Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity and the End Times
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 233 of 1748 (836002)
07-06-2018 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
07-06-2018 4:53 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
I anticipated that would be your answer, I just find it hard to believe. Since I believe prophecy is God-given I believe it cannot fail;
That’s really your problem, not mine.
quote:
I also apparently have higher standards for its fulfillment than you do: I have to look for exactness in interpreting the images: I can't accept "ten kings," two of whom never make it to the throne;
You don’t have standards. Just excuses. Harsh, but sadly true. As I am sure we will see.
quote:
I can't accept a prophecy of the end of the Babylonian captivity in place of a command or decree --that would have to be made by a Gentile king -- to rebuild the city of Jerusalem
Interesting that you consider God to be inadequate.
quote:
I can't accept two minor "messiahs" when the text specifically counts down to the coming of "Messiah the Prince" who has been promised throughout the Old testament to save us from sin and the evil one;
You’re just refusing to accept an interpretation that disagrees with yours. The text just tells us that it’s an anointed Princd and Cyrus undoubtedly qualifies for that.
quote:
And I certainly can't accept the failure of such a promise as this
Again, your prejudices are your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 4:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 235 of 1748 (836008)
07-07-2018 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
07-07-2018 11:33 AM


Re: The ten kings are yet future
quote:
My prejudices are actually essential to rightly interpreting prophecy given by God.
Prejudice is never a reliable guide to the truth. That’s why you fall for silly nonsense like the stuff Alex Jones pedals.
quote:
But all that said, I've found one expositor who is better than most and I think I'll go with his discussion of the beast with ten horns for now. That's this article by John F. Walvoord.
It doesn’t seem very good to me, first he claims that the identifications of the parts of the statue are in the text, which is untrue.
He claims that the ten toes of the statue represent ten kings, but the toes aren’t even mentioned in Daniel 2. To assign them any importance is to go beyond the text.
He claims that the ten kings from Daniel 7 are depicted as ruling simultaneously but again, that is not in the text.
Obviously he is not distinguishing between the text and his preferred interpretation. That in itself disqualifies his writing as being a good analysis of the text.
And of course you won’t hear from him that Daniel 2:43 likely refers to marriages between the Diadochi royal families of the failure of those marriages to bring peace.
As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay
(Daniel 2:43 NKJV)
Revelation’s use of similar images is not relevant to me. Daniel obviously wasn’t influenced by Revelation, and I have no reason to think that the writer of Revelation had any special knowledge of what the author of Daniel intended. It seems far more likely to me that any reuse of the images is more a reinterpretation of Daniel - or perhaps no more than simple reuse of the images.
So I am really not seeing anything there of value. Just a very questionable interpretation with less textual support than mine.
If he is the best you can find, I’d hate to see the worst.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 11:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 1:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 237 of 1748 (836010)
07-07-2018 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
07-07-2018 1:25 PM


Re: The ten kings are yet future
quote:
All the images need to be interpreted in the light of all the others
It makes sense to interpret Revelation in the light of Daniel, but not the other way around. The author of Revelation very likely knew and used Daniel, but obviously the reverse cannot be true.
quote:
Daniel got visions from God which he didn't completely understand, and so did John. That they tie together is due to God's intentions and not necessarily anything to do with what John knew about the meaning of Daniel's visions.
And once again you are relying on doctrine. Since I don’t accept your doctrine it is hardly going to be persuasive.
In fact it further undermines your claims. The Revelation can’t change the fact that Daniel 8 and Daniel 9-12 clearly place the end times close to the Maccabean revolt. It can’t change the fact that you don’t have a sensible interpretation of the vision of the statue.
It also can’t change the fact that the source you need for this discussion is one that fairly and accurately analyses the text of Daniel and deals with the issues. Someone who can’t tell the difference between the text and the interpretation he favours is not useful at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 2:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 239 of 1748 (836012)
07-07-2018 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
07-07-2018 2:06 PM


Re: The ten kings are yet future
quote:
Oh not so. The only way we an know what the statue represents is through the beast visions that come later that also represent four empires, and also the two of Daniel 8 which are identified in the text as Medo Persia and Greece, which clearly reflect the same symbolism as the middle two in the statue and the beasts of Daniel 7,
Except that the beasts of Daniel 8 don’t reflect the same symbolism as the statue. There is no commonality there. There is nothing goat-like or ram-like about the sections of the statue, nor are the goat or the ram assigned metals.
