|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And that is just more of your false belittling of my points. Especially as you declared it impossible that both descriptions could fit the same man - even if you reject my explanation it is still pretty good.
quote: That is what you get for relying on an article covering the entire history of the empire instead of looking at more detailed articles as well.
On his return from Jerusalem, Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus, and seized the throne for himself.
wikipedia quote: Another of your strange misinterpretations. Demetrius managed to take the throne and rule later, but that is a side-note. He is on my list as the rightful heir of Seleucus IV and therefore with a claim to be king. A claim that Antiochus IV denied him. It is a viable interpretation. You may disagree but that is just opinion.
quote: As I said - and you obviously ignored - young Antiochus was co-regent with Antiochus IV at the start of the latter’s reign.
Antiochus seized the throne for himself with the help of King Eumenes II of Pergamum, proclaiming himself co-regent with another son of Seleucus, an infant named Antiochus (whom he then murdered a few years later)
Wikipedia You really should remember that I do make the effort to get my facts right.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Being the rightful king - as Demetrius was - seems close enough to me. And again, having a match this good is evidence that Antiochus is the person meant in Daniel 7. And thank you for living down to my prediction. It’s nice having the moral high ground.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: This seems a rather arbitrary criterion. It’s not in the text. The fact that three of the ten are uprooted by the eleventh rather suggests that they can’t have much of a reign. But then this is the standard that says that a series of four empires, the last destroyed by God can be a series of four empires plus several others which don’t get mentioned, where the fourth is destroyed by humans but somehow comes back hundreds of years later. But it can’t be a slightly series of four empires which fits the text equally well, and doesn’t have all the additions. It seems a rather flexible standard and apparently indistinguishable from Faith likes it.
quote: That assumes that the empires are divided up the same way each time. Given the quite different imagery I don’t think that is guaranteed, the more so since Daniel 11 deals with the Ptolemies and the Seleucids as distinct kingdoms.
quote: However I have a reasonable explanation and by my assessment the weight of evidence supports it. I’m still waiting for a sensible explanation of how you can shoehorn in a gap of 2000 years.
quote: In fact my two messiahs are remarkably good fits and it is just silly to deny it. Cyrus is a messiah and a prince and prominent in the Jews return to Jerusalem (and he gets quite a lot of mentions in scripture). Onaias III is prominent in the events leading up to the Maccabean revolt and is murdered shortly before events fitting with the seventieth week of Daniel 9. They are such good fits that they count as good evidence for my reading by any sensible standard. Your dismissal has no objective basis.
quote: So far I haven’t seen anything on either front worth considering.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I think it is entirely fair to deal with side issues, even if the main points should be left.
quote: quote: It isn’t. That is a replica of decorations from the palace of Darius in Susa. It’s Persian.
Frieze of Griffins May I suggest that jumping to wild conclusions from a label on a tourist photograph is a bit foolish. The more so when the label is wrong. Edited by PaulK, : Fix tag
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: This one also has horns and the back legs aren’t from a lion either. Unlike the ordinary lions you’d find on the Ishtar Gate which really is a gate from Babylon. So all you have is an image which someone said was from Babylon Gate in the Louvre. The Louvre says it’s from the Griffin Frieze. Here’s a link with a better image. You can see it’s exactly the same.
wikimedia quote: I hope you have some other support for your assertion that the winged lion is a special symbol of Babylon then. (It is a symbol of Venice but I wouldn’t try to prove it by showing an image said to be from Venice.)
quote: You forget who you are talking to. The Louvre page is set up to display a Flash animation. For those without Flash - most of us now - they have links to images right there on the page. So yes, I have proven you wrong.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In fact the Lamassu is much older than Babylon, and even the Persians adopted it. It’s a symbol found in Babylon (the version with a bull’s body, too). But a special symbol of Babylon? That’s a different question.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The problem is that the Bible doesn’t. If Daniel did or any OT Boom did I would definitely accept that as evidence. But an image that isn’t even Babylonian or intended to represent Babylon ? No.
quote: By which you seem to mean that you consider some guy on the internet more authoritative then the museum which hosts the work. How silly.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: We don’t know it from the symbolism of Daniel 7. Anyway this is a side point - the real issues are about Daniel 8 and the fourth empires of Daniel 2 and 7, not the first of either. I’m saving those issues for the full reply, despite your attempt to drag out this tangent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And if it suited you you would argue the exact opposite, that they only have to be Kings. In fact there is a distinction. Three are uprooted which surely means a brief reign at most. The practicalities of defeating three kings to claim the throne suggest as much as well.
quote: Funny that you haven’t bothered to correct this when it is clearly a Persian symbol, and your idea that particular image represents Babylon is your invention.
quote: That is an assumption and one that is far from certain. The very fact that we have only two beasts instead of four suggests that it may well be different.
quote: Ah yes, the fictional Darius the Mede. One of the reasons for thinking that Daniel was not written when it claims to have been written.
quote: This is all subjective interpretation. The interpretation of the statue is especially questionable. You could as easily argue it meant a threefold division as a twofold. I think I prefer the Medes for the second empire of the statue. That way you get (according to Daniel, not history) a sequence of four Empires each conquering and absorbing the next. Any other interpretation gets a bit messier. Also a short-lived Median Empire would better fit the claim that the second empire would be lesser than the first (Daniel 2:39) Of course this doesn’t fit your interpretation but it is clearly a valid interpretation.
quote: But the real issue is whether they are exactly the same. If the fourth beast is the Seleucids as I claim and if the iron and clay represents the variations in the strength of the Diadochi kingdoms then the same link applies. A strong Diadochi kingdom would be represented by iron. So to return to the main point, it is entirely possible that the second beast of Daniel 8 corresponds to the third and fourth beasts of Daniel 7. Thus this point does not rule out Antiochus as the little horn of Daniel 7.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But - to point out the problems of interpretation again - Babylon doesn’t need to be in the Daniel 7 prophecy. But really shouldn’t this issue be on the main thread, not on a side branch created to point out that you chose to use a Persian image for Babylon ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: What a great victory for you. Proving a point that nobody disagrees with because it is explicitly stated in the text. That’s a pretty good sign you can’t answer my points. Thank you for being so obvious about it.
quote: I tried to track that down once. Christian apologists gave no sources (hardly a surprise) and the closest I found was the idea that the Hittites were an obscure Canaanite tribe because the Bible said so. Which turns out to be mostly true, because Hittite is used - in English translations at least to refer to two different peoples, one of which IS an obscure Canaanite tribe.
quote: If my interpretations better fit the text - as they do - then that should be a perfectly good reason to put them forward - for anyone who respects the Bible. Of course those who subordinate the Bible to doctrine won’t welcome this. So much for Sola Scriptura.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And daring to disagree with you would be a mistake, would it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Exactly my point. That is why the text must come before doctrine.
quote: And there you go denying what the Bible says.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then why would it be a mistake for God to exclude Babylon from the Daniel 7 prophecy ? You didn’t give any reason, you just said it would be.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It’s difficult to find a Babylonian winged lion, isn’t it. That’s rather odd if it was a special symbol of Babylon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024