Re: Substantiating The Validity Of Bible Prophecy

Well, Zekes stuff was for his time too as far as I'm concerned. So it missed being a Muslim by a whole bunch. But some of the End Times stuff, like the stuff in Revelations, probabbly was fulfilled until around 100AD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you're getting warmer.I think the most scholarly interpretation of end time prophecies (Partial Preterism) was that they were fulfilled in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed and the Jews were dispersed throughout the world. Matthew 24 and the like were prophesying this event IOP.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

That's the best way to do it, predict stuff that already happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes: The destruction of Jerusalem was a huge event--not just as a human tragedy but as symbolism. My impression is that the author of Revelation was trying to do two things: interpret Jerusalem's destruction and predict the future demise of Rome. Early Christians would view both events as representing a twofold divine retribution for Christ's crucifixion.On that second point: the author of the Apocalypse didn't live in a free society. He had to express himself in a code that would get past any Roman authorities who might be looking.Early Christians, victims of Roman persecution, looked for an eventual overthrow of Rome to compare with the fall of Nineveh in 612bce or the fall of Jerusalem in 70ace. A lot of the Christ-antiChrist symbolism in the NT works as code for Christ vs Caesar. Christ, for example, is portrayed wearing a crown of thorns in an age when readers knew Roman Caesars wore crowns of roses. Most talk of Satan in the NT links him to emperor worship in some way. But the writers conveyed all this to the reader in code--and they took pains, especially in the narratives after 70ace, to soften the light on Pilate. Big Brother was watching.That's my take on it. Early Christians were psyched for a showdown. Christ vs Antichrist, King of the Jews vs King of the Romans. No one foresaw the event that really came about: a Roman emperor converting to Christianity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Yeah, the John of Patmos was most likely talking about Nero. And no one expected what happened or that his mom would become a tour guide and resort owner.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Except Revelations was written prior to 70 ADSee the Historian Gentry's work on this demonstrating the case at
http://www.freebooks.com in the prophecy section.But you were right the beast was Nero and the Roman empire. You finally got one right Jarhead! And you still have never responded to the prophecies of Daniel 2, 9 & 11 from the other thread that apply here as well.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

quote:

---

The book of Daniel is a good example. chapter 9 gives the prophecy: "Seventy sevens are determined for you holy city to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and Understand That from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven sevens and sixty two sevens; the street shall be built again, and the wall Even in Troublesome times.And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off but not for himself..."

​

The command was given by Artexerxes to Nehemiah who was allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild it. Archeologists found the stone cylinder with the command on it. That started the countdown. the sevens are properly translated as years or weeks of years in Hebrew. Exactly 69 weeks of years later...to the day...Palm Sunday... Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah in Jerusalem. And then 62 weeks later Jesus was crucified.

---

There are some obvious problems here. Firstly the decree to rebuild is more plausibly the earlier command decree by Cyrus. Secondly since we cannot exacly date Jesus' life we cannot say that Palm Sunday was 69 x 7 year later. Also you cannot arbitrarily reuse the 62 x 7 years as 62 weeks. Finally you miss out the last week of the seventy that Daniel refers to entirely - as well as the destruction predicted for Jerusalem. If 1 week is seven years then Jerusalem would have to be conquered and destroyed within 7 years of the death of the messiah referred to.

quote:

---

Later in Daniel 11 Daniel describes the coming world kingdoms the same for the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. Daniel was written 606 BC but even if one late dates it they cannot get it later than the translation of the septuagint in 200 BC but it was obviously written before that. Anyway the statue of Nebechenezzar has Babylon, followed by the Medio-Persions followed by Greece then by Rome then the white stone cut without hands...the messiah. Daniel 11 describes each of the kingdoms coming accurately.

---

According to Bible scolars Daniel was written towards the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC). The 200 BC date for the translation of the Septuagint refers only to the translation of the Torah, and not any other book. In all the book of Daniel there is only one passing reference to Rome (11:30). In fact most of Daniel 11 is about the struggle between the Seleucids (mainly Antiochus IV) - the King of the North and the Ptolomeys - the King of the South. I suspect that you have the wrong chapter.If you really want to discuss the details of the dating of Daniel then I suggest a new thread. However there are serious problems with dating it to 606 BC and the late date fits the evidence far better.aEdited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

The date given for the Revelation of John is 90 to 95.That, in case you haven't realised, is 20 years after the destruction of the Jewish temple.from The Book of Revelation

quote:

---

Kummel provides the following information on dating the Apocalypse of John (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 466-8):