And let us note that references in Daniel can certainly help us understand Daniel. Such as the appearance of the little horn in the two prophecies, letting us identify the fourth beast as an offshoot of the Greeks, and the iron in it links it to the strong Diadochi kingdoms represented by the legs of the statue in Daniel 2. You may disagree with those points - so why should you expect me to accept yours when mine have a stronger foundation in the actual text? (Or is that the reason?)
quote:
Also Christians understand the New Testament as the key to understanding the Old.
Which is a doctrinal issue. It’s not surprising that Christians would seek to reinterpret the older texts. It is not surprising that modern Christians would assume that the reinterpretations are valid. It is surprising that anybody would expect non-Christians to automatically accept it. It would be like a Muslim expecting a Christian to accept the use of the Quran in interpreting the Bible.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 2:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 2:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 1748 (836014)
07-07-2018 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-07-2018 2:40 PM


Re: The ten kings are yet future
quote:
Just the fact that the statue represents four empires, three succeeding the first which we know was babylon, and that the subsequent visions including those in Revelation always represent the same four, is really enough to explain the statue.
There’s a big problem for you there. You don’t have a good explanation of the statue, and if the legs are Greek - and the evidence points that way - your interpretations of the rest go up in smoke. I’ve already explained why Revelation carries no weight with me, and my reasons are perfectly rational so I don’t see why you keep bringing it up. It only emphasises the fact that you can’t make your case from Daniel.
quote:
and if just knowing the sequence of history isn't enough, we also have the fact that Jesus was born in the Roman Empire, and that the prince that destroys Jerusalem after the crucifixion was a Roman,
And we know that Daniel 9 is really talking about Antiochus and the author of Daniel expected the end to come long before Jesus was born.
quote:
Christian doctrine is just the most sensible observations preserved as to how scripture should be interpreted.
You’re appealing to Christian doctrine because the sensible ways of reading Daniel produce interpretations you don’t like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 2:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 3:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 243 of 1748 (836016)
07-07-2018 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
07-07-2018 3:33 PM


Re: The ten kings are yet future
quote:
Why am I talking about Revelation? Because Revelation picks up where Daniel left off and carries us through the end times up to the Second Coming, which is what this thread is about.
I intend to get to the Revelation in time, but there is more to do before we get there.
However, since you know that the Revelation can’t offer much to the debate in the interpretation of Daniel talking about it in that context is a waste of time.
quote:
Yeah we know about Maccabees and the Seleucids and Antiochus. That all figures prominently in Daniel, but it's there partly to show us how prophecy works and how exact it can be in those wars of Daniel 11, and thereby give us a model for events to come at the very end of time, when Jesus will return and really will set up that everlasting kingdom that wasn't supposed to come in the time of the Maccabees anyway.
In other words this book - that supposedly shows us how accurate prophecy can be - gets it massively wrong.
Odd that.
quote:
Next I need to spend some time putting together the imagery of the little horn of Daniel 7 with the prince who is to come and the bad guy in Revelation
Since that won’t help in the debate over the interpretation of Daniel, may I take it that you are giving up on that ? After failing to show even one hole in my arguments for the Maccabean interpretation over the futurist ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 07-07-2018 3:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 245 of 1748 (836018)
07-08-2018 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Faith
07-08-2018 3:02 AM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
You still haven’t found any real holes.
quote:
Other passages do connect Antiochus with a future similar personality, however, so the connection is justifiable.
