OK with it being one of the Babylonian gods. It really doesn't matter. You seem to thrive on non issues like this.

Continue on with your road to nowhere. 

pjts wrote:

I note that you are retracting your statement, that King Neb set himself up as a god in that event, which had no basis but your unwarranted claim.

Gramps, nothing is a non-issue, all is open to examination.

This is still simply a matter of whether or not one believes in God. It God exists, than events like this can take place. If He doesn't, they cannot.

It is just that simple. No need to spend hours chasing ones tail on stuff like this.

 

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on one side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

pjts wrote:

What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts.

 

 

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on one side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

pjts wrote:

What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

 

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

From post 898- "  The fulfillment of this prophecy began to be fulfilled at this time. It would be many years in the future before this prophecy would come to full fruition. The point that after 70 years this great kingdom would come to its end, which was so important to the Jews in Daniels day was fulfilled immediately after the 70 years ended."

 

1st decree 537 or 538 BC

2nd decree 519 BC

3rd decree 457 BC

In post 909 Gramps goes on:

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

Therefore I prefer the latter decree."

"The second decree listed above was made by Darius I (520 or 519 BC) to be found in Ezra 4 and 5. 4:24 the building ceased unto the second year of Darius.

And in Ezra 5:15 Darius issues a decree to resume the rebuilding. This also covers primarily the temple."

The third decree listed above was made by Artaxerxes I (~457 BC) to be found in Ezra 7. This decree provides the funding, and also authorized the establishment of some self-governance. That is why I prefer this one. This set the stage for the rebuilding of Jerusalem which Nehemiah became a leader in accomplishing. The date for this decree can also be verified by a quick Wikipedia search of Artaxerxes I.

9:21 Gabriel comes "whom I had seen in the vision". Both JPS and KJV use the word vision from the Hebrew (chazon) which always only means (vision). Than comes the phrase "at the beginning" (techillah) meaning before, previously, or the first time.

Daniel in chapter 8 is left confused and disturbed by the vision he had just experienced. Gabriel came and explained some of it but not all. Daniel was still perplexed, but he was not to be left hanging forever.

In chapter 9 Gabriel returns. Daniel recognizes him from before when he came to give understanding of chapter 8. Daniel's mind is on his previous vision "the one whom I had seen in the vision" "at the beginning" or the first time.

9:22 "I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding."

9:23 "consider the word, and understand the vision." Both JPS and KJV use the word vision here. What vision do you suppose he could be referring to? I suppose we will once again try to make this a reference to a prophecy and not a vision.

9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed concerning your people and the holy city" Here many translators ran into a problem. The word for decreed is (chathak) meaning "to cut off, or amputate". Seventy weeks are "amputated" concerning your people? What does that mean. The word decreed, or determined was substituted and the sentence made sense.

When one sees this as Gabriel returning to give Daniel understanding concerning chapter 8, this all makes sense. Seventy weeks are cut off or amputated from the 2300 symbolic days, or years in Daniel 8.

I will use the above structure to reference my view.

A' (Jerusalem construction) The command by Artaxeres in late 457 BC begins the clock ticking.

B' (Anointed One) Unto an anointed one there will be 7 weeks and three score and two weeks. This is a poetic way of saying sixty nine weeks. Nothing more. 69 weeks = 483 days, or as all are agreed 483 prophetic years.

Taking 483 years from 457 BC and adjusting for not having a zero year brings us down to 27 AD exactly.

This is the date of Jesus' baptism and the start of his ministry. Or his "arrival as the messiah", and his "anointing" by God with the holy spirit that ascended upon him in the form of a dove.

C' (Jerusalem Construction) The temple shall be built again. No time reference is given here.

D (Anointed One) "After the three score and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off and have nothing". This is  following the 69 weeks.

C. (Jerusalem Destruction) "The prince of peace shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary..." This is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

B. (Anointed One) "He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease".

This is reference to the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Through the death Jesus, the sacrificial offerings ceased to have any relevance or meaning. This system had met it's ultimate fulfillment. Yes, the "ritual" did continue for some time after the death of Christ, but it no longer meant anything.

