Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 151 of 365 (472262)
06-21-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by starman
06-21-2008 1:14 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
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??
OK, you say that Isaiah 45:1 is too ridiculous to believe.
But how are you going to show that the author of Daniel didn't believe it ?
quote:
Oh, so now Gabriel and Daniel were not predicting anything. OK. What were they doing, bowling??
This is the first time I've seen it said that Gabriel or Daniel predicted the name "Cyrus" long before he was born. Reference please.
quote:
So you accept that weeks are years now? OK. That is a start.
Since that has been assumed from the very beginning of this discussion, the only significance is that it has taken you this long to notice.
quote:
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
So in other words, you DID invent a gap. Which is not mentioned or even hinted at in the prophecy. Can you explain why exactly you tried to deny this ?
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.
The "latter days" supposedly being 490 years in the future according to Daniel 9. During the Hellenistic period according to Daniel 8.
In other words this quote offers no reason to invent a gap in the 590 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by starman, posted 06-21-2008 1:14 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by starman, posted 06-21-2008 2:09 PM PaulK has replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 365 (472267)
06-21-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
06-21-2008 1:41 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
OK, you say that Isaiah 45:1 is too ridiculous to believe.
But how are you going to show that the author of Daniel didn't believe it ?
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:
This is the first time I've seen it said that Gabriel or Daniel predicted the name "Cyrus" long before he was born. Reference please.
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:
Since that has been assumed from the very beginning of this discussion, the only significance is that it has taken you this long to notice.
What part of the obvious you admit takes some time to get down to. Don't blame me!!!?
quote:
So in other words, you DID invent a gap. Which is not mentioned or even hinted at in the prophecy. Can you explain why exactly you tried to deny this ?
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:
The "latter days" supposedly being 490 years in the future according to Daniel 9. During the Hellenistic period according to Daniel 8.
In other words this quote offers no reason to invent a gap in the 590 years.
No. The prophesy was not for many days. As for your 590 years, where did you pull that out of? Or need we ask!!!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2008 1:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2008 2:52 PM starman has replied

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


Message 153 of 365 (472274)
06-21-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by starman
06-21-2008 2:09 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
On the contrary, of course Cyrus was anointed for a job.
So he WAS a messiah.
quote:
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.
I never said anything about any of that.
quote:
It was not those guys that predicted that.
Then you shouldn't have said that they did.
quote:
" 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????
The fact that you happen to come up with more evidence supporting my position is hardly a reason to change it !
But to prove that that verse is a prediction, written long before Cyrus was born, all you have to do is to prove that that it was written long before Cyrus was born.
quote:
What part of the obvious you admit takes some time to get down to. Don't blame me!!!?
That sentence doesn't make sense. Anyway, you only just noticed something that has been obvious since the beginning - that can't be anyone else's fault.
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.
Since I said that it WASN'T in the text of the prophecy your confusion would seem to be entirely your fault. You really need to learn to pay attention.
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!!!?
The 590 is a typo for 490.
And the angel clearly states that the "latter days" - the END of the prophecy - is not for many days. 490 years seesm to be more than enough. No reason to invent a gap.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by starman, posted 06-21-2008 2:09 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 12:45 PM PaulK has replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 365 (472433)
06-22-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
06-21-2008 2:52 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
quote:
On the contrary, of course Cyrus was anointed for a job.
So he WAS a messiah.
No, being gifted for a task does not make one the Saviour. This is news??
quote:
Then you shouldn't have said that they did.
Say what? Where? When? Why? How? Are you really reduced to this spam?? Good. It's about time.
quote:
But to prove that that verse is a prediction, written long before Cyrus was born, all you have to do is to prove that that it was written long before Cyrus was born.
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:
That sentence doesn't make sense. Anyway, you only just noticed something that has been obvious since the beginning - that can't be anyone else's fault.
Except for those that missed it! Work on that.
quote:
Since I said that it WASN'T in the text of the prophecy your confusion would seem to be entirely your fault. You really need to learn to pay attention
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:
The 590 is a typo for 490.
And the angel clearly states that the "latter days" - the END of the prophecy - is not for many days. 490 years seesm to be more than enough. No reason to invent a gap.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2008 2:52 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2008 1:06 PM starman has replied