You mean that other passages are interpreted - by futurists - as connecting Antiochus to a future similar personality. If the Maccabean interpretation is correct the futurists are wrong on that one.
quote:
The last section of Daniel 11, from 11:36 on, is considered by futurists to be a shift from Anticiochus to the future Antichrist
As I have already shown there is good textual evidence to the contrary. Simply telling me that futurists disagree doesn’t help your case at all.
quote:
the specific description of the one in this section was quoted by Paul in a way that specifically identifies him with a future Antichrist
Which is irrelevant for the same reasons that the Revelation is irrelevant.
quote:
Jesus also takes Antiochus and his time as pointing to a future fulfillment
We’ll get to that. While we can’t say that Jesus said those words, we can say that they are at least a very strange thing to say given the actual events.
quote:
Yes they are very similar characters. But they come from different kingdoms so they are not the same. I also showed that Revelation identifies the same fourth kingdom as different from Greece.
The Revelation is not relevant. As I have shown that there is a strong case from Daniel that they came from the same kingdom.
quote:
I'd also point out that the fourth beast/kingdom is said to be different from ALL OTHER KINGDOMS. I don't think that describes the Seleucids
My thought is that it refers to the rise of Hellenistic culture. According to Maccabees, Jews were adopting Greek culture, Greek names, Greek activities - even havin surgery to hide the fact that they were circumcised.
1 Maccabees 1:14-15 (GNT - possibly not the best, but convenient)
14 They built in Jerusalem a stadium like those in the Greek cities. 15 They had surgery performed to hide their circumcision, abandoned the holy covenant, started associating with Gentiles, and did all sorts of other evil things.
And things just escalated from there with the Hellenisers dealing with Antiochus, bribing him to get appointed High Priest, and even groping as far as civil conflict.
On top of that Antiochus goes the whole way by seizing the Temple, ending the Jewish rites and dedicating it to the worship of Zeus (and, IIRC Antiochus didn’t make a lot of distinction between him and himself)
I hope you can see that this was a unique threat to Jewish culture and faith.
quote:
The Seleucids also did not rule the entire world.
As we have seen in past discussions phrases like that can be very tricky. Hebrew is a bit odd in that respect, and I would hardly be surprised if the same oddity was found in Jewish Aramaic. Given that Daniel clearly doesn’t take a world-wide view (for instance, Daniel 11:30 mentions Rome’s intervention in Antiochus’ wars against Egypt, but says nothing about Rome itself) it’s far from clear that this is meant literally.
Even in Greek it doesn’t have to literally mean the whole world. Luke 2:1 says that Augustus decree applied to the whole world, when there were large parts of the known world where Rome had no power. Indeed, it is likely that the actual census was of Judea, or at most the province of Syria when Judea was annexed to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 3:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 11:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 247 of 1748 (836036)
07-08-2018 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
07-08-2018 11:14 AM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
But I don't see how this is related specifically to the Fourth Beast which you identify with the Seleucid kingdom and futurists identify with the Roman Empire. For starters, Hellenization was a product of the spread of Greek culture to the wnole area conquered by Alexander, certainly not confined in any way to the Seleucids.
The Seleucids were the ones who had power over the Jews and the Hellenising faction were making deals with Antiochus.
quote:
The Fourth Beast is said to be different from all other, or even ALL kingdoms.
Which other kingdom took control of the Temple for their own pagan rites ?
quote:
This is probably indicated in the image of the statue, the iron legs being the Roman Empire we know, the feet and toes of both iron and potter's clay hinting at something different yet to come.
The toes are not mentioned, but as I have pointed out the iron and clay actually seem to be references to the Diadochi kingdoms.
quote:
Seleucia never ruled over any more of the Greek lands than the Syria and Judea it started out ruling after Alexander's death. At the very least the concept of the "whole world" has to refer to the whole area conquered by Alexander.
And yet, as I pointed out the usual translations of Luke speak about the world when the actual event likely only applied to Judea.
The author of Daniel really doesn’t seem much concerned with anything outside the region. And Daniel 11 clearly tells us that Antiochus would conquer Egypt.
quote:
And certainly Augustus' decree that all the world be taxed applied to the entire area under Roman rule. Not the entire planet but a substantial portion of it at that time.
Please back that up. I have researched the issue in the last and found no evidence of such.
quote:
In any case I read the phrase in connection with the future fourth beast or empire which probably will rule the entire planet.