A. (Jerusalem Destruction) "And upon the wing of abomination comes one who makes desolate;..."

Again talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans that would follow.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Please excuse this very long post, it's where  Gramps and I had disagreements.

Daniel 7

Gramps basic claims in chapter 7:

Gramps in Post 356

gramps #356 wrote:

We will continue to Daniel 7 to see if we find any of these kingdoms there and look at any conflicting differences or similarities.

Daniel 7. Here we have four beasts representing four kingdoms.

1. We have a lion with eagle’s wings - which I believe to be Babylon.

2. We have a bear raised up on one side - which I believe to be Medo-Persia.

3. We have a leopard with four wings and four heads - which I believe to be Greece.

4. We have a dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong beast with iron teeth, and 10 horns - which I believe to be Rome. Out of this beast comes a little horn we will discuss later.

pjts wrote:

What I understood from chapter 7 is:
1- lion with eagle's wings = Babylon
2-Bear raised up = Medes
 Note: A-Can also be Medes/Persians and still not change the outcome.
3-Leopard with 4 wings and heads = Persians
Note: A- Can also be Greece (Alexander -Macedonia) and still not change the outcome.
4-Dreadful terrible Beast = Greece(Macedonia)
Note: A-If #3 is Greece then this one can be the Seleucid Kingdom as it would also fit, thus the little horn comes from it later as described.

No need to slam Rome into this puzzle as it does not belong in it.

 

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Me do Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Meades and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Meades and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

 

pjts wrote:

The height of the Medes conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Medes conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Medes and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

As I mentioned, you still have not shown the relationship to the Holy Roman Empire. Claiming Rome as the 4th beast of the writer is not sufficient. One must actually show that it correlates more than any other view.

The Seleucid's and Antiochus IV do correlate much more than Rome and papal Rome as the little horn.

More later on the interrelationships between these chapters.

Back to you Gramps to finish your critique of my Daniel 7 rebuttal in post 1407, unless you agree with me that because the Eastern Empire still existed that your claim of the Holy Roman Empire was incorrect as well as your previous claims of Europe and  tribes of no consequence were erroneous.

If one does not take the irrational approach of trying to insert Media as a separate power, or divide the Grecian kingdom up to make two, Rome is naturally the most logical 4th power discussed.

And if one does not turn a blind eye to the fact that Christianity has it's roots in the belief in a Jewish Messiah, and therefore a strong connection with the Jews, the relationship to Rome and the Holy Roman Empire is quite obvious.

More on this to come. 

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

pjts wrote:

 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

Good job PJ.

 

 

gramster wrote:

There are major problems with the above interpretation. It is merely puzzle fitting at it's worst.

1. Media did not succeed Babylon. That never happened. Media was finished as a power by the time Babylon fell into the hands of Cyrus.

2. The author of Daniel clearly viewed the 2nd power as "the kings of Media and Persia".

This is shown to be the case in Daniel 8:20 "The ram which you saw...they are the kings of Media and Persia".

It is also indicated to be the case in Chapter 6 vs 8,12, and 15 Regarding the decree made by Darius "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians". This author did not view Media and Persia to be two separate kingdoms that were successive to Babylon. This interpretation just does not make any sense at all.

Now regarding theory #2.

It is equally clear that the author did not view the Seleucid Kingdom as a separate successive kingdom to "Greece".

In Chapter 7 we have the Lion which we all agree is Babylon followed by the bear which would be "Medo Persia" (unless one were to puzzle fit square pegs into round holes as shown above).

This bear is followed by a Leopard with 4 heads, and 4 wings. The 4 wings symbolize the great swiftness which Alexander the Great conquered that part of the world. The 4 heads symbolizes the 4 divisions of "Greece". This kingdom already embodies the Seleucid Empire. A kingdom cannot succeed itself.