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


Message 155 of 365 (472437)
06-22-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by starman
06-22-2008 12:45 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
No, being gifted for a task does not make one the Saviour. This is news??
The question is not whether he was the Saviour. The question is whether he was a messiah. Isaiah 45:1 says he was. You agreed. Are you going back on that, or just raising completely irrelevant objections ?
quote:
Say what? Where? When? Why? How? Are you really reduced to this spam?? Good. It's about time.
We were talking about your assertion that Cyrus was predicted long before his birth and you introduced Gsabriel and Daniel/
Oh, so now Gabriel and Daniel were not predicting anything. OK. What were they doing, bowling??
BUt it gets worse, becaue you now try AGAIN to claim that Daniel predicted Cyrus "long before" he was born.
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.
You mean that I "resort" to beleiving Biblical scholars instead of you.
quote:
Except for those that missed it! Work on that.
So far as I can tell you were the only one who missed it.
Certainly you're the only one to express any surprise.
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.
This is completely irrelevant to the fact that I stated that the gaps were not in the actual text of the prophecy and therefore if you were confused it was your fault for not reading. And since the gaps are clearly NOT there and you admit it there is no disagreement over that aspect.
quote:
Well, I agree, so why claim there is one??
I don't know. Why DO you claim there is one ?
quote:
Once an end to transgressions, and everlasting righteousness surfaces, we can clue in that the prophesy is fulfilled
So what you are saying is that the 490 years are a mistake. It's just about something that will happen sometime in the future and any claims of "exact" predictions - including the ones you made - are nonsense.
quote:
Meanwhile, I see a gap in that goal!! Obviously. The angel, and God, and Daniel were right. Get with the plan.
By which you mean that obviously Daniel was wrong to say that it would take 490 years and all the events that Daniel thought would happen in the last seven are spread out over a much larger period of time.
That's the interesting thing about your sort of fundamentalists. You all assume that you know better than God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 12:45 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 1:27 PM PaulK has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 156 of 365 (472439)
06-22-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by starman
06-21-2008 11:41 AM


Re: Alexander's Greek Empire
Let's have some real fun.. You try to find ANY evidence it was written before 167 BCE, and explain away the language, the theology, and the symbolism.
Please explain away the 3 other main explanations by Christians that think Daniel was a prophecy for Jesus, but each one is mutually exclusive to each other.
Please explain away the 3 or 4 different interpretations that the Jewish faith has, (which does not include Jesus at all).
Sorry, but you are just being stubborn, and reading into an inkblot to make it mean what you want it to.
When you have so many different mutually exclusive explanations, the best explanation is that it means nothing. You are looking for fortune telling that isn't there, and have fooled yourself into seeing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by starman, posted 06-21-2008 11:41 AM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 1:33 PM ramoss has not replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 365 (472444)
06-22-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
06-22-2008 1:06 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
The question is not whether he was the Saviour. The question is whether he was a messiah. Isaiah 45:1 says he was. You agreed. Are you going back on that, or just raising completely irrelevant objections ?
Tell us the difference in your mind, then. What does a Messiah do, if not save??
quote:
We were talking about your assertion that Cyrus was predicted long before his birth and you introduced Gsabriel and Daniel
Right, and so?? Have you some reason to dispute the accepted bible dates?? Let us in on it?? Or are you just BSing??
quote:
BUt it gets worse, becaue you now try AGAIN to claim that Daniel predicted Cyrus "long before" he was born.
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:
You mean that I "resort" to believing Biblical scholars instead of you.
Which ones? And let us see YOU prove the dates??! What nonsense is this??
quote:
So far as I can tell you were the only one who missed it.
Certainly you're the only one to express any surprise.
Missed WHAT, precisely??? Do tell?
quote:
the gaps were not in the actual text of the prophecy and therefore if you were confused it was your fault for not reading. And since the gaps are clearly NOT there and you admit it there is no disagreement over that aspect.
"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:
So what you are saying is that the 490 years are a mistake. It's just about something that will happen sometime in the future and any claims of "exact" predictions - including the ones you made - are nonsense.
The times are great. Like the times from the decree till the Messiah. Do you have a point??
quote:
By which you mean that obviously Daniel was wrong to say that it would take 490 years and all the events that Daniel thought would happen in the last seven are spread out over a much larger period of time.
That's the interesting thing about your sort of fundamentalists. You all assume that you know better than God.
So you believe in God?? And you say that His book was wrong???? Or, what, that He had no book??? What, is He dead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2008 1:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2008 3:34 PM starman has replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 365 (472446)
06-22-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ramoss
06-22-2008 1:11 PM


Re: Alexander's Greek Empire
quote:
Let's have some real fun.. You try to find ANY evidence it was written before 167 BCE, and explain away the language, the theology, and the symbolism.
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:
Please explain away the 3 other main explanations by Christians that think Daniel was a prophecy for Jesus, but each one is mutually exclusive to each other.
OK. Let's see them, and I'll whack em.
quote:
When you have so many different mutually exclusive explanations, the best explanation is that it means nothing. You are looking for fortune telling that isn't there, and have fooled yourself into seeing it.
So, show us where some exclusive explanations are. You made the claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ramoss, posted 06-22-2008 1:11 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 159 of 365 (472468)
06-22-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by starman
06-22-2008 1:27 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
Tell us the difference in your mind, then. What does a Messiah do, if not save??
That's not my problem. It matters not to me whether there is a difference or not. Isaiah 45:1 declares that Cyrus is a messiah. Do you agree with Isaiah 45:1 or not ? Make your mind up.
quote:
Right, and so?? Have you some reason to dispute the accepted bible dates?? Let us in on it?? Or are you just BSing??
So now you insist that you did say that Daniel and Cyrus predicted Cyrus long before he was born. It's up to you to support it. Produce the prophecy and the date that you say that it was written.
quote:
So? What about the obvious do you have a problem with??
The obvious fact that you keep shifting and changing your position and then denying it.
So where is this prophecy that was "obviously" written by Daniel long before Cyrus was born ?
quote:
Which ones?
As it turns out, the majority of mainstream scholars. Louis F. Hartmann is one.
quote:
Missed WHAT, precisely??? Do tell?
Since you've forgotten I will remind you. The fact that I have been talking about Daniel's "weeks" (literally "sevens") as periods of seven years all through this thread.
quote:
So, tell us how all that was fulfilled!!!? I think you have a huge gap somewhere.
I've already offered my explanation. And it wasn't ALL fulfilled. THe prophecy failed, remember.
quote:
The times are great. Like the times from the decree till the Messiah. Do you have a point??
Then we agree that your invented gap in the timeline is a deliberate twisting of the Bible.
Or maybe you're just not being honest about your own position. Again.
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?
No, I don't. But you do. And that is all my point needs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 1:27 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 06-22-2008 7:30 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 164 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 8:43 PM PaulK has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 160 of 365 (472477)
06-22-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by starman
06-17-2008 5:08 PM


