|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
Thanks for running into the only crack you could retreat to there, it is inevitable. Try to prove that silly crock, that Daniel was written after the fact, now, and let's have some real fun. Let the games begin.
Oh, wait. You can't. Too bad for your side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
Naming all the major kingdoms of the world important to God's chosen area is of absolute merit. If it is so easy let's see you name what power will ascend, the US, or Russia, or, China, or whatever?? Let's see you do it over a time span of thousands of years, with details so striking, many have felt it was after the fact! Then, pin down when the Messiah would die, and let's see you get Gabriel to be active in all your talk!! Then tell us if and when Jerusalem will be utterly destroyed, or the temple, if there was one, and by who when!!? Name a king a century and a half before he is born! Tell us how that the great king of the Greco Macedonian kingdom would come to his end and his kingdom left to other than his kin?? Tell us how the Jews would be taken captive, and for exactly how many years, and how they would return!!??
I could go on for hours and hours here, your attempt at trivialization is simply an admission of being ignorant of the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
How modern politically correct people want to print flags is not an issue. The Greco Macedonian empire was not just the one or the other, get over it. Greece had a lot to do with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:Where is the one after the 49 years? Cyrus??? That is absurd, if that is the claim. Being anointed for some job does not make one the Saviour. quote:Unsupported assertions! Nonsense as well. Prove it. quote:Gaps?? There are no gaps, just times within the given prophesy time where stuff happens. You seem quite confused. Maybe it is good you have a fresh look at what actually is going on here. [quote] Of course there isn't - unless you think it's less than 490 years since whichever start date you choose. The fact that "everalasting righteousness" is NOT here proves that the prophecy failed.
quote: The everlasting righteousness is the end result, not something we find mid span in the allotted time for the prophesy. First we have certain things, like Messiah being killed, the city destroyed, and etc. The final week, the big event, the long foretold latter days, the final scene is yet to be fulfilled. It is still prophesy, rather than history!!! Looking at history, we can be certain that Gabriel was bang on, however, the final 7 years can be considered as good as a done deal, that has not happened yet.
quote:They sure are, Rome's taxation, iron rule, and etc are fantastic. The name Rome, or Roman empire, I surmise will not be the final name of the kingdoms, that came from that empire, and are a final manifestation of it. Therefore, do you really think an archangel would use the name of only the first bit of the old part of the kingdom??? Doesn't make any sense! But the fourth beast was, and is, and is yet to come. It was as the Roman empire, it is as the remains of that kingdom, and it will be, as the reconstituted new Roman remains empire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote: Absolute bunk. No everlasting righteousness was brought in by that terd. He was a mere forerunner, also ran, shadow of the final king, that will be the devil in the flesh, by direct possession.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:Oh, is that what you said? OK. So?? Was there supposed to be a point? I am sorry, but discussing some Persian king as a Messiah is a pathetic joke. You OK with that?? quote:Oh, so now Gabriel and Daniel were not predicting anything. OK. What were they doing, bowling?? quote: So you accept that weeks are years now? OK. That is a start. The total prophesy covers 490 years, but the final period was not for many days. This is news? The gap there is not IN the prophesy, but in the time between Messiah being cut off, and etc, and the final week, or seven years. Of course.
quote: 490 years, NOT after the start of the prophesy, but in the 70 weeks of the prophesy. If what you men by a gap is some time between one thing and another in the prophesy, yes, there is a time gap, within the 70 weeks. Of course. Ask the angel! Dan 10:14 - Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:Oh, is that what you said? OK. So?? Was there supposed to be a point? I am sorry, but discussing some Persian king as a Messiah is a pathetic joke. You OK with that?? quote:Oh, so now Gabriel and Daniel were not predicting anything. OK. What were they doing, bowling?? quote: So you accept that weeks are years now? OK. That is a start. The total prophesy covers 490 years, but the final period was not for many days. This is news? The gap there is not IN the prophesy, but in the time between Messiah being cut off, and etc, and the final week, or seven years. Of course.