In chapter 8 we have the "Grecian" empire also including the Seleucid Empire. We have the goat with a large horn that gets broken and 4 notable ones come up in it's place. One of these horns is obviously the Seleucid Empire. If it is already represented it can not "pop up" again and succeed itself.

If you insist upon starting off on the wrong foot, with a shoe that does not fit, you will never be able to get any of the rest of the book right.

My interpretation does not require any of this kind of misrepresentation of history and distortion of facts. 

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As always, Gramps adds words to the text that aren't there. I cannot find the word successive in Daniel.

gramster wrote:

As usual, you are once again just slinging mud onto the window to obscure the obvious.

You are right the writer does not use the "word successive". He simply says "the first beast...the second beast..."

What would be the point of the author discussing a power that did not conquer Babylon, and was not successive? You have no point. The terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... are in themselves successive.

It is like my saying that a color is green, and you disagreeing and saying that it is really just yellow and blue. Your pointless non-issues are quite senseless.

pjts wrote:

The text only indicates Daniel saw the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. In Dan 7:3 (NIV) " Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea."

The text does not indicate they came out one at a time or all at once. You assumed that they were successive.

Since you like to bring focus to relevance, just what relevance would a power that did not conquer or succeed Babylon have here?

It seems as though if another power in the region were to have relevance, Egypt would be a better choice.

Once again you are just grabbing at straws. Media as a separate power has no place here.

For these powers not to be successive goes against the general theme of the whole book. It just does not make any sense. But that's OK I guess. After all, you are a "skeptic". There is no need for your arguments to make sense.

This is still "puzzle fitting at it's worst".

The text does not indicate in chapter 7 that these Beasts would conquer Babylon. The text does not indicate that they would be successive or come all at once.

You have decided that they must conquer one another and be successive. The text does not indicate either in chapter 7.

It seems if another power were to really have relevance it would be any of dozens of powers you ignore. But you already have admitted your god was ignorant or saw no merit in the rest of the world.

I'm just telling you what is in the text and what is not. That you add to it to puzzle piece to the Jesus is understandable. You have no need for your arguments to have any basis in reality as you believe in the mystical world of a time space dimension of never was and never will be.

Your entire argument has demonstrated the extent someone is willing to go to grasp onto his crutch to wobble through his life. No problem Gramps, you are the king of puzzle piece fitting standing high on the mountain of self deception.

gramster wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

As the writer of Daniel was obviously not clear as his meaning is not concisely given I do not see how Gramps can make the claim as to what the author "clearly" viewed.

We are not talking about Daniel 8 at this point either Gramps, jumping around as you do enables you to misconstrue. Hold your water, you can talk about Daniel 8 when you get there.

Nothing could be more clear than the phrase "the kings of the Medes and the Persians". And nothing more obvious than the phrase "the laws of the Medes and the Persians" indicating the author viewed them as having a close relationship or unity of governance.

When evaluating several parallel accounts of the same periods in history it would be senseless for one not to line them up side by side for examination. The powers in Daniel 8 are clearly the same powers discussed in Daniel 7. And the contents of Daniel 8 give us valuable clues to how the author viewed these powers.

Clearly I am not the one trying to misconstrue things here.

pjts wrote:

If you notice I put all of them together in a later post, it makes sense to examine each chapter by itself before comparison. You however don't seem to grasp how to analyze using this technique and jump around in order to distract.

I don't see the phrase "Kings of the Medes and Persians" in chapter 7. It is in chapter 8 which you jump to in your need to distract and distort.

 

 

I disagree completely that one should first examine each chapter separately.

In a document like this, where it is obvious the author is giving several accounts of the same powers and time periods, one would logically be doing comparisons all along.

If you are examining any part of this book, without taking into consideration it's relationship with the rest of the document, you are certain to get off track.

This is not done to "distort", but to clarify. That has been clearly demonstrated by your interpretation of Media being represented by the bear in chapter 7. Here you have taken a blind leap to a power that does not in the least fit into the picture, and makes no sense at all.

