The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

Or, if one assumes that the Greco Macedonian empire had it's time, and is no more, as was written!! Sometimes the obvious helps. Why assume otherwise?

---

Wrong. I do not extend the Greco-Macedonioan Empire forward. Instead I identify Daniel's End Times as being at a past time when that Empire historically existed - and Daniel 8 clearly states that that Empire is still extant in Daniel's End Times.You are the one who tries to extend time forward, as you extend Daniel's "70 weeks" to more than 5 times the 490 years it represents.

quote:

---

Which beliefs!!??? That Cyrus is ruled out a having a snowball's chance in hell of being the Messiah? That Greece simply will not be here in a ruling way, or Alexander, when Jesus takes over? You must be kidding.

---

Instead of inventing strawmne you could use real examples.Your belief that Daniel's seventy weeks MUST refer to Jesus and MUST be fulfilled drives you to invent a gap between the 69th and 70th week.Your belief that the End Times MUST refer to our future drives you to reject Daniel 8's clear statements that the End Times will be when the Greco-Macedonian successor states are still extant.

quote:

---

Maybe if you are talking about false messiahs, they are foretold to be here a plenty. But trying to call some dead historical peon a Messiah, in any real sense of the word is an exercise in absurdity squared.

---

I am not talking about False Messiah's. Or The Messiah. All I am doing is pointing out what Isaiah 45:1 says. If you reject Isaiah 45:1 then say so instead of repeatedly misrepresenting what I say.

quote:

---

Anointed for what, that is the qiestion?!

---

No, it is NOT the question, since Daniel 9 doesn't worry about the issue at all.

quote:

---

Only One is THE Anointed. Only One Is God with us. Only One was to defeat death, and not see corruption. Only One could fulfill the prophesies of that One. Cyrus is not a contender, not even in the race. Work on that.

---

I have repeatedly pointed out that I was not making any such claim for Cyrus. You need to work on avoiding misrepresentation since you seem to have a really big problem in that department.

quote:

---

Isa 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

---

Again, you have a problem reading in context. The birth of that child is a sign that Israel and "Syria" (Aram) will cease their attacks on Judah. Obviously that child cannot be Jesus who was born centuries later. I have yet to meet anyone who says that there was a virgin birth in the time of AhazSince this is off-topic, I will avoid further discussion. If you want more then past topics on this issue may still be 'live' or, if not, a new one could be started.

quote:

---

The stone is cut out without hands, so it has nothing to do with being made by man.

---

So obviously it COULD be a Kingdom formed by God. Just as I said.

quote:

---

By the way, Jesus is the rock, and stone and that is almost His nickname. Ever heard 'Rock of Ages'

---

And Peter is said to be the rock on which Jesus built his Church. So what ?

The one single good point introduced by the fundamentalist Christian side is that if you assume the most convenient start date for them the end of the 69 weeks where a messiah is supposed to be cut off comes out to within a few years of the time when Jesus was crucified.However, this point rests on the uncertain start date, and can be refuted by the simple observation that the events of the final 7 years do not occur as predicted. Even the Roman capture of Jerusalem after the Jewish revolt is more than 30 years later, and other events still have to occur.The only response to this problem is to invent an arbitrary "gap" between the 69th and 70th week - a gap at least FOUR TIMES large than the period allotted. The text provides no basis for doing so. They point to the time being broken up into units but they never even consider a gap between the first two units. The only point is to try and force the text into their beliefs.The conventional interpretation has a far stronger case. One advantage is negative - because the conventional view does permit the author of Daniel to make mistakes, misfits to the text are a little easier to accommodate. While this might be seen as an "unfair" advantage it is not. It is a consequence of the claims made for the text.With regard to the 70 weeks, the main weakness is the lack of a good choice of start date. Even the earliest is too late. However, since this can be written off as an error on the part of the author, it is not fatal. With regard to the events of the 70th Week the case is very strong, finding a good fit with the events described in 1 and 2 Maccabees. For instance, 1 Maccabees 1 describes how Antiochus storms the city, raiding and looting the Temple. Two years later, one of his commanders comes to the city, talking of peace and winning the trust of the people - only to turn around, betray that trust and attack by surprise. Antiochus bans the Jewish sacrifices and introduces pagan worship in the Temple - the "abomination that causes desolation". All this fits well with the events scheduled for the 70th Week.The greater context also supports the conventional view. The prophecy of Daniel 8 tells us that the End Times will occur while the Hellenistic kingdoms following Alexander still survive. Daniel 11 is largely about the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemys, until a Seleucid ruler shall subdue Egypt and come to attack Jerusalem. Daniel 12 continues this prophecy, telling us of the events to follow which include a general resurrection. It is not hard to see that Daniel 11-12 also places the end times in the Hellenistic period.From this then, it is clear that the conventional interpretation is a very good fit to the actual text. The view put forward by the fundamentalist Christians here has very little to do with the actual text which they feel free to ignore and misrepresent.In summary.
The greater context places the events at the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The events of that period have a good fit for the events scheduled for the 70th week.The conclusion is obvious. Daniel's "End Times" were long ago in our past, not our future. The End did not come, the prophecy failed.

quote:

---

Glad you admit that, in other words, the bullseye is hit close, no matter how you look at it.

