The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

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,

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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. [quote]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] 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!!!

quote:

---

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" ?

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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. That is about as destroyed as destroyed could get. That was after the Messiah was cut off by the way, after the 62 set of seven years. Remember, that the first destruction is not what is being talked about here. It was after that, after the decree to start building again, that this whole prophesy is dealing!!!

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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 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.

quote:

---

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

---

Well, everything is in the future to us once we are dead. Daniel was to have a dead body till the time of the resurrection, when his people rise from the dust of the earth. But the events had to do not with Daniel, or his lifetime, but the span of history itself, till the end.I think you are about done here. Go gracefully.Edited by starman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

it had to be dated to such and such a time because the writer mentioned certain things (that is what is known as a circular argument.)..

---

Not really. There isn't reason to claim it is some elaborate forgery, that is a conspiracy theory that can't be supported. Do you then also question the dating of Ezekiel?There is enough about the book of Daniel to assume it is from that time, as I already gave links for, and there are plenty more. There are details that could not have been known, apparently centuries later, for example.So, what we have is a bible hero, known about, and mentioned in Ezekiel, by another captive, that can be dated.You also have presented, and cannot present any reason to doubt that it is what it is, and not some state conspiracy, or elaborate hoax.You therefore have given me no reason at all to doubt it, and, furthermore, the fact that you feel it must be explained away is evidence that what it says is astounding, unimaginably supernatural, and something people like you can't deal with, except to be in denial.As for trivializing the fact that the new testament alluded to this important work, and Jesus, as well spoke directly of it, that really isn't a valid point. Why? Because you would need to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and fulfill all the things it is known that He did, proving that He was God. If He was God, then He was there in Daniel's day, and arranged to have the messages given to Daniel to begin with. It was not just Daniel's prophesies Jesus fulfilled, it was the whole scriptures, basically. You go against the whole gang there, not just Daniel.
Since you could not begin do that, all you really offer is personal incredulity based on ignorance.You not only seem to suggest that Israel was in a conspiracy to forge the book of Daniel, but that all the martyrs and apostles, and believers of the new testament were also in on it.Apparently some fragments were dated to a few centuries BC." The Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due to the amount of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran, it appears that this prophetic book was one of the most treasured by that community. Perhaps the popularity of Daniel was due to the fact that the people of Qumran lived during the anxious period in which many of these prophecies actually were being fulfilled. For whatever reason, Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12. However, one manuscript (4QDanc; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Danc = one of the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated "c" for clarification), published in November 1989, has been dated to the late second-century B.C. (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDanb, 4QDana) have been published since 1987, which contribute to scholarly analysis of Daniel. These recently-released fragments have direct bearing on the integrity and authenticity of the book of Daniel."" The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications that this book was considered "canonical" for the community, which meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment employs the quotation, "which was written in the book of Daniel the prophet." This phrase, similar to Jesus reference to "Daniel the prophet" (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades?"http://www.3dsxtreme.com/Bookof%20Daniel.htmThe historian Josepheus also considered Daniel to be what it is."There is no possibility that Josephus could have regarded Daniel as belonging to the Writings. Very clearly he included it among the Prophets, along with Solomon's prophetic parable of love (S of Songs) and the exilic and postexilic books of history, all of which were composed from a prophetic perspective. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the Masoretic division of the canon, coming as it did six or seven centuries after Flavius Josephus, has no bearing whatever on the date of Daniel's composition or on its status as a truly prophetic work."http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.htmlAnd for other historical confirmation and evidences, (from same link) we have this!!!"First, Daniel was listed among the prophets in the Septuagint translation (hence the position of our English Bibles through the medium of the Vulgate). Second, Josephus (first century A.D.) listed Daniel among the prophets. Third, Melito, bishop of Sardis (A.D.70), did the same. Fourth, Origen (d. A.D. 254) listed Daniel before Ezekiel and the twelve prophets. R. Laird Harris thus argues not only for the full canonicity of the book of Daniel but also its inclusion among the prophetic books in the most ancient Hebrew collections."The evidence is solid, you need more than a conspiracy hunch. That is silly.Edited by starman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

"Elaborate hoaxes" "forgeries" and "Conspiracies" are your constructions, not mine. Take your strawmen elsewhere.

---

Terms for what would have had to have happened if your unsupportable dream doubts about a solidly evidenced book were valid at all.As it stands, the dates cannot be unsubstantiated!!!Try it, and see, rather than allude stuff, you don't seem to have much of a grip on.

quote:

---

Peter said the universe was going to melt.
This was predicted over 2k years ago and today we have many scientist that believe that is going to happen. Many don't they think it is going to just run out of energy and get cold.

​

If the universe doesn't melt then Peter was wrong.

---

He never said it was going to be a natural melt!

quote:

---

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

​

If you never die this one is incorrect.
If one day you stand before Jesus in judgment it is true, and you will remember this post at that time.

---

That is telling us how it works, not a prophesy. It is appointed for such and such to happen..

quote:

---

No. You do not get to characterize the arguments of others - that is the logical fallacy known as the "strawman argument.