Of course you disagree, distraction and jumping to conclusions is part of your methods in promoting your misunderstanding.

One should always analyze each item on its' own,  this goes for circuit design, accounting, arguments, articles, texts, books and Bible stories.

This way one has an audit trail so to speak through the item being analyzed. When one takes a haphazard approach by jumping around before understanding the item being examined one can make erroneous conclusions.

You have adequately demonstrated this.

Once one has understood each component separately then one combines and compares the complete item. Doing so in the middle of an analysis without understanding it can result in major misunderstanding.

This you have demonstrated as well.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The height of the Mede's conquests did come after Babylon had conquered Assyria, which was prior to Cyrus.

gramster wrote:

It must be fun being a skeptic. One can completely throw logic and common sense out the window, and use any far fetched argument they can think of. No matter how ridicules. If you had to stick with things that made sense, your interpretation would completely fall apart.

It does not matter when the "height of the Mede's conquests" was, since they did not conquer Babylon, and were not even in power when Babylon fell. Again, you have no point.

pjts wrote:

Again Gramps the text does not indicate if the beasts came out all at once or one at a time.

Additionally, the text also does not indicate that they had to conquer one another at all. In fact the text says in Dan 7:3 "each different from the others" goes against that.

Again, when you make this argument, you suddenly lose any meaning or purpose for this chapter. What is the purpose for the author to point out the existence of Media? None, no none whatsoever.

But I guess that's part of being a skeptic. You don't need purpose. You don't need common sense. You don't need reason. All you need is doubt. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

Instead one should be like you I suppose, adding into the text words and meaning that was not included?

You assume too much and end up in a place that has no basis in reality. But that's OK, as that's the place you want to go to validate your self deceptions.

No problem Gramps, I do understand why you do it.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

If the author meant to have the Mede's and Persians as the Bear and then Greece as the leopard no harm is done.

Again, the word successive is not in Daniel.

The Seleucid Kingdom comes after Alexander in any event.

Now you are the one inserting words. The word "Alexander" is not in the Book of Daniel. And the Seleucid Kingdom is just one of four parts of the kingdom that followed the "kings of Media and Persia". Therefore it can not follow that kingdom.

pjts wrote:

I know Alexander is not in the book of Daniel.

Clarification for your inability to grasp - The Seleucid kingdom comes after Greece, neither of which is mentioned directly in the text but is supposedly inferred.

No inability to grasp. The Seleucid Kingdom was clearly one of the 4 divisions of Alexanders kingdom.

 

OK.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The author does error in calling Alexander Greece anyway, as he was Macedonian.

So if you want to get picky about it, the author makes this error multiple times.

Macedonia was not Greece. I let you get away with this previously because so many people today think he was Greek, he was not. This was well known at the time of his conquests.

So Daniel thinks Alexander was Greek, he was Macedonian. Your text has an error.

The actual word used in Daniel is not "Greece". The word used is "Javan" literally meaning as close as we can tell "of the race of the Greeks or Ionians". And you are wrong when you say that Alexander did not have Greek heritage. He proved his Greek heritage to qualify to compete in the Greek athletic games. He had an Argive descent, and furthermore Macedon was simply a state in the northern part of ancient "Greece".

Once again you are simply slinging mud onto the window to obscure your shortcomings. Your interpretation does not hold any water at all. And you cannot defend it without stooping to these lowly tactics.

pjts wrote:

What was Alexander's title as king prior to invading? It was Alexander III of Macedon was it not.

In the same context, Dwight Eisenhower was a German descendant, but I don't think he would be called a German president and would claim to only be an American.

Yes, you like to get "picky" about things. If you think you can find some technical way to disagree with the authors interpretation, you can claim "bad history".

Since Macedonia was located in the northern part of ancient Greece, and Alexander claimed to have Grecian heritage, and this power spread Greek culture, and used Greek language, it is very difficult to claim bad history here.

Still all you can do is try to muddy the window so the truth will be obscured.