---

No. Because it is only if you look at in a certain way that you even get a close miss.

quote:

---

In other words you have nothing against it, and no other records match the amazing level of the bible. The final seven years have not happened, so how you would expect them to have turned out any way at all, is admitting you just do not understand the context.

---

On the contrary. As you know very well your only reason for inventing a gap is to deny the fact that your reading of the prophecy is neither a viable interpretation nor a success.There IS no context placing the final seven years long after the preceding 483. I know it and you know it.

quote:

---

The division of time till Messiah came and the last week had to exist, unless Messiah was not planning to get cut off, but take over right away. The bible is clear that was never the plan

---

The prophecy of the seventy weeks says no such thing. It doesn't even say that the messiah who is cut off is The Messiah. The Book of Daniel doesn't say any such thing. It places the End Times squarely at the time of Antiochus and the Maccabeean Revolt.If any other part of the Bible disagrees then that only means that it contradicts the Book of Daniel.

quote:

---

No idea what you are talking about, there are a few start dates that are generally used, but the one that makes most sense is the one that hits bang on,

---

There are none that hit "bang on"

quote:

---

to the only Messiah that came and was cut off, and pierced, and born in Bethlehem, and who quoted Daniel a few times, as well as referenced the soon destruction of the temple!

---

The messiah of the 70 weeks is only said to be "cut off and have nothing". He is not said to be pierced, born in Bethlehem, to quote Daniel or reference the destruction of the Temple.The rest that you don't understand is the actual historical events that match the prediction of the 50th week. Events that happen exactly at the right point for Daniel's End Times.

quote:

---

Nothing places the end anywhere near the time of Alexander, the big horn of the goat. You just prefer to cling to a weak and cherry picking interpretation of a few things, that are ridiculous in the big picture.

---

If my arguments were so silly you could refute them honestly instead of relying on misrepresentation and false accusations.If you bothered to read you would see that I referred not to the time of Alexander, but to the time of the Kingdoms produced by the division of his Empire. And someone does say that the End Times will be in THOSE times - the author of the Book of Daniel. It's in chapter 8.

quote:

---

Some events of some chapters do refer to that time, that does not take away from what else they have to refer to, whether you choose to ignore the rest of the bible or not.

---

I don't choose to ignore the rest of the Bible where it is truly relevant, as is Isaiah 45:1 - as you know. However, ALL of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel are about that period or earlier. Because Daniel says that that is when the End Times would occur.

quote:

---

1. Beginning in verse 15 of Chapter 8 the angel from God begins to explain the interpretation of the vision.

​

2. Verse 17: ".....the vision belongeth to the time of the end."

​

3. Verse 19: "I will make you to know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation, for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

---

I agree with this.

quote:

---

4. It is important to note that the Ram empire in chapter 8 consists of two co-ruling nations, Media and Persia, consistent with history, one being the prominent kingdom of the empire.

---

No, this does not seem to be of any great importance.

quote:

---

5. Verse 21: ".....the rough he-goat is the nation of Greece.". (This would be the third empire of Daniel's chapter 2 image vision.)

​

6. The Greek Empire after Alexander's death becomes divided (the 4 horns (Daniel 8:8) "toward the four winds of heaven," i.e. the historical four smaller empires consisting of the segmentation of Alexanders world empire became re-immerged into the Roman Empire by the time of Christ.

---

This isn't quite right. The Seleucids fell to the Parthians, who were succeeded by the Sassanids. Roman power in that region came and went.However let us note that the Roman conquest is completely absent from Daniel. The Persians appear, and the Macedonians appear, but there is no Roman conqueror.

quote:

---

7. In order to get a handle on Biblical eschatology relative to the NT church age one must understand that the OT is primarily a genealogical and historical account of the world relative to God's kingdom nation, Israel. The NT church age was a mystery not revealed in depth to Israel, to whom the OT law, the temple and Levitical priesthood pertained. Thus the church age is referred to in the NT as a mystery. (Example; Revelation 10:7 where at the sound of the 7th and last trumpet the mystery of God is finished, i.e. the church age. This is when the millennial messianic kingdom is about to emerge on planet earth.

---

I note that although this is asserted to be important it plays no role in your argument.

quote:

---

8. The Roman Empire consisted of the re-immerged Greek empire which would later disintegrate into what is referred to as the East and the West as we refer to it today, i.e. the two legs of Daniel's chap 2 image prophecy which would expand as time passed.