Earliest extant
Hi Starman,
Can you tell me the earliest extant Book of Daniel?
I've asked 3 or 4 times now, if you don't know could you say so as it saves me asking again?
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by starman, posted 06-17-2008 5:08 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 8:18 PM Brian has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 365 (472484)
06-22-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PaulK
06-22-2008 3:34 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
PaulK writes:
That's not my problem. It matters not to me whether there is a difference or not. Isaiah 45:1 declares that Cyrus is a messiah. Do you agree with Isaiah 45:1 or not ? Make your mind up.
1. Your problem is that this text does not say Cyrus was the messiah. The word is anoint. He was consecrated/anointed by God for a purpose which was to advance his purpose as king for God's program.
2. When you corroborate all of the prophetic messianic texts regarding God's messiah who is to be messianic king of the Jews as was posted over his cross, you find that he will be Jewish and that he will be a descendant of David's throne. His kingdom will be in Israel. Cyrus in no way fits that. In Daniel 2 this is the little stone which pulverizes all of the kingdoms of the world and which becomes the ruling entity of the whole planet. If you can't grasp that, it is hopeless to think you can understand Daniel at all. That is not to say that you need to believe that. It's what Daniel and all the prophets prophesy for our times, i.e. the end times as Daniel puts it.
3. Definition, Merriam Webster; anoint:
1: to smear or rub with oil or an oily substance
2 a: to apply oil to as a sacred rite especially for consecration b: to choose by or as if by divine election; also : to designate as if by a ritual anointment

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2008 3:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by starman, posted 06-22-2008 8:21 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 165 by ramoss, posted 06-22-2008 11:05 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 170 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2008 1:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 365 (472491)
06-22-2008 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Brian
06-22-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Earliest extant
"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Brian, posted 06-22-2008 4:59 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ramoss, posted 06-22-2008 11:21 PM starman has replied
 Message 184 by Brian, posted 06-24-2008 3:53 AM starman has replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 365 (472492)
06-22-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
06-22-2008 7:30 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
quote:
If you can't grasp that, it is hopeless to think you can understand Daniel at all.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 06-22-2008 7:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Buzsaw, posted 06-22-2008 11:15 PM starman has not replied

starman
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 365 (472494)
06-22-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by PaulK
06-22-2008 3:34 PM


You believe, therefore I am right?
quote:
That's not my problem. It matters not to me whether there is a difference or not. Isaiah 45:1 declares that Cyrus is a messiah. Do you agree with Isaiah 45:1 or not ? Make your mind up.
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:
So now you insist that you did say that Daniel and Cyrus predicted Cyrus long before he was born. It's up to you to support it. Produce the prophecy and the date that you say that it was written.
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:
The obvious fact that you keep shifting and changing your position and then denying it.
So where is this prophecy that was "obviously" written by Daniel long before Cyrus was born ?
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:
As it turns out, the majority of mainstream scholars. Louis F. Hartmann is one.
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:
Since you've forgotten I will remind you. The fact that I have been talking about Daniel's "weeks" (literally "sevens") as periods of seven years all through this thread.
Great, you got that much right then.
quote:
I've already offered my explanation. And it wasn't ALL fulfilled. THe prophecy failed, remember.
No, I don't remember. What happened, your invented messiah came along and ate it with curds and whey??
quote:
Then we agree that your invented gap in the timeline is a deliberate twisting of the Bible.
Or maybe you're just not being honest about your own position. Again.
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:
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?
No, I don't. But you do. And that is all my point needs.
So you do not believe in God, but I do, and that is all you think you need to have some point??? OK. Strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2008 3:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2008 1:57 AM starman has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 165 of 365 (472510)
06-22-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Buzsaw
06-22-2008 7:30 PM


Re: 70 weeks of Daniel
Pardon, but that exactly what 'messiah' means. It literally means "anointed one". The two terms are synonymous

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Buzsaw, posted 06-22-2008 7:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 06-22-2008 11:33 PM ramoss has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024