​

According to the oldest tradition [in Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3] Rev was written toward the end of the reign of Domitian (81-96). The book's own testimony indicates that it originated in the province of Asia in a time of severe oppression of Christians, which is most readily conceivable under Domitian. In the letters included in Rev, persecutions by the officials are expected (2:10), the blood of the martyrs has already flowed (2:13; 6:9), the whole of Christianity is threatened with a fearful danger (3:10): the immediate prospect is for the outbreak of a general persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. In 17:6 John sees the harlot who is Babylon-Rome drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (cf. 6:10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2). In 20:4 participation in the thousand-year reign is promised to the martyrs who have been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and for the word of God, and who have not worshiped the beast and his image and have not accepted his sign on their forehead and in their hand, i.e., those who have refused divine honors to the emperor (13:4, 12 ff; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). Christianity has collided with the state and with the state religion, the Christ cult with the imperial cult. In the interest of faith, Rev raises passionate objections to Rome and the imperial cult. That corresponds to the situation under Domitian.

---

And, of course, when it comes to Daniel, that was written between 160 and 165BCE. The prophecies were either after the fact, or misinterpreted to be a different event than what was being predicted.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

You then go on to make a post filled with unsupported claims!! The command was given by Artexerxes to Nehemiah who was allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild it.Evidence please? Archeologists found the stone cylinder with the command on it. Which archaeologists, when and where was it found, is it genuine, when is it dated to........ That started the countdown. the sevens are properly translated as years or weeks of years in Hebrew.Are they, what is your evidence for this? Exactly 69 weeks of years later...to the day...Palm Sunday... Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah in Jerusalem. More unsupported claims. How do you know Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah on Palm Sunday.Also, you do know that Jesus had to be born between 4 to 6 yars earlier than the church father thought? And then 62 weeks later Jesus was crucified. Again, unsupported. Daniel was written 606 BC Says who? Another unsuported claim. but even if one late dates it they cannot get it later than the translation of the septuagint in 200 BC So it cannot be later than 200 bce, which is well after the alleged events? but it was obviously written before that. Why is it obvious, you are just making empty claims again. No one can explain these prophecies...you can only try to late date Daniel only so far but it was written when it claims 606 BC. We have still to see why you date Daniel to 606 bce. None of them have.So, over to you, which prophecies do you think have come true and please provide supporting evidence.To make it easy we can look at one at a time.Let's start with the claim that Christians say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem thus fulfilling a 'prophecy'.Cheers.Brian.

I didnt have time to get sources last night but gave the summary which I will now support.The only reason for doubting the 606 BC date of Daniel is a bias against prophecy even being possible which amounts to pre-defining it out of existence. Apriori methodology has two fallacies 1) Begging the question and 2) Circular reasoningHere is a good discussion of the scholarship:"A person believing that Daniel, or parts of the book, were written in the second century B.C.E. may of course believe in God and in divine inspiration just as much as one believing in a sixth century writing. But this is not the point! The important question is why scholars give the book of Daniel a second century dating. And here the question of divine inspiration is the principal one. The case was opened in the eighteenth century C.E. by the German scholar J. C. Dderlein, who claimed that Isaiah 40-66 must have been
written by a "second" Isaiah because it is impossible to predict the future. The same viewpoint regarding other prophecies, including Daniel, was adopted by many scholars following him, and this view is probably held by the majority of scholars today.In Daniel chapter 11 we find a written "history," In chapter 10 "Daniel" writes in the first person, and the account of chapter 11 starts with "the first year of Darius the Mede". The writer states (11:2) that he will tell what is going to happen in the future. And here is the crux. If a scholar should take the text at face value and accept the claim that it was written in the sixth century B.C.E. s/he has to accept that a detailed account of the future could be given a long time before the events. This
would be tantamount to accepting divine inspiration. But metaphysical
explanations are excluded in scientific research. Therefore, the claim of the text itself of a sixth century writing is rejected, and because the the last part of chapter 11 seems to give details of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the scholarly consensus is that Daniel was written in the second century B.C.E. (some scholars would say that parts of it may have been written before, and that they may have been included in the second century work). A good way to test my claim that rejection of divine inspiration (detailed predictions of the future) is the basic reason for a second century dating, is to ask: How many scholars who date the book of Daniel to c. 160 B.C.E. are willing to consider the *possibility* that he "historical
account" of Daniel 11:1-20 were written in the sixth century C.E? I guess that almost all of them would a priori rule this out.>From a scholarly point of view the OT should be studied in its own right and not in light of the NT. However, from a descriptive point of view we note that Jesus` words (Matthew 24:15) regarding BDELUGMA ERHMWSEWS in Dan 11:31 (and 9:27; 12:11) refer to the future. So, some living in the first century C.E. did not agree with modern scholars regarding the application of the words of the last part of Daniel chapter 11 to Entiochos IV Epiphanes.Please note, that my arguments above are descriptive and not normative. I am not arguing in favor of a particular position, but I try to give an account of the model or paradigm that influence scholars. I do not criticize scholars who stick to the scientific principle of rejecting any metaphysical explanation. But an honest course would be to admit this, and as far as Daniel i concerned, to admit that the basic argument for a second century dating is the view that the future cannot be predicted.Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo"The basic premise of the scholars who reject the 606BC date for Daniel is that Daniel could not have predicted Antiochus Epiphanes so accurately before-hand so it must have been written after the Maccabeean revolt which is flawed methodology.However the internal evidence flies against this which I'll get to as well.Plus Brian...I challenged you to show one biblical prophecy that has failed and all you did was respond all of them...that is not a proper response...demonstrate one dont assert one. All biblical prophecies except the conversion of the Jews, rapture and second coming have been fulfilled...see the partial preterist view which is the most scholarly or I can explain it to you later.Edited by ReformedRob, : left out a question for Brian