Given that you don’t even seem to have a sensible count of four - there’s no reason for the count to stop there or omit your presumed recreation - I think that you would really do better addressing the serious problems in your own arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 11:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 11:59 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 1748 (836040)
07-08-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
07-08-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
What are you talking about?
Exactly what I said. You have no sensible reason for the count to stop at four, or for the presumed recreation of the fourth empire to be completely absent from the prophecy.
I have been making this point repeatedly so you don’t have any excuse for sudden surprise.
quote:
and yes Revelation counts as does the entire New Testament, you have no justification to exclude it
I certainly do have justification, and I have given it.
quote:
FOUR DISTINCT SECTIONS OF THE STATUE, FOUR DISTINCT BEASTS IN DANIEL 7, FOUR BEASTS REPRESENTED IN THE ONE BEAST OF REVELATION 13.
Which only shows how much you need a sensible explanation for the omissions.
quote:
Your attempt to mangle the futurist point of view is even worse than the way you mangle the entire prophecy to invent your Maccabean scenario. The four kingdoms are OBVIOUS
I have yet to see any evidence of mangling. The fact that the prophecies repeatedly list four kingdoms is a part of my point, not a contradiction of it.
quote:
Stop this misrepresentation.
What misrepresentation ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 11:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 9:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 251 of 1748 (836043)
07-08-2018 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
07-08-2018 12:43 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
I haven't seen a truly good point yet in all your juggling of the prophecies to make them come out over a hundred years before the coming of Jesus Christ. From the decree of Artaxerxes that sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem ti rebuild the walls, the 483 years counts to 38 AD. That is really awfully close. Not exact, no, but close enough to suggest that there is an exact way of computing it if we have the right historical perspective. In any case nothing in the seventy weeks goes anywhere near the period of the Maccabees.
In fact I have a reasonable case for a start date that gives an error of only sixty years. And a very strong case that the intended end date IS in the period of the Maccabees. Until you can refute that - and I haven’t seen any good points from you on that front, I’m still well ahead. Especially as you have yet to justify inserting a gap of 2000 years into the prophecy.
quote:
We don't feel "compelled" to put the seven years to the future at all, we feel it is a wonderful revelation of how God works that it was so clearly left unfulfilled so that it has to be yet future.
OK, your God is wonderfully fallible when it comes to dates. I don’t see what’s so great about that, but if you like it...
Oh sorry, I read the rest. It’s wonderful that God’s is fallible so you can make up stuff you like much better. Thanks for admitting that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 12:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 253 of 1748 (836050)
07-08-2018 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
07-08-2018 9:20 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
This must be a case of your making so little sense I haven't been able to answer, especially if there are other things I can answer.
The point makes perfect sense. So this is just your usual nastiness in place of argument.
quote:
For the count to stop at four? The count of empires? But it stops at four because the prophecies stop at four, I don't have anything to do with that. Four sections of the statue, four beasts in Daniel 7. Scripture identifies four and only four.
But history has rather more than four that seem to qualify for the list.
The Maccabean interpretation comes with that fine because the end occurs during the time of the fourth Empire in the sequence, without any intervening empires, or the necessity of a destroyed empire somehow returning.
Your interpretation covers a range of history where multiple empires are active in the region, where your candidate for the last Empire is destroyed - and you say that it comes back (and we still don’t have a good explanation of how that could happen either) - an ad hoc move that has no support in the prophecy.
So again, the problem is that your interpretation doesn’t really make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 07-08-2018 9:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 12:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 258 of 1748 (836073)
07-09-2018 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
07-09-2018 12:01 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
I wasn't being nasty, I was just saying if I can't make sense of what you are saying I often don't address it
If you can’t be bothered to understand my points the least you could try and do is be honest about it instead of attacking me.
quote:
Historically there is no other empire but the Roman Empire that followed Greece.
So the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire - to name the two most obvious examples - never existed ?
quote:
And I'm not looking to a revival of the Roman Empire myself, I think it never came to an end, that the Roman Church that became head over the Holy Roman Empire continued it.