---

The Roman Empire mostly conquered and absorbed the Greek states. As the Persians conquered and absorbed Babylon and Alexander conquered and absorbed Persia. Daniel 8 has no such conquest, and the king of the prophecy emerges from one of the four horns of the Greek Empire - hence ONE of the Hellenistic states (verse 9).

quote:

---

9. As future events became further removed from Daniel's time, the prophet's revelation diminished as to specificity. Thus we must hone in on certain specifics which were revealed to him.

---

In fact the opposite appears to be the case. In the 70 weeks the most detailed portion is the 70th week.

quote:

---

10. In verse 23 in the "latter time" of the these kingdoms, having re-emerged by the Romans and eventually becoming global, "when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences shall stand up." Verse 24: And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully."

---

Except for the fact that there is absolutely no indication of any conquest or absorption and the King is indicated to be the ruler of ONE of the Greek states.You are simply adding to the prophecy on the ASSUMPTION that it must be about Rome.

quote:

---

11. v 24: ".....he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people." Note that at the time Jesus, the Christ was born, the "holy people" were not Israel. The Jews delivered Jesus up to the civil government to execute the messiah Jesus, so the "holy people" were/are the true Biblical Christians who have been persecuted throughout the Christian era, some by professing Christians who were militant, by pagan religions, by Islamic and secularistic enemies of Christianity.

---

Unfortunately for you the period we are concerned with is BEFORE Jesus was even born.I don't think there is much need to go on. I find your prejudices most tiresome.To sum up, your argument assumes a Roman conquest which is regarded as completely inconsequential to the prophecy. Although the two other major conquests appear this one is left out. Nor is there any indication of the Greek Kingdom's reunification under a single ruler. In fact the king of the prophecy seems to be only a ruler of one of the four kingdoms. 8:22 refers to the latter days of these Kingdoms which can only be reasonably read as referring to a time before they are conquered.In short your eisegesis is a poor fit to the text, relying on adding things that are not there - and should be there - if you were correct and ignoring the indications that do not fit.Daniel 8 quite straightforwardly places the End TImes in the latter days of the Hellenistic Kingdoms.

quote:

---

What you refuse to acknowledge is that Daniel's vision (as is common in the OT prophecies) was like looking out one's window. Things near to the window were seen and understood more clearly than things distant. Beyond the Hellenistic empire, all Daniel saw was events/things significantly visible

---

I do not agree to this because it is solely your opinion, with no support from the text. As I have pointed out the 70th week is dealt with in more detail than anything in the preceding 69. And there are other examples (e.g. Daniel 11) which deal with the Hellenistic period in greater detail than anything preceding it.More importantly what is missing is not details but important major elements, directly relevant to the prophecy. While information that is given is apparently wrong - according to you. But why should I take your word that this is simply the author of Daniel getting it wrong (Divine inspiration apparently being inadequate to correct him) ?It seems to come down to the fact that the text doesn't say what you want.

quote:

---

Daniel's revelation from God was limited up to the Hellenistic period so far as specific empires go. All that was revealed to him beyond the four fragmented lesser empires beyond Alexander was the end times events.

---

According to you. However the text itself indicates that the End Times would occur during the Hellenistic period. So you are asserting that the Bible is wrong and you are right. But you don't provide any evidence for this.

quote:

---

The end time events which I have cited pertained to the "prince of princes" i.e messiah who is encountered by this fierce horn/king. The fierce king Daniel sees is "broken without hand" in that encounter.

​

Again, this corroborates Daniel's Daniel 2 vision of the image and the stone which destroys the world kingdoms and becomes a messianic regime which replaces the world kingdoms. None of this has happened in history, including the Hellenist period. You refuse to acknowledge that fact.

---

Now you are simply telling untruths. I have openly admitted that the End Times themselves did not occur (as if it was not too obvious to need mentioning !). And the fact that they did not occur on schedule means that the prophecy failed. DId you really think that I would pass up that fact ?

quote:

---

Again, in Daniel 12, God tells Daniel that his scope of revelation has ended and the book is sealed until the end times.

---

Exactly - Daniel 11-12 is supposed to be hidden until the End Times. Therefore the End Times would be when Daniel 11-12 came to light. More evidence to support my position.

quote:

---

Lo and behold, John the prophet/revelator is given the rest of the story in far more detail relative to the end time events,

---

So now the End Times is the early 2nd Century AD ?Your misreadings and distortions of the Revelation - and the prejudice and hatreds that underly them - are for another thread.

quote:

---

Besides ignoring the place of the Greco Macedonian empire, and it's demise, and the others kingdom, and ten parts that come from it in the end days, if you want to keep all Dan 8 as fulfilled, please show me the stars that were cast down?? Are they hiding somewhere? Did no one see them?? What were they real little stars??

