The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

No. You can't. Wrong culture. Wrong century. Wrong office. How flipantly you dismiss precious truth gleaned from true Bible study; and completely ignore the devastating conclusion to which it leads. Who would expect a modern English dictionary to deal effectively with questions of ancient language? You Buz? Or someone wishing to avoid the issue? An honest seeker of truth might consult a good lexicon, like Young's or Strong's. Perhaps that is too much to ask? No one has claimed that he does. I can appreciate your animosity, y'old Fart, but you should attack us for what we say, not what you'd like to imagine we have said. No one is rejecting the dictionary definitions, although many realize that they are inadequate. A good concordance/lexicon is much more revealing. Do you object to consulting the great experts on biblical Hebrew and Greek?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

quote:

---

One can concoct up about any doctrine they want by isolating scripture texts.

---

And in your case, misrepresenting them, too.

quote:

---

One must apply corroborating scriptures in understanding Biblical prophecy as well as other doctrines

---

When there are other relevant writings. And that is precisely what you are objecting to. The use of Daniel 8 to identify Daniel's "End Times". The reference to Isaiah 45:1 to identify Cyrus as A messiah.

quote:

---

Daniel was given what God wanted to dish out for his time but John the prophet of the NT who wrote Revelation filled in many of the blanks which were not revealed to Daniel.

---

Now you're talking doctrine not fact. If the events in Daniel all occurred - or were meant to occur - in the 2nd century BC, they cannot be "predicted" in the Revelation written at the end of the 1st century AD.

quote:

---

That's why in Daniel 12:8 and 9 when Daniel wanted to know the end of all these things, God told him to go his way for the words are closed up and sealed til the time of the end.

---

In Daniel 12:4, however, Daniel is told to "conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time" 12:8 is ambiguous, it being unclear which words it refers to. But 12:4 is clear - Daniel 12 itself is meant to be a secret until the End Times. This adds confirming evidence to the view that Daniel is about the Hellenistic period.

quote:

---

One must go to Revelation 13, 17 and 18 where the ten horned beast becomes the 10 horns of Daniel's beast. There are many similarities of Daniel's account and John's.

---

Which are adequately explained by "John" drawing on Daniel as a source. 17:9-12 for instance is not exactly similar.

quote:

---

This is happening as we debate. Daniel's 10 horn beast is now emerging and the long prophesied anti-christ is likely present on earth now.

---

This is just your opinion, and not one which you can support.

quote:

---

Obama get's close to the description, but I'm not yet saying he is the one. Perhaps so; perhaps not. Obama is a Muslim. I'm convinced of that.

---

Of course this is just your hatred and prejudice at work. You have no scriptural basis for even suggesting that Obama is the anti-Christ. Nor is there any real evidence that he is a Muslim. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Another clue to the 10 horned beast of Daniel relative to the end times is the phenomena of integrating the races. Read it in Daniel 2:40-43. God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel. Your diesel will either not run at all or spit and sputter at half speed or less. That's where the world is going.

---

This is another case of abusing scripture. The number of toes is not given any significance, nor are they described as belonging to different races. Al that comes from your own prejudice. At least now we know that racism is part of the reason for your hatred of Obama.

quote:

---

The Daniel 2 Image's 10 toes are what the 10 horns are to the beast, the end time antichrist world government.

---

There is no support for this idea in the Book of Daniel. Daniel never even claims that the ten Kings of his Beast will rule simultaneously, nor links it to the (uncounted) toes of the statue. (Indeed it is more likely that the ten horns are Seleucid rulers while the toes include rulers of the other Hellenistic states, especially the Ptolemys)

A self-verifying document is bad scholarship. For example, if a 14th century writer pens a document about a king that lived in the 12th century then that doesn’t mean that the document should be dated to the 12th century. Thus, other internal and external evidence is required.Internal evidence can be words or phrases that were particular to a specific time frame. A good example of this is in the Book of Exodus 1:11 where the reference to the city of Rameses is a second millennium term, whilst the reference to Pithom has to be after the 7th century BCE, thus this particular text can be no earlier that the 7th century BCE. I’m not being difficult, but the article doesn’t mention the dating for the Book of Daniel, it only suggests that the find may cast some light on the possible date. 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. Every single scholar who has examined the Book of Daniel has doubts about some parts of it, your example of Darius the Mede is just one.There isn’t a single scholar in the world that believes this is a reference to a real person, and indeed your example we see someone suggesting that the author(s) of Daniel were referring to someone who wasn’t even called Darius!Anyway, so we can move on, are we in agreement that the earliest existing texts of Daniel, and the variants of it, are the ones from Qumran dated to the second century BCE?Brian.

I see, so you rest your case on carbon dating. OK.

quote:

---

No, your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. "Anointed one" = "messiah" It's the same word. Check a concordance if you don't believe me.

---

While the Messiah sure is anointed, the quality of getting anointed does not make one the One that was pierced, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, had none of his bones broken, rose from the dead, was not left in hell, did not see His flesh corrupted, led captivity captive, and etc.A raven can be anointed to drop food to a hungry prophet, that does not mean we need to hack out a totem pole to it as the Saviour of men.

quote:

---

...you're talking about a different messiah. One that isn't mentioned in Daniel

---

Having certain traits revealed in many books of the bible does not make Him a different Messiah, in any way, shape, or form.

quote:

---

No. You can't. Wrong culture. Wrong century. Wrong office. How flipantly you dismiss precious truth gleaned from true Bible study; and completely ignore the devastating conclusion to which it leads.