quote: 490 years, NOT after the start of the prophesy, but in the 70 weeks of the prophesy. If what you men by a gap is some time between one thing and another in the prophesy, yes, there is a time gap, within the 70 weeks. Of course. Ask the angel! Dan 10:14 - Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
Yes, the pipsqueak was a forerunner, and shadow of things to come. So??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:On the contrary, of course Cyrus was anointed for a job. Nothing to do with saving all men from a state of sin, of course. If you think Daniel thought that Cyrus was Jesus, it is you that need to pony up. quote:It was not those guys that predicted that. This is news?? But it was foretold, as you likely know, if you know squat. It was God that mouthed that one!! Move over Gabriel!!! " Isa :44 :28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Hey, even the job this guy had is outlined!!! Fits right in with the seventy week prophesy. No accident, that. Give up yet????
quote:What part of the obvious you admit takes some time to get down to. Don't blame me!!!? quote:Because I was not sure if you meant a supposed gap within the 70 week prophesy, or merely a gap in the time between some portions of it being fulfilled. Don't blame others for your lack of clarity. quote: No. The prophesy was not for many days. As for your 590 years, where did you pull that out of? Or need we ask!!!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:No, being gifted for a task does not make one the Saviour. This is news?? quote:Say what? Where? When? Why? How? Are you really reduced to this spam?? Good. It's about time. quote: So you have resorted to the crack of retreat, and the demonstrated inability to challenge the dating of Daniel. OK. You know, in some places, the bible does say that it was in the first, or fourth, or some such year of the reign of certain kings. I should doubt this record, because.....???? You no likey?? Get serious.
quote:Except for those that missed it! Work on that. quote:You not noticing, or ignoring what is in the text is not the golden rule here. The different elements of the prophesy are clear. quote: Well, I agree, so why claim there is one?? Once an end to transgressions, and everlasting righteousness surfaces, we can clue in that the prophesy is fulfilled. Meanwhile, I see a gap in that goal!! Obviously. The angel, and God, and Daniel were right. Get with the plan.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote: Tell us the difference in your mind, then. What does a Messiah do, if not save??
quote:Right, and so?? Have you some reason to dispute the accepted bible dates?? Let us in on it?? Or are you just BSing?? quote: So? What about the obvious do you have a problem with?? You would need to let us know. Have you some alternate dating that you want to submit as evidenced?????
quote:Which ones? And let us see YOU prove the dates??! What nonsense is this?? quote:Missed WHAT, precisely??? Do tell? quote: "24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,[???] and to make an end of sins, [??????]and to make reconciliation for iniquity,[??????????????] and to bring in everlasting righteousness,[?????????????] and to seal up the vision and prophecy,[?????????????] and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city [??????????????]and the sanctuary;[??????????] and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant[????????????] with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation,[?????????] and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.[??????????????] " So, tell us how all that was fulfilled!!!? I think you have a huge gap somewhere.
quote: The times are great. Like the times from the decree till the Messiah. Do you have a point??
