The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

No, it isn't about Jesus at all. First of all, in the hebrew, in 'perfect tense', which means it is a completed action (i.e. past tense).It's hard to make a prediction of the future when it is in past tense.Now, I am sure the writers of the Gospels used it, but that doesn't mean that it was a prediction of the future. That is the technique known as 'retrofitting'.

Well, I don't know. It seems you rely on a lot of mistranslations (psalm 22, isaiah 7:14 for example), Retrofitting stuff (all the rest of the garbage), vague references, twisting of words, and taking phrases out of context (you have not used one phrase from the 'Old Testament' in context to make your case at all, and a lot of it was mistranslated).Your link does not make an honest case for any of it's claims.I noticed you are unable to counter the problems using psalm 22, nor Isaiah 7:14, but you repeat that like a parrot, who does not understand what it is saying.

I see you are totally avoiding the issue. At least you acknowledge the fact that so far, the copy from Qumran is probably the oldest extant copy of the Book of Daniel.How do the archeologist's date it, and to what date to they put that copy.
We will acknowledge that is not when ti was writtenOh, you have not made a case that the Book of Daniel was 'the most treasured' of this community.I would say, answer the question, and Paul will get to the next issue at hand.I am sure he will address your points.

Please, using your vast knowledge of Hebrew, make the case. Show how 'K'ari' has been translated as 'pierced' anyplace else. It wasn't even translated as 'pierced' by the KJV translators in other places it was used.

Actually, no one really knows if 'homer' wrote the odyssey and the Iliad. They are attributed to him to be sure, and it is a certain romantic notion about a blind bard..The earliest mention of the Iliad was from the 5th century bce. Internal evidence shows the original work was probably about 8th century bce. Every one will acknowledge that it is based on legend.Internal evidence for the Book of Daniel narrows it's writing from between 167 bce and 164 bce.As far as I see, no one is trying to say the works of Homer are prophecy, and it means your soul if you disbelieve in it.

PaulK writes:Except that the stone is never identified as a single person. The stone simply seems to be the Kingdom of God. There simply is no corroboration there.

quote:

---

As usual, in your ignorance of how Biblical eschatology works, you choose to secularize the holy writ by isolating texts and skewing them into secular literature. Both corroborated visions are of the world class empires and both end with the end time messianic prince of princes/conquering stone and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

---

On the contrary, I find that Paul is looking at the Book of Daniel in it's cultural , historical, and original religious setting, and what had meaning to the original author, rather than how some people centuries later tried to retrofit it to their own agenda.As far as starman being 'intelligent and articulate', I think that translates into 'his religious beliefs are the same as mine'. There seems to be a certain inability to comprehend or even consider alternate explanations.

The Book of Daniel was not 'sacred' to the Ancient Jews. That is why when it was included in the Canon in 90 c.e., it was put in the writings, not the prophets.

Well, you see, patterns repeat themselves, and often , patterns are imagined where there are none existing. This is the basis of 'end of times' prophecy.I see people taking vague symbolism, and reinventing what it was meant to portray. When someone sagely quotes this vague symbolism, and insist it means 'thus and thus', sorry, but it isn't clear their claim is valid.I have yet to see any prophecy that does not do that.

It's funny how Matthew didn't record the prediction of Jesus until after the fact. Have you ever thought that Matthew might have stretched the truth there?As for the nation of Israel, that is known as a 'self fulfilling prophecy'. It was predicted, so people worked to it. On the other hand, it does not meet the criteria of the predicted Israel, since it isn't under a king.

Well, since I am not in Israel, and neither are the majority of the world's Jewish population, then, that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.

As a matter of fact, there is plenty of evidence that they were not. For example, the Gospel of Mark was written by someone who made a lot of mistakes when it comes to the geography around Jerusalem. Traditions has it that it was written by a disciple of Peter after Peter died. The fact the person did not know the area in Judah, and tradition line up to
point to someone who as not a direct disciple of Jesus. It does not self identify the author either.

Evidence has it that the Gospel of Matthew that we have was NOT written in Hebrew, but written in Greek. This evidence is internal to Matthew, because it uses Greek language syntax and word order. There are some aramic idioms, but it was definitely not written in Hebrew.So, we have someone quoting from someone , who was quoting someone else who was quoting someone else that the Gospel was written by Matthew. The extant claim we have is 4th century, although it was quoting from earlier sources that are now lost. It makes a claim that the Gospel was written in a language that it was not. So, explain to me , considering that the statement that it was written in Hebrew is incorrect, how this could be considered evidence?