---

You seem to be suggesting that the real anointed One came in a certain century. Prove it.

quote:

---

An honest seeker of truth might consult a good lexicon, like Young's or Strong's. Perhaps that is too much to ask?

---

Show us a couple that put Cyrus as the Messiah??

quote:

---

I can appreciate your animosity, y'old Fart, but you should attack us for what we say, not what you'd like to imagine we have said.

---

No problem. Say something!!!

quote:

---

While the Messiah sure is anointed, the quality of getting anointed does not make one the One that was pierced, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, had none of his bones broken, rose from the dead, was not left in hell, did not see His flesh corrupted, led captivity captive, and etc.

---

As I keep explaining I am NOT claiming that Cyrus was The Messiah, let alone the Christian idea of the Messiah. Just a messiah as Isaiah 45:1 says. Neither Isaiah nor Daniel mentions any of those things you list. Thus they are completely irrelevant.If you wish to deny that Cyrus was a messiah you directly contradict the Bible. Do you want to do that ?

quote:

---

Having certain traits revealed in many books of the bible does not make Him a different Messiah, in any way, shape, or form.

---

And the fact that you ASSUME that Daniel meant your idea of the Messiah - when Daniel says nothing of the sort - does not make it so..

quote:

---

A self-verifying document is bad scholarship.

---

Ancient documents need not meet your opinion of what should have been written. Neither do you have anything to challenge the content. Your incredulity alone really is worthless.

quote:

---

I’m not being difficult, but the article doesn’t mention the dating for the Book of Daniel, it only suggests that the find may cast some light on the possible date.

---

There is dating of Daniel?? Tell us about it?? When was it written??

quote:

---

Every single scholar who has examined the Book of Daniel has doubts about some parts of it, your example of Darius the Mede is just one.

---

If they mistook the title Darius, for a name of a king, I could see why."Darius, meaning the holder, or governor, was the name, or title, of a number of ancient Persian kings (see Ancient Empires - Persia). Darius the Mede is known in The Bible record in connection to two famous incidents involving the prophet Daniel. Darius came to power when Belshazzar was deposed after the famous Writing On The Wall incident, and Daniel In The Lion's Den occurred during Darius' reign."Common Name B.C. Date Name In Persian Name In Bible Bible References
Cyrus 539-530 Koorush Cyrus Isaiah 45, Daniel, Ezra 1-3
Cambysses 530-521 Cambujieh Ahasruerus Ezra 4-6
Pseudo Smerdis 521 Berooyeh Doroughi Artaxerxes Ezra 4:7-23
Darius the Great 521-486 Darryoosh Darius Ezra 5,6
Xerxes 486-465 Khashayarshah Ahasurerus Esther 1-10
Artaxerxes I 464-423 Ardeshier Deraz Dast Artaxerxes Nehemiah 1 - 13, Ezra 7-10Bible Study – Christian Education ResourceThis is news??Edited by starman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I keep explaining I am NOT claiming that Cyrus was The Messiah, let alone the Christian idea of the Messiah. Just a messiah as Isaiah 45:1 says.

---

You are trying to equate being gifted, or anointed for a job, with being the One that was to come, the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, that was to take away the sins of man. Sorry. That is stupid as stupid could be.Get a grip.

Do you have a more accurate way? Yes , I do.Let's see you give something better. Paleographies isn't it. The article by FF Bruce is at least 30 years out of date with better technology.

quote:

---

You are trying to equate being gifted, or anointed for a job, with being the One that was to come, the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, that was to take away the sins of man. Sorry. That is stupid as stupid could be.

---

No, I am not. I've told you often enough. I am saying no more than Isaiah 45:1 says, when it says that Cyrus is a messiah.No matter how often you repeat this misrepresentation the truth remains.

I see you are relying on mistranslations.For example, the 'pierced' sounds like a reference to Psalm 22, which the word "k'ari" means 'like a lion' not 'pierced. It is a Psalm of David, in which he is being described as being harried by his opponents.As for 'virgin', that is Isaiah 7:14, where the word 'Almah' in Hebrew means 'young maiden', and if you bothered to read on context, (what an amazing concept), you will see that Isaiah is talking about his own wife (the prophetess, see Isaiah 8:4), and his own son.The other part are also 'retrofitting' random phrases taken out of context , and written to. Sounds bits shoe horned into being a non-existant prophecy is not very honest.One of these days you should look at the supposed prophecies in CONTEXT. You will find that none of them, in context, either were prophecies to begin with, or do not fit Jesus.I would like to see you, without referring to the claims of the Bible, evidence that Jesus was 3 days in hell. For that matter,I would like to see evidence from outside the bible within, oh, 40 years of Jesus's alledged execution that he actually existed. That would bring it up to around the Jewish revolt, and the time frame that Mark was just about being circulated.

It isn't my standard mate, it is the way that historical research is carried out.I gave you a very basic example of one reason why a document cannot be used to date itself, if you cannot understand that then there's no hope for you.The information in ancient texts, if claiming an historical event, need to be verified from external sources, this is the way that historical research is done. I haven't presented anything to challenge the content yet, I have been trying to get you to answer a question about 6 times now and you still keep avoiding it, once you have answered that question then I will move on.So, once again, what is the date of the earliest existing texts of the book of Daniel? If you don't know then just say so, there's nothing bad about not knowing something. What incredulity?I haven't posted anything of any substance on this thread.Can you answer the question instead of dancing about all over the place?