The Catholic Church is not an Empire, the Holy Roman Empire was a confederation of Germanic princes - Roman and an Empire in name only, and the relationship with the Catholic Church was rather more complicated than the Church controlling the so-called Empire. And excepting the Crusades the so-called Holy Roman Empire had almost nothing to do with the region of interest to the author of Daniel.
So, not very convincing. Even if the Holy Roman Empire was still around it wouldn’t be convincing.
quote:
In any case it has to be someone from "the people who are to come" that Titus represented.
Don’t forget that Titus wasn’t a ruler when he took Jerusalem so his qualifications as Prince are rather lacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 12:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 1:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 261 of 1748 (836076)
07-09-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
07-09-2018 1:02 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
I wasn't attacking you, I was exp0laining why I didn't know what you awere talking anout.
And the real reason was not that I was making no sense - your claim - but that you couldn’t be bothered to understand.
quote:
Introducing other empires makes no sense. We have the four in szctipture and that's what the prophecies are abnout, not any other empires.
In other words, if the prophecy doesn’t fit reality, you ignore reality.
Now that doesn’t make sense to me.
quote:
I know all that about the Holy Romaqn Empire. I'm sure the final versiojn will be everything the prophecies ask for.
That’s pretty obviously impossible.
quote:
The Bible is a supernatural work. God is interested in the entire world, not just whatever you think is the "region of interest to the author of Daniel."
Aside from the absurdity of ignoring the text - the author of Daniel does deal only with a small part of the world whether you like it or not - expanding the scope only makes things worse for you. Obviously the Mongol Empire - the largest land empire ever - would deserve a mention.
quote:
You'll never get any of this if you stick to the antisupernaturalist "scholars."
Apparently you think that the author of Daniel is an antisupernaturalist scholar because I got that directly from reading the Book of Daniel.
quote:
But you are operating under the handicap of not being saved so I really can't expect more.
Funny how this handicap helps me understand the Bible far better than you.
quote:
Your remark about Titus is a case in point. He became a ruler. He's a model for an end times leader that includes the little horn of Daniel 7 for which the little horn of Daniel 8 is another model and not the fulfillment.
Indeed, it is a case where I understand the Bible better than you - because I am not locked into false dogma.
quote:
Wait and see. It's all coming together.
Wait and see.
You do love your crazy fantasies. Probably because of all your hate. There is no Roman Empire. There is no prospect of the real Roman Empire returning. The historical empires which ruled the Middle East after the expulsion of the Romans really did exist. We are not living less than 490 years after the decree of Artaxerxes. The Diadochi kingdoms are long gone. Facts, Faith. The actual prophecy failed. It failed long, long ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 1:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 1:47 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 265 of 1748 (836080)
07-09-2018 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
07-09-2018 1:47 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
But you aren’t. It’s all,a fantasy. You only believe the insane idea of the Roman Catholic Church merging with Islam in the near future because you unthinkingly hate both.
Islam itself becoming a unified force in the near term is unlikely, to say the least. And how you could imagine that Islam and the RC Church could possibly join together without implausibly large doctrinal shifts on at least one side is beyond me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 1:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 2:04 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 429 by Faith, posted 07-18-2018 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 267 of 1748 (836082)
07-09-2018 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
07-09-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Daniel: Maccabean versus Futurist
quote:
Scripture is concerned with a certain sequence of empires that are revealed to be of the same mind and spirit, from Babylon to Rome. Other empires may have a similar mindset but they are not part of the prophecy which does point to an end times Roman Empire. No it is not over. Wait and see
So this same mindset - which is conveniently not defined (nor mentioned in Daniel) is your supposed reason for the prophecy missing out all the other empires. Even though the fourth empire is supposedly different. And aside from the obvious ad hoc invention you still have the problem that Rome is gone, it can’t simply reappear and scripture doesn’t say anything about that.
quote:
Of course I do think it is right on the horizon, or waiting in the wings, perhaps to emerge on stage rather suddenly. That's why I keep saying Wait and see. Of course I could be wrong.
You’re obviously wrong. Even the Bible disagrees with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 07-09-2018 1:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024