Of course I like to get picky.

Generally it's your interpretation I disagree over.

The author has no interpretation, just Apocalyptic writing.

You claim the text is provided to Daniel by the god, therefore the god should be accurate.

Bad history was not the point, an error in calling Macedonia Greece was the point.

 

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

 

Still avoiding putting up your proof for Rome.

No one denies that the Jesus storytelling is morphed from the Jewish moshiach.

Not avoiding anything. Just having to spend time cleaning your mud off of the windows.

Can't multi-task?

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

Good job PJ.

There's not much to discuss or debate on this chapter. It is simply a prelude to chapter 11. Here Daniel finds himself in distress again. Probably about the situation in Jerusalem where things aren't going as originally planned.He has another vision. A being (likely Gabriel) appears to him. He had been engaged in a battle with the "Prince of Persia", and one called Michael comes to help him. The being breaks away from the battle to come and give Daniel more information. This appears to be a glimpse into a "spiritual battle". This is something we don't have much insight into.That sets the stage for the message of chapter 11.

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.

12:5,6 Than I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank an the other on that riverbank. vs 6. "And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?"

This question seems to be about the prophecy that started in chapter 10, and more specifically about the events mentioned in 12:1-3.

12:7,8 Than I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times and half a time; and when the power of the holy people  has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished. vs 8. Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, "my lord, what shall be the end of these things?'

Here we have another reference to a 1260 day time period. Daniel did not understand. Interestingly Daniel did understand the 1260 day prophecy in chapter 7, so this would not likely be that same event.

Also good to note is the meaning of the word translated "shattered". The Hebrew word "narphats" is better translated to disperse.

Following down in time from the previous verses, this puts us near the end of time.

Being that there is no symbolism in this portion of Daniel I would have no reason to give the time period the symbolic day year interpretation.

This appears to be the "dispersion" or pouring out of the power of the holy spirit in the latter days often referred to as the "latter rain".

This is foretold to happen shortly before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

Daniel 12:9-13

vs 9. And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the end of time.

Once again we have a reference to the "end of time", and the "closing" or "sealing of this book".

vs 10. "Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand."

The events here are descriptive of end times. Again "the wise" that shall understand would be God's people at that time.

vs 11. "And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days."

Here the use of the word "yowm" (generally translated as a literal day) for days instead of "iddan" (generally translated as a year), combined with the absence of symbolism would point to a literal day application.

vs 12. "Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

This appears to be in reference to the great time of tribulation mentioned in verse one. A blessing is pronounced on those who stand firm through those times.

vs 13. "But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

Daniel was not to live to see the fulfillment of these prophecies for they were far off into the future. He would live out his days, rest in the ground, and arise in the resurrection at the end of this worlds history.

Chapter 12 is not a description of the events of the 2nd century BC, but a vivid and glorious depiction of the final events of this earths history.

Calling the rational arguments you've received "mud on the windshield" doesn't weaken them. It certainly doesn't improve your "I believe this so it must be right" position.

"Common sense" would have man still believing in a flat earth. "Common sense" would have locked Einstein in an asylum for his theories of General and Special Relativity.

The facts state otherwise.

PJTS seems to have facts while you have "common sense". Maybe you should consider trading up? You might have to give up the idea that the Popes are Satan's tools but it would be worth it.

I am still waiting for that much touted, but all too allusive "rational response".

As my Grandpa used to say, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

I can now clearly see why the atheist and skeptic is so adamantly against reason and common sense.

No one is against reason, common sense needs to be considered with reason and science.

Both common sense and reason indicate clearly that these powers would be successive, and conquer or inhabit Babylon.

In your morphed view of reality perhaps.

When you interpolate words into the text that are not there as you do, you can see pretty much anything.

You have adequately demonstrated that.

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

I did answer this, but you were in such a huff to blow smoke you can't see it as your eyes are watering from it. Get on the other side of the fan you put up.