---

Aside from misrepresenting me AND the BIble do you have a case ?I do NOT ignore the place of the Greco-Maedonian Empire or it's demise.Daniel does not have any kingdom divided into "ten parts".The stars falling to earth in Daniel 8 are part of the vision and therefore should not be assumed to be literal.

quote:

---

So, out of the four parts of what Greece got divided into, is where the fierce king shall come from.. When?? Not before Greece was divided, before it got taken over by the next kingdom, but AFTER, showing that it was not from the ruling time of Greece, as you seem to think!

---

If you knew your history you would know that after Alexander's death his Empire was divided among his generals. That is the division referred to. It is those Kingdoms that Daniel 8 refers to, not some other later Kingdom.

quote:

---

Broken without hand?? That sounds a lot like the kingdom of Jesus that was cut out without hands, in other words, without MAN's hands.

​

Again, context. You can't just have a fanatic's field day taking things out of context. Sorry.

---

I'm not taking anything out of context.We all know that the End Times didn't come. The question is when Daniel believed that they would come. And Daniel 8 clearly answers that question - and shows that Daniel was wrong. That is simple, honest, fact.

quote:

---

If the latter time of the parts of Greece was long ago, why are they still here???

---

The Hellenistic Kingdoms are long gone. The last of them, Ptolemaic Egypt, fell to Rome in 30BC. They are not "still here" any more than the Babylonian or Persian Empires are "still here".

quote:

---

The ten divisions, or kings are ten parts, and they will give their power to the beast. Most people have ten toes, and the image that represented the kingdoms on earth till the Messiah takes over were ten toes. Count em.

---

Daniel never refers to a Kingdom divided into ten parts or talks of "The Messiah" taking over.Try and stick to what the text actually says.

quote:

---

As for stars, I am afraid that you are not in a position to dictate what one should assume stars mean. While it is true that it might have meant angels, or some such, in the past, it is also possible, I would think, that an ultimate application may apply to the latter days

---

I'm not dictating what they MEAN I'm just pointing out that it would be very silly to take it literally.

quote:

---

So, it would be again, in context, and with a look at the rest of the book, not just what you declare, for some unknown reason.

---

The context would include the fact that the relevant verse is part of the description of a symbolic vision.

quote:

---

Not sure what else you think I was talking about?

---

You were insisting that the division of the Greek Empire had something to do with it being taken over by another Kingdom. Obviously that was wrong.

quote:

---

But say, if Egypt was an area that was one of them, you will notice it still exists today in some form.

---

In the same way that Persia is still around "in some form". It doesn't change the fact that the Ptolemaic Kingdom ended in 30 BC. Modern Egypt can't be said to be the Ptolemaic state.

quote:

---

So the areas that the kingdom were divided into, - out of one of them, will rise this important leader of the last days of the rule of man on earth.

---

Unfortunately for you, Daniel explicitly refers to the latter days of the Greek Kingdoms, not some other states that might eventually arise in the remote future. Your reading is simply not viable.

quote:

---

Why would it come, till it comes??

---

That isn't relevant. The question is when did Daniel say that the End Times would come.
Chapter 8 tells us that it should be in "the latter days" of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. Other prophecies narrow the time down to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt.

quote:

---

What, you would like prophesy if the final leader lived in Greece thousands of years ago, or in Europe in the dark ages, or in Britain in the Victorian era?

---

It's not a case of liking it. It's a case of understanding what it says.

quote:

---

No, the only time it can come, is when the time actually is at it's end. No need to worry about that, if we are still here, be sure it ain't come yet!

---

I'm certainly not worried by Daniel's predicted End Times - they didn't happen, and the time they were supposed to happen is long past. Obviously there's nothing to worry about there.

quote:

---

But also note that certain things are now in place, that were not in centuries past. How could Russia invade Israel, if there was no Israel there to invade, for example. (Not that God asked it to be there, when He gets them together, we will know it) Europe is in a stronger position to be getting together, or parts of it, as well.And of course there are many other things that indicate that the wrap up phase could kick easily, when the time is right.

---

How can the ruler of a Hellenistic Kingdom attack Israel when the Hellenistic Kingdoms are gone. The necessary conditions are NOT in place, and haven't been for over 2000 years.

quote:

---

The kingdoms are of course by and large still here. Greece is still here even! Not as some world leader, nor should they be. They were to be defeated as that, and another one take over, quite clearly.

---

No, they're not. Not one of them still exists. At most you might find a modern state with the same time. But the Hellenistic Kingdoms are utterly gone.

quote:

---

Of course he does, right in Dan 2. The fourth kingdom, the legs of iron, when it is destroyed by the rock of ages, is in the form of ten toes. No one else could destroy the kingdoms of the world, and rule forever and ever. Elementary. It is also cross referenced by the rest of the bible, that God will rule here one day.