quote:So you believe in God?? And you say that His book was wrong???? Or, what, that He had no book??? What, is He dead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:OK, let's do this thing. You claim here a certain date. Prove it. Let's see what you got. Well, actually, I already know. Let's see the lurkers be dazzled by your stuff. quote:OK. Let's see them, and I'll whack em. quote: So, show us where some exclusive explanations are. You made the claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
"Since the truce in Palestine it has been possible for an official archaeological inspection to be
made of the cave where the manuscripts were found. Not much was left, as there had been previous unofficial inspections. But there was some ancient pottery which confirmed the dates assigned to the scrolls; there were also fragments belonging to the scrolls themselves, which had been torn off when they were removed from the jars. Other fragments were found indicating that there had been other scrolls in the cave. These fragments included portions of Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges and the Book of Jubilees, and some of them were written in a script more archaic than the Isaiah scrolls, approximating to that used for the Lachish Letters of the 6th century B.C. Among some other fragments from, the cave, which were acquired by the Syrian Convent early this year, are three portions of the Book of Daniel from two separate scrolls. In view of current opinions about the date of this book, it will be interesting to know what the experts think about the date of these fragments." http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bs/palestine_bruce.pdf I found this, is it helpful? If not, you tell us? Would not having a dated copy of the text matter, since it is dated in the document itself, in relation to known king? No. Not unless you have some reason to doubt the sacred texts! Then there is this. Any more questions?? "The second main historical argument concerns Belshazzar. The mention of him as the last king of Babylon in Daniel 5:30 seemed to be an unreconcilable error to historians and critics. Secular sources have, since ancient times, stated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon (p. 328). Then, with the discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle, Daniel was proven correct. In the verse account of Nabonidus, it is said that Nabonidus "entrusted the 'camp' to his eldest son ['Belshazzar] ...entrusted the kingship to him (Hasel, pg. 155) and himself ...he turned towards Tema in the West." This is fairly strong evidence that Belshazzar was indeed the coregent of Babylon in his father's absence, and was there when Babylon fell in 539 BC The mystery here, if one accepts the second century date of writing, is how the author knew of Nabonidus' leaving Belshazzar in charge, when all knowledge of Belshazzar was lost by at least 450 BC (Archer, pg. 289), until the discovery of the Nabonidus Chronicle. The only conclusion that one can reach, other than some other information which has been lost to us today, is that the author was indeed alive during the events, in 539 BC (Waltke, pg. 328). The third main historical argument concerns the identity of Darius the Mede, mentioned in chapters five, six, nine, and eleven. The question is who this name refers to, not whether or not he really existed. Again, the Nabonidus Chronicle aids us in that it makes it clear that there was another ruler under Cyrus, over Babylon. It also refers to Ugbaru, the general who conquered Babylon, but who died shortly after his victory Shea, pg. 246). Whether Ugbaru was Darius the Mede is debatable, and other theories have been set forth by many distinguished scholars. The two other, major theories identify him as Cyrus himself (DJ Wiseman, JG Baldwin), or as Gubaru (JC Whitcomb, RK Harrison, and G. Archer). The fourth and final historical argument is based on whether or not Daniel 11:21-45, and/or the book as a whole are about Antiochus Epiphanes. While most people do indeed believe that at least a part of chapter eleven deals with Antiochus Epiphanes, there are many who don't think that any part of Daniel refers to Antiochus. Of those who adhere to the former, again, the majority of those feel that the whole book is in some way related to Antiochus. That would be the purpose of writing the book if it were indeed written in the second century, to encourage those being persecuted by him. Chapters one through six, to them, refers to Antiochus versus those who faithfully serve the true and living God. For those who believe the book was written in the second century, and the whole book in some way relates to Antiochus, one would be led to wonder what purpose chapter four could ever serve. SO far as we know, no affliction of the type ascribed here to Nebuchadnezzar ever afflicted Antiochus. Nor would it be very encouraging for the Jews to know that their persecutor, after going mad and apparently dropping out of the scene for awhile would come back to torment them. True, Nebuchadnezzar is seen as having repented in the end, but this in no way parallels reality, or even chapter eleven, which has him desecrating and destroying God's creation until his pitiful death (Gooding, pg. 43-51). There are many other places in Daniel which seem to have no parallel to, or connections