The 2nd century writer was documenting history as he knew it. He knew about the Medes as a kingdom. He also knew about the Persians. He knew about Alexander and his conquests that were broken into 4 different kingdoms.

The exact interrelationship is not in chapter 7. All appear from the sea at once.

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

I do take all into consideration. Analise each, and put them together.

Explanations have been given for the Medes and Persians, several times. You seem to miss it because you have your own smoke in your eyes.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

In your morphed view of reality perhaps.

When you interpolate words into the text that are not there as you do, you can see pretty much anything.

You have adequately demonstrated that.

No words were "interpolated into the text". I merely pointed out what is obvious from actually reading the text.

You have interpolated and added that which is not there throughout this discussion. Your posts speak for themselves.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Without that, you have no reason for the author to have included them.

Now maybe you can answer my question.

Why would the author include Media as a separate power when it did not conquer or succeed Babylon? This is the issue you have been trying to avoid by kicking up a dust storm.

pjts wrote:

I did answer this, but you were in such a huff to blow smoke you can't see it as your eyes are watering from it. Get on the other side of the fan you put up.

The 2nd century writer was documenting history as he knew it. He knew about the Medes as a kingdom. He also knew about the Persians. He knew about Alexander and his conquests that were broken into 4 different kingdoms.

The exact interrelationship is not in chapter 7. All appear from the sea at once.

And this is your example of common sense considered with reason and science? lol. Let's take a closer look at this. 

You are saying that this "2nd century author "knew about the Medes as a kingdom". And he also "knew of the Persians"? 

We do know from the scriptures that were in existence in the 2nd century BC pretty much what this author would know. From reading these scriptures one could not possibly come up with your separate Media and Persia kingdom theory. 

2 Chronicles 20 to 22 clearly indicates that the Jews would be captives of the Babylonians until the rule of the "Kingdom of Persia". It also mentions the 1st year of Cyrus King of Persia.

Ezra 1:1 "Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia"

Ezra 1:19 Mentions the "laws of the Persians and the Medes". 

Ezra 4:5 Calls Darius the King of Persia. This same Darius you claim the author of Daniel mistook for "Darius the Mede" in Daniel. 

In Daniel 5:28 the author of Daniel writes "thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians". 

There is absolutely no hint from scripture, or in the text of Daniel that would suggest that Media was considered to be a separate kingdom by the author of Daniel. Everything we find indicates just the opposite. This author viewed the Kingdom of the Medes and the Persians to be one kingdom, one power, and not two.

If as you say, the 2nd century was documenting history as he knew it. He certainly would not be portraying Media as a separate kingdom.

Nothing about this theory makes any sense at all. It is not "common sense considered with reason and science". It is lack of any sense at all, combined with lack of reason, and lack of science.

As for the exact interrelationship not being clear. That also is a real "hoot". Nothing could be more clear by reading the prophecies in the Book of Daniel than the fact that the main theme is successive kingdoms down through the ages.

Only an atheist and skeptic could miss this.

You are right the author would have known about Alexander and the 4 divisions of his kingdom. And he portrayed these quite accurately in the symbolism of beasts and horns. I do not however think it rational to believe the author would have a kingdom being successive to itself.

Your argument has been made repeatedly with the same errors.

I love it, you quote one of the books of inconsistency, 2 Chronicles which has problems even with the rest of the Hebrew Bible as some kind of proof.

We can discuss 1 & 2 Chronicles next if you want.

 

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

Also, it looks like your method of evaluating this chapter without taking into consideration it's relevance to the rest of the book has resulted in quite a mess. Now you are stuck trying to justify splitting Media and Persia even though that does not make sense.

pjts wrote:

I do take all into consideration. Analise each, and put them together.

Explanations have been given for the Medes and Persians, several times. You seem to miss it because you have your own smoke in your eyes.

I have not missed anything. That is why I must reject your theory as pure rubbish, without any rational basis whatsoever.

You miss quite a lot.

You can reject whatever you like.

You however have lots of issues to still address. Such as the Rome and Papal claim you have made without any proof.