---

In other words he doesn't. All you have is a reference to the toes which you assume refers to ten separate kingdoms. But it's just an assumption. And you don't even have anything you can call a reference to the Messiah.So try really hard to stick to what the text actually says, will you ?

quote:

---

Since stars also refer to heavenly beings, and other things, we don't need to agree and fine tune that. This alone likely does not place the event strictly in either the past, or the future. It could refer to both.

---

You're the one who brought it up, treating it as if it were literal.

quote:

---

A series of visions, in a book, surrounded by even more visions, all of which need to be considered.

---

Yes, but you have to actually do it. Not say you've done it, while ignoring the bits you don't like.

quote:

---

In the case of the latter days of the four divisions of Greece, they are still here. The context is that it gives the area, or possible areas we can know that the last leader will come from.

---

No. That is not context. That is something you made up. The actual context shows Daniel consistently dealing with political entities, not geography. The actual text deals with political entities not geography. And the political entities in question are all gone.

quote:

---

ot that Greece, or the areas that the generals divided up will be here as some world kingdom. That is an impossibility, since it clearly tells that another kingdom will follow. Knowing this irrefutable fact, then, the seventy weeks cannot be misunderstood, as you try to do.

---

So what you are saying is that if you twist Daniel 8 by inventing a fake "context", use your preferred interpretation you'll come up with the "correct" interpretation of the 70 weeks - by which you mean the interpretation that you like despite the fact that you have to distort that too, to try to make it fit.Or we can take Daniel 8 at its word. Use a different interpretation of the statue and the four beasts - one that actually fits the real context. And get an interpretations of the 70 weeks that actually works.That makes it rather clear who is "trying to misunderstand" the 70 weeks.

quote:

---

Explicitly?

---

Yes, 8:22-23

quote:

---

So, when was the explicit end of Egypt? Or Syria?

---

I didn't say that Daniel referred to either of those explicitly. Their end is implicit in that the Kingdom of God will replace them.

quote:

---

Somewhere, however, when talking about this, it jumps far into the end of man's rule on earth, and directly starts talking about the ultimate fulfillment.

---

By which you mean that you have to invent a jump, which isn't there in the text.

quote:

---

The fine tuning comes where we pinpoint where the time jump takes place. This is a pattern found elsewhere in the bible as well.

---

I think you mean that inventing time jumps is a pattern followed by apologists, who want the Bible to say something other than it does.

quote:

---

But any way you shake it, the last week of Daniel could not have been in the time of Greece! Trying to stick it there is absurd, and ignorant of context.

---

The real context includes Daniel 8 which clearly places the End TImes in the Greek Empire.
Your "context" is simply your own invention, contrary to the actual text.The evidence shows that the events of the 70th week match real historical events in that period.The 70 weeks do not fit into your view - which is why you have to arbitrarily invent a massive gap between the 69th and 70th week. A gap which has no support in the text.I am not trying to stick the 70th week into the time of the Hellenistic Kingdoms - the author of Daniel firmly put it there. As I have shown.

quote:

---

False!
Da 7:24 - And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

---

Which are NOT said to be rulers of separate kingdoms. Indeed the best historical fit has them as the successive rulers of a single kingdom. This issue has been dealt with.As I said TRY to stick to what the text actually says.In addition it is invalid to use Revelation to override what the Book of Daniel actually says. The Book of Daniel clearly places its events in time. The Revelation - written at least 250 years AFTER that time - places its events still further ahead.

quote:

---

True, I was trying to find some bit that could only be fulfilled in the very end. That wasn't it, that I am aware of.

---

In other words you ignored the context while looikig for a bad argument.

quote:

---

In pointing out that it is more than one vision, I ignore nothing. Any unclear bit on one vision is easily cleared up. with context, and balance. Cherry picking, and clinging to pet theories is all you have been doing.

---

You see ? Your tactics are so bad that you falsely accuse me of using them.I have been promoting an integrated understanding using everything we can find. Chapter 8 is key, but chapters 9 and 11 provide strong support. In contrast you have to invnet massive jumps in time to cling to YOUR pet theories. I don't need anything like that.

quote:

---

The end time leader is a political entity. Focus.

---

The end time leader is RULER of a political entity. And presumably "focus" means that we should ignore the fact that your "context" is a fabrication that ignores the real context.

quote:

---

Some have admitted here that the weeks are years. No start from any decree gets the Messiah that far off, does it?? That is your problem. And the destruction of the temple after the decree can't be fit into any other take. How many times can a temple be utterly destroyed, from point a to point b!!??