with Antiochus, or any other events surrounding that era. It is the most reasonable assumption to make, that chapters one through six refer to the exilic times alone. Besides the facts that there is such great detail about the exilic period, more than can be found in any other literature since then (Wiseman, pg. 263), there is too little consistent parallel with the Sitz im Leben of the Maccabean Age. Baldwin sums it up this way: "But the Neo-Babylonian or early Persian periods best account for the exact information about the Babylonian empire which we have shown to be preserved in the stories (Baldwin, pg. 37). Others contend that even chapter eleven does not refer to Antiochus. This debate has gone on since at least the time of the church fathers. Hippolytus and Theodotian felt that verses 21-35 did indeed refer to Antiochus, but that verses 36-45 refer to the Antichrist (this is the view held by the majority of scholars today; Yamauchi, pg. 16-17. ) Jerome has no reference to Antiochus and had verses 21-45 referring to the Antichrist. Then Chrysostom held that all of chapter eleven deals with the Antichrist (Baldwin, pg. 199). This entire issue gets very complex at this point, delving into the various eschatologies and theologies that have been interpreted from (or into) Scripture. The passage itself is difficult, and gives no clear indication of how it is to be interpreted. For example, there is no transition between verses 35-36 to differentiate a change of personage here, but for one, the end that apparently comes to Antiochus in 11:45 is not what secular history says became of him. Secondly, if Antiochus did die as 11:45 implies, then there should also have supposedly been a drastic intervention into history by God, namely, the resurrection (12:1-3; Baldwin, "Is there Pseudonymity in the Bible?" pg. 10.). This brings us to the second type of evidence, that of the literary styles and qualities, and the actual words used. The three main defenses/arguments focus on the Qumram data, Daniel's canonicity, its genre, and vocabulary. As for the recent Qumram findings, many manuscripts of Daniel were found, in three different caves at Qumram (Baldwin, pg. 73-74). To determine an "earliest date" for those manuscripts, we need to compare them with manuscripts with dates that are known. Takamitsu Muraoka did a study on the Aramaic of 11QtJob mss, and of 1QapGen, and found that the 11QtJob mss is closer to the Aramaic of the Old Testament than the 1QapGen. His conclusion is that the 11QtJob should be dated between 250-150 BC (Muraoka, pg. 425-443). Next, Robert Vasholz determined that the mss of Daniel are older than the 11QtJob. How much older he can't be certain, but older none-the-less (Vasholz, pg. 320), which probably pushes the date of writing before the date deemed necessary by most Maccabean Theorists (167-165 BC; Baldwin, pg. 35) ." Dating of the Book of Daniel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote: I am starting to doubt that understanding the book is the goal with some here. It seems more of desperate and weak attempt to confuse, and cast doubt on it. But I might be missing something somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
quote:Not the silly and twisted rendition that apparently dances in your head, no. Of course not. Trying to make a God of some little also ran of history is absurd. Look at the rest of the bible if you doubt that. For example, was this nice king born in Bethlehem? Was his hands and feet pierced? Did he defeat death, and rise again? Etc..? Of course not. Intellectual twot.
quote:I said and meant that Cyrus was predicted long before birth. Not by Daniel, I don't think I said that. You seem to be reading stuff in. quote:Who says Daniel was the one that prophesied anything about the name of that king?? Talk about grasping at straws. Can't blame you, you have no possible case. quote:Tell us the premise for the claim. What so called 'mainstream' people believe isn't really important. I think if you put it on the table we can all have a chuckle. Don't think you can get away with appeal to popularity, and some unsupported claims here.
quote:Great, you got that much right then. quote:No, I don't remember. What happened, your invented messiah came along and ate it with curds and whey?? quote: There was a certain length of time given, to wrap up history for the people of Daniel. The Jews. It came in segments, if you bothered to read it at all. So many weeks till Messiah, etc. You seem to feel that we need to tack the last week of their history on there, soon as Messiah gets cut off. No. There are still things that need to happen, as any look at the rest of the book, and bible would tell even a casual looker. Many things, that, till there completion, as the arcangel plainly said, will not be for many days!! Take it from Gabe. Dan 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. Notice that the kingdoms of this world are not yet taken over by Messiah? That alone should clue you in, that the vision is still a work in progress. It all comes in the times appointed. The majority of Daniel is history now, and a done deal. But not all. Not all that particular prophesy either.
quote: So you do not believe in God, but I do, and that is all you think you need to have some point??? OK. Strange.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024