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

The 95-96 date for Revelations has been refuted soundly by Gentry whose thorough book on the subject is at http://www.freebooks.com. I thought I gave this source prior. I'll review the actual args later not time now but anyone interested can review the book for free at this site

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

PaulKYou were right I meant chapter Daniel 7 not chapter 11. Thanks for the correction, however your assertion that Daniel does not mention Rome is wrong for Daniel Chapter 2:40 is rome as is Daniel 7:7; Daniel 2:36-40&44, "This is the dream, Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. You, O king are a king of kings. for the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength and flory; and whereever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you a rule over them all--you are the head of gold. but after you shall arise another kingdom inferiour to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, whiche shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes...And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdome shall not be left ot other people"; Daniel 7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong it had huge iron teeth, it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns."so you had the Babylonian kingdom, gold, Medio-persion, silver, grecian, bronze and rome iron with the stone cut without hands setting up the kingdom of God coming during the time of the Roman empire which was Jesus "The Kingdom of God is amongst you"And the dating of Daniel is important to this thread because it establishes prophecy being given before hand as in Antiochus Epiphanes. It is a biased methodology based on aprior presuppostions and 2 logical fallacies to date Daniel after 200 BC. See my post to Brian which details this more.As well your assertion about the book of Daniel not being in the Septuagint According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Website it was included in the Septuagint:"The Septuagint.The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint" ("Interpretatio septuaginta virorum" or "seniorum"). It is a monument of the Greek spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria; not of classic Greek, nor even of the Hellenistic style affected by Alexandrian writers. If the account given by Aristeas be true, some traces of Palestinian influence should be found; but a study of the Egyptian papyri, which are abundant for this particular period, is said by both Mahaffy and Deissmann to show a very close similarity between the language they represent and that of the Septuagint, not to mention the Egyptian words already recognized by both Hody and Eichhorn. These papyri have in a measure reinstated Aristeas (about 200 B.C.) in the opinion of scholars. Upon his "Letter to Philocrates" the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests. It is now believed that even though he may have been mistaken in some points, his facts in general are worthy of credence (Abrahams, in "Jew. Quart. Rev." xiv. 321). According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria.
"...Being a composite work, the translation varies in the different books. In the Pentateuch, naturally, it adheres most closely to the original; in Job it varies therefrom most widely. In some books (e.g., Daniel) the influence of the Jewish Midrash is more apparent than in others." BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.comYour date of 200 BC only applying to the Torah is in error. The Torah was translated to greek as shown around 285-247BC and the rest of the Septuagint including Daniel around 200 BC. Edited by ReformedRob, : Additl evidenceEdited by ReformedRob, : clarifying punctuation & spelling

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Here is a very good article that deals with the prophecies of Daniel and the proper dating.Dating of the Book of Daniel

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

quote:

---

however your assertion that Daniel does not mention Rome is wrong for Daniel Chapter 2:40 is rome as is Daniel 7:7; Daniel 2:36-40&44

---

No, that is the Greek empire of Alexander and his successors. YOu should look at the whole of Daniel - the book pays an awful lot of attention to the Hellenistic states and virtually none to Rome, as in chapter 11.

quote:

---

so you had the Babylonian kingdom, gold, Medio-persion, silver, grecian, bronze and rome iron with the stone cut without hands setting up the kingdom of God coming during the time of the Roman empire which was Jesus "The Kingdom of God is amongst you"

---

No, The Median Empire is Silver while the Persian Empire is Bronze. For one you can see that the second Empireis alleged to be less than the first - which is certainly not true of the Persian Empire. And as I have stated Daniel pays much attention to the division of the Greek Empire, and looks at the weak and strong kings of the divided states, but Rome merits only a single mention.

quote:

---

it is a biased methodology based on aprior presuppostions

---

No, it is based less on what the author of Daniel got right than on what he got wrong. He is not correct on events that happened on or recently befoe the time of supposed writing. Nor is he correct about the fate of Antiochus.