---

Everyone agrees that the "weeks" are periods of seven years and nobody has disputed that in the course of this thread. Characterising that as an "admission" is pure spin. And there are certainly possible start dates that place the end date quite far from your candidate for Daniel's second messiah.The destruction is not a problem for me, because clearly the Temple is still working afterwards. Therefore it refers to damage that can be put right, at least to the extent of allowing Temple business to continue, within a short period. (That's using the context again.) We do have a successful raid of the Temple, with the treasures looted at exactly the right time. Thus the problem is answered - as you already knew.

quote:

---

Of course His kingdom will replace all others. Nothing in the bible says that was in the days of Greece, of course! Ridiculous.

---

Daniel 8 and Daniel 11-12 DO say exactly that. So you are calling the Bible ridiculous.

quote:

---

NO, you can't do anything of the sort, actually! The image represented kingdoms, in an order, right up till God takes over the earth.

---

Of course we can. All we have to do is to choose a different breakdown which actually fits in with the clear statements of Daniel 8.

quote:

---

The visions all agree, and the kingdoms are identifiable. No way round it.

---

Except for the first, Babylon, none of the kingdoms can be unambiguously identified.
Therefore we use the wider context, which clearly identifies the final kingdom as Greek.

quote:

---

If it talks in a certain place about the very end, yes, it has spanned time, from the last bit mentioned, obviously. And there is no way on earth to get around the clear fact, that at some point, in chapters that covered history, it does just that, start talking about the very end.

---

Indeed. And there is no reasonable way to get around the fact that those End Times are placed in our distant past. That is why you invent massive time jumps rather than accept what the text actually says.

quote:

---

For example, again in Daniel, we have chap 7 doing this. There is no way possible to attribute these things to any king of the past. Period. That is not an option.

---

Well that is odd since it is a description of Antichus IV Epiphanes !

quote:

---

It SPELLS out that it is talking about kingdoms, and that the end result is God, and His people ruling forever. That you cannot fit into history

---

We have a very basic problem here. You assume that I have to try to twist the prophecy so that it comes out "right". but I don't. I am quite happy pointing out the fact that it failed.

quote:

---

If a chapter clearly ends up talking about something in the future that cannot have been fulfilled by any stretch of the imagination in the past, you cannot deny it is talking about the future!!! Period. Since this happens quite a bit, you have no point.

---

I can't and don't deny that the author was talking abut HIS future. However, I clearly should not assume that the author must have been talking about our future just because his prediction was wrong !

quote:

---

How can you get that God takes over in ancient Greece from this???

---

By reading it. It SAYS that the ruler referred to is the ruler of one of the Hellenistic Kingdoms. I even quoted the relevant portion in my last post !

quote:

---

Not all of them, only the stuff that is supposed to take place. Can you tell us how you think these things were all fulfilled somewhere in history!!!!???

---

Everything apart from the end happened. That would be a pretty big coincidence. Not a little coincidence like being able to find a start date that gives you a near miss on only one event. And with all the other evidence against it referring to our future., clearly it is the best possibility available.

quote:

---

an 9:24 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.

​

Some everlasting righteousness we have now!!!! Get serious.

---

And that is an equal "problem" for any of the possible start dates.You only have 490 years.However you read it the prophecy failed.Big deal. Lots of End-of-the-World prophecies fail.That is not a problem.

quote:

---

Historical evidence for kingdoms that exist just before God takes over can't exist. Focus, man. That is ridiculous.

---

But we can have historical evidence for kingdoms that existed just before the author of Daniel - incorrectly - SAID that God would take over. And that is exactly what we do have,

quote:

---

You have no idea of the time of many of the events in Daniel obviously, and if a stone smote all the kingdoms already, and God took over, where is He? I must have missed that along with everyone else on the planet. (Except you and your sister, of course)

---

Quite obviously you don't have a case beyond the assumption that the prophecy couldn't fail - as it did. Since you seem to have problems getting it Daniel's prophecy FAILED. F-A-I-L-E-D.

quote:

---

Well, actually, I decided that the spiritual context was too much for an atheist dominated board, and not really needed. No need to get fancy, and try to explain how the past blends with the future in bible prophesy mid stream!!

---

Oh please, spare us the lame excuses. It is really quite simple. In your desperate scrabbling for an excuse to dismiss the evidence you made another silly mistake.

quote:

---

Sit down, this may be a shock to you. When we start dealing in God taking over the planet, and events of the extreme end, we must jump somewhere, cause it never happened yet. That is what prophesy happens to be all about!! This is news? If it never jumped anywhere in the future it would not BE prophesy!!! Got you there.

---

So what you are saying is that prophecies must have huge gaps IN THE MIDDLE because - well because you say so. Just like there has to be a huge gap between the seven and the sixty nine weeks. Oh no, it only happens when you WANT it to happen. How convenient for you.Like I said you're desperately scrabbling for excuses to reject what the Bible really says.

quote:

---

In english, now??? Who ignores what? And what about this leader of the time of the extreme end? Focus.

---

You want to ignore the fact that Daniel is speaking of political entities because it proves that your interpretation is contrary to the text. And the leader is Antiochus IV Epiphanes - Daniel WAS WRONG about when the End TImes would occur.

quote:

---

Not that include a Messiah being killed in the ways the bible prophesied, and born where prophesied, and etc. Not that include Jerusalem, and the temple being utterly destroyed.

---

Daniel doesn't specify that he means The Messiah. Nor does he mention the Temple being utterly destroyed. Didn't you notice that Daniel says that the Temple is STILL THERE after "the destruction" ?

quote:

---

Say what??? The temple that had not one stone left upon another was still working?? Maybe that is not as clear as you think! Tell us how that works?

---

Simple. It wasn't really destroyed. Obvious, really. Oh, and Daniel doesn't say anything about "not one stone left upon another".

quote:

---

I call those interpretation attempts, so called, that try to stuff in destroyed temples, cut off Messiahs, and God ruling the earth, and etc. -as having happened in the time of Greece inept insults to what the bible actually is saying six ways from Sunday.

---

Why exactly should the Bible be insulted by accurately reporting what it says ?

quote:

---

Babylon was the head, and another kingdom followed, on down the line. You can't play with the order, any more than you can have Greece take over the US!!

---

And I don't play with the order. As you would know if you actually paid attention.

quote:

---

I see, so how was this bit fulfilled?!!!!!

---

It wasn't because DANIEL WAS WRONG.

quote:

---

It is no coincidence that there were local fulfillments. Prophesy works that way. You can't end it till the fat lady sing, though, and all the prophesy is a done deal. That would leave you dangling back in ancient Greece or some silly has been place, thinking that it was all wrong.

---

So now Daniel is stupid, so you have to pretend it doesn't mean what it says.
It's just a coincidence that pretty much everything but the actual end points to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

quote:

---

The visions of Daniel were not about his future!

---

Really ? They were in his past then ? Want to explain how you work THAT ?

quote:

---

He was to go his way, and stand in his lot, till the end, because it was a long long way off still. Many days. The visions had to do with his people, the Jews. The kingdoms that would follow, right on up to the end, when we have God taking over, etc. Again, you miss the boat entirely.

---

Oh, so he WAS talking about events that were in the future to him after all !

quote:

---

To do what?!! To FINISH the vision, bring in everlasting righteousness, and etc etc. That is why the important last week of Daniel that has not possibly been fulfilled yet is so important.

---

Yes ! That PROVES that Daniel got it wrong !

quote:

---

Repetitive Yada.

---

As usual, you use the term "yada" to dismiss facts that you cannot refute.

quote:

---

Of course you must keep on glibly repeating that the prophecy failed. That would be your MO regardless of how much evidence one produces.

---

By which you mean that I tell the truth no matter how many lame excuses you produce. Neither of you have produced ANY evidence that there was meant to be a massive gap between the 70th week and the previous 69. Neither of you have produced a viable reading of Daniel 8. And the only reason I keep repeating the point that the prophecy failed is that Simple/Starman just can't get it.

quote:

---

As I said before, your secularism is cooked if you ever admitted to one miracle in the Bible. Like Starman said, this debate is quite futile with folks like you who would never admit to anything supernatural. Imo, you do not debate in good faith for that reason. You can't debate the prophecies in good faith lest you become accountable to a higher power.

---

Your religion would be cooked if you accepted that the Bible said what it really said. That is why you and Simple/Starman have to misrepresent it, call it "ridiculous" and invent excuses.And of course you have to slander me for daring to demolish your arguments and expose your ignorance. You can't show any examples where I am not debating in good faith. I can find many where Simple/Starman is not - and if your participation has avoided the depths that Simple has sunk to, it is far from above criticism.And I'm not scared of your "Higher Power". I don't believe in Satan.

quote:

---

Now that's certainly a juvenile argument. Just because the rest of the story was to be held back for a later time and a later prophet, (John's Revelation) doesn't mean it was for the time that he prophesied. Why in the world would God tell him, "..go your way until the end be, for you shall rest (die) and stand in your lot at the end of the days (end times)."

---

But it wasn't just "the rest of the story" that was to be held back. It was the part revealed to Daniel, too. And that was to be held back until the very time of the end.Daniel 12:4 And the rest of the story (if that is what 12:9 refers to) was also supposed to be concealed until the End Times, too.Daniel 12:9 So obviously Daniel 11-12 could not be revealed until the End Times, and according to your interpretation the Revelation must also be kept secret until then.And why is there a problem with the author of Daniel dying ? Unless you wish to say that the 70 "weeks" are literal weeks or something the author of Daniel must place more than 400 years between the supposed time of the vision and the End Times. Historically, more than 350 yeas seperate the Decree of Cyrus and the accession of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Neither figure suggests that the supposed author of Daniel could be expected to still live
by the time of the actual events !So tell me. Why would a gap of 350 years be too little ?Quite clearly I have made the "juvenile" error of actually reading and understanding the Bible. A "mistake" that you obviously have not made !

quote:

---

Hatred?? Where/how ever did that pop into you head from this debate?