quote:

---

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Website it was included in the Septuagint:

---

You have managed to misread your own sourceHere are some relevant parts which you should have read. [qs] According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), ...It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek...It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era... [/quote]Aristeas gives a date for the translation of the Torah, and NOT for any other books, just as I said. The date of translation of the other books is NOT known - according to the source you cited, adnd can only be nailed down to "before the Christian Era".I suggest that you also read what the Jewish Enclopedia has to say on the dating of Daniel so you are at least familiar with the arguments for a late date rather than repeating the misrepresentations of Christian apologists.
DANIEL, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

quote:

---

Your date of 200 BC only applying to the Torah is in error. The Torah was translated to greek as shown around 285-247BC and the rest of the Septuagint including Daniel around 200 BC.

---

That is a gross misreading of your source. The 200 BC date is the date of the letter of Aristeas - which refers to the translation of the Torah. It does not give a date for the translation of the other books at all as is absolutely clear if you go on and read the next paragraph.
h

Paul K, First thanks for taking the time to review my source. That was cool of you but you first stated the translation of the Torah i.e. Pentatuch was 200 BC You changed from the date of the translation of the Torah (Pentatuch) to the date of Aristeas letter which is different And Aristeas gives the date of the translation of the Torah i.e. Pentatuch at 285-247 BC not 200 BC as you originally claimed
"According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.),"
BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.comthen you claim that Aristeas, is only talking about the Torah/Pentatuch which you have yet to prove. wrong again...Aristeas quoted Job which is not in the Torah/Pentatuch:
"Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C." BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.comAnd you said: you arrived at this by your strip quote of the Jewish Encyclopedia which you quoted as following using the "..." The part you left out says all the books of the Old Testament were in the Septuagint and in COMMON USE 132 BC:
"It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day" BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - JewishEncyclopedia.comBecause the Septuagint containing all the books of the Old Testament including Daniel were translated into the Septuagint and common use by 132 BC and because Aristeas letter in 200 BC is given credit that "the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests" it is reasonable that the Septuagint containing Daniel was translated around 200 BC. That's why I have been saying around 200 BC in my posts as in the last line of my previous post And , I did not cite a christian apologetic source, I cited a source from the University of Oslo that discussed the biases of the methodology of those who late date Daniel only because his accuracy of events,...you missed that.What I did do was provide a website address for anyone that wanted to see a good summary article explaining the dating of Daniel. That doesnt make it biased because it is Christian...it would only be biased if the reasons it gave were flawed.Finally, it is clear that Daniel 2& 7 are talking about Rome as I will show and I challenge you to cite a reputable source that says otherwise. Here's why Daniel 2 & 7 include Rome. Daniel 2 is about four successive kingdoms of which Babylon is the first and Daniel 7 is about the same four kingdoms using animals as metaphors of which it is obvoius that the second animal is the Medo-Persian empire and Greece the third animal and kingdom making Rome necessarily the fourth. Daniel 8 again uses animals as metaphors which shows that Medo-Persia is regarded as only one kingdom, not two, because it is represented by one animal.Daniel 7:2-7, & 17 "Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the fours winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings...And suddenly another beast, a second like a bear...After this I looked and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The Beast also had four heads and dominion was given to it...and behold, a fourth east, dreadful and terible exceedingly strong...It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns...'Those great beasts, which are four are four kings which arise out of the earth'"It is obvious that the 3rd beast, the leopard which is fast and mobile and it's four heads and four wings, is Alexanders army whose kingdom was divided up amongst his four generals upon his death. The second beast, the bear, is the Medo-Persians because of the great size and slowness of the Medo-Persian empire. The fourth beast is Rome as it succeeded the Grecian empire.This is made even more clear in Daniel 8:3-8&20-21, "Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and thre standing beside the river was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other and the higher one came up last...And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west and the goat ahad a notable horn between his eyes...I saw him confront the ram...and broke his two horns...Therefore the male goat grew very great but when he had become strong, the large horn was broken and in place of it four notable ones came up...The ram which you saw having the two horns they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation but without its power."So it is easy to see that the parallelism. Four successive kingdoms in the statue and four beasts also four kingdoms with Babylon/Nebudchanezzar being the first; the Medo-Persion empire being the second represented by silver, the bear and ram with two horns, the second horn being greater (Darius-Cyrus); Greece the third represented by bronze, the leopard with four wings and heads who are Alexander and then his four generals; and the fourth kingdom Rome represented by iron and the beast with iron teeth. This is pretty much common knowledge PaulK and I would like to see your sources that say otherwise.ThanksEdited by ReformedRob, : spacing so it is easier to readEdited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"