---

It comes from you injection of your political and racial views into the thread.
Specifically your hatred of Islam, and of Barack Obama, as well as your racism.If you kept those out of it I wouldn't comment on them.

quote:

---

No one questions that Greece existed, just your claims that God was to take over there!

---

More misrepresentation, as usual. The issue was not whether Greece existed, the issue was comparign the Book of Daniel to history.And of course, "my" claims are right there in the Bible.

quote:

---

A prophesy that spans all time, and pauses for details of the time of Jesus must, of course. Long time periods just can't be stuffed into a turkey, or a Greece.

---

The prophecy of 70 weeks doesn't claim to span all time. Just 490 years. Any longer time period is of your invention.

quote:

---

No I do not want to ignore earlier fulfilled parts!! They are great. But I do want to move on to the future, where the text demands, rather than hide from the rest of the bible, and try to keep the whole thing stuck in the mud of Greece!!!

---

The text DOESN'T demand it. YOU do. And there's no "hiding" from the rest of the Bible. Except on your part.

quote:

---

Actually, you better elaborate, what exactly are you talking about, in that 9th chapter?

---

I see you've forgotten again.9:27 The sacrifice and grain offerigns are those in the Temple. The abominations are pagan rites in the Temple. Therefore the Temple still exists and was accepting sacrifices up to the point they were banned.See also Daniel 8:12-14 and Daniel 12:11-12

quote:

---

No, that is history. Look around, you won't see any! The wailing wall was a part of a retaining wall surrounding the area, not part of the temple, of course

---

I wasn't talking about history. I was talking about the "destruction" in Daniel 9.

quote:

---

The order is that the fourth kingdom was after Greece, if you paid attention!

---

I see that you haven't been paying attention. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Kingdoms are not named. It is only your interpretation that places the 4th as "after Greece". But since we know that the last Kingdom is Greek, obviously your interpretation is wrong.

quote:

---

No, it is part of the prophesy, and fulfillments, but we jump from there at some point, beyond any possible question, to the very end times!

---

There is no question that this jump is something that you made up, something that is not present nor can be justified from the text. That seems like a pretty good reason for rejecting it.

quote:

---

There isn't really a need to fine tune when that is here, either. Looking at the destroyed temple, and killed Messiah, etc, so many weeks after the decree is plenty.

---

Maybe you think that a 28000% error is just "fine tuning". In fact given how many mistakes you make maybe it is - to you.

quote:

---

I think you are about done here. Go gracefully.

---

I would like to thank my opponents for putting up such an abysmally poor fight. Without their contribution I would not have achieved such a crushing and decisive victory.

quote:

---

Irenaeus, quoted Papias, a follower of John and a companion of Polycarp as quoted by Eusebius. So Papias existed.

​

He said Matthew was written in Hebrew. This dates to 60 AD.

​

Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): said Matthew brought forth a written gospel in Hebrew while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome.

​

That would put it prior to 60 AD.

---

They said that Matthew produced a collection of sayings, written in Hebrew. The Gospel we are talking about is not a collection of sayings and it is written in Greek. Clearly they are not the same document.

I dispute the idea that the doocument referred to is the Gospel later attributed to Matthew on the grounds that neither the content nor the language match. And since the content differs it is not possible that the Gospel is a translation of the document mentioned by Iranaeus. (Besides which the evidence suggests that much of the Gospel is copied from Mark's Gospel)

quote:

---

Since you have compared the two documents I would like to know where I could find the one mentioned by Iranaeous.

---

I've compared the description (from Papias) with the Gospel we have. Since the Gospel we have is not just a collection of sayings (unlike the Gospel of Thomas) it is clear that the Gospel of Matthew that we have does not match the description.

quote:

---

But then you are only disputing the idea. That way no research, no comparison no nothing just your opinion.

---

No, you are the one who offers an opinion without research. You haven't offered any evidence that the Gospel of Matthew that we have was translated from a Hebrew original.Moreover you ignore the body of research that has been done into the origins of the Gospels. Papias ALSO gives an origin for Mark's Gospel, attributing it to a follower of Peter who recorded his memories of Peter's teachings. If this is correct then the copying must be from Mark to the Gospel attributed to Matthew.So either Papias is wrong about both Matthew and Mark, or the Gospel of "Matthew" that we have is not the document he referred to and it was written in Greek, copied from Mark.Why should we believe you over Papias, wriiting in the early 2nd Century AD ?