---

No. You do not get to tell me when not to characterize the arguments of others - that is the logical fallacy known as the "strawman argument.I call em like I see em.

quote:

---

There are reasons other than conspiracies and hoaxes why the text of any ancient book should not be taken literally - epic myth for example.

---

If you come up with any reasons let us know, now. Meanwhile, I have no reason not to take the bible as powerful evidence, of some real force that is present, in fulfilled prophesies.

quote:

---

Classic logical fallacy of someone without a solid argument - demanding that someone "prove a negative". Sorry - the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that an event occured at a certain time in a certain place - not on the skeptic.

---

So, who gets to say who has the positive, and who has the negative!? You? Don't think so. That is a plumb wrong notion fallacy.

Good one.

Basically, yes we do. Jesus died a certain year. Check your calendar to get the general time, it is set to Him after all, the year of our Lord!!!! Jesus was the one that prophesied it!! Some say He alluded to a Daniel prophesy the prophesied the same!! Are you going to now try to make Daniel after 70 AD as well!!??

No, only if you think that unsubstantiating is something that could be done. You either have to prove your claim, or have reasons to disprove the other claim. I have reasons to toss your stuff out, it is not supported. In fact, I can't remember if you even have any stuff. What do you have, then? Doubt? Personal incredulity? That is negative. Good luck with proving that, no matter how logical it might be in your head.

Whenever the final gathering of records into a book came, it matters not. We had the records already, and we knew that that record was Matthew's. You have given no reason, as is becoming your motis operendi here, to doubt it. Well, that means your negative dreams are worthless. Work on that.

I do need to prove dates that are part of sacred texts, and as the dead sea scrolls attest, a very important part of them. Jesus also attested. It is also insane in my opinion, to believe that Israel or whoever you might think did it, made such an elaborate hoax. One that included counting back the years from Jesus, and temple destruction, to arrive at the time of the decree. The 62 weeks, if written after the fact, might be even more amazing. To claim that Daniel really was not living as he claimed, in Babylon, in the palace, and a captive, etc, seems to require some evidence.You have none. I can say that your doubts, as obviously baseless as they are, are very overrated, apparently inside your head.

We is we of whom had the record, and we who know it to be true. We that touched, and handled Him, and we that died to verify He rose from the dead.
We, the believers, to whom the record was given.You may prove that record wrong if you can, but it has walked over the rotting corpses of naysayers of centuries past, and stood the test of time. You will need more than doubt here, that has no basis in fact, and cannot stand the light of day.

quote:

---

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to critical scholarship it matters a great deal. For example, if you could produce a contemporary gMat then that would give you a strong argument, as it is though, what is the earliest extant gMat, is it 300 or 400 years after Jesus died? That gives ample time for editing.

---

No, that says nothing about how we had the records circulating already, and knew what the record of Matthew was! That simply says the record is doubted by an outsider. So??? You have nothing to say about it, we had, and have the record.

quote:

---

'We' actually have a great many variant copies of all of the Gospels, which shows that they really weren't viewed as authoratative for a few centuries. Early xians certainly never put as much faith in these texts as you do.

---

You seem to doubt God, now as well, and His ability to get a good collection of the records we had together! Your doubts are worthless. Get it?? Try fact. The fact is you got nothin. We got plenty.

quote:

---

Indeed we don't. That is why the book is entitled 'according to Matthew'. There is no good reason to suppose its author(s) even knew Jesus.

---

Being a deciple really is a great reason! Having his records passed down, in the sacred way we did stuff, means we knew it was his. You do not. So?? Tell us what you DO know, not what you doubt, for no apparent reason. That matters not at all.

quote:

---

Do you know the earliest gMat in existence that mentions the Temple 'prophecy'?

---

Are you doubting it was destroyed now?? Or are you doubting Jesus was alive before that? Or are you suggesting another hoax here, where evil fraudsters conspired to fabricate a prophesy??? Or do you even have a point?

quote:

---

... everything you have ever posted at this site only demonstrates an ignorance of a collection of texts you explicitly adore far more than you adore the Man that 27 books of it are about.

---

The Man that said Daniel was a prophet, and that the temple would be destroyed? The man that defied all laws of temporary universe physics? The Man that called Matthew? Boy do you got a wrong number. Work on that.

quote:

---

Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to critical scholarship it matters a great deal. For example, if you could produce a contemporary gMat then that would give you a strong argument, as it is though, what is the earliest extant gMat, is it 300 or 400 years after Jesus died? That gives ample time for editing.

---

When we officially compiled the records does not matter. I might have a photo copy of the magna carta, but it is still and old record.

quote:

---

No you don't.

​

This is the whole point, you really do not know what the original text was, since you do not have an original to compare to the gMat that we have then you are up a gum tree.

​

You do know that the earliest existing copies of gMat are not identical?

---

What is different?? Maybe many of us can tell you which one is a little better! Which copies? Details..? Have I any reason to suspect that the ones anointed to compile the books, picked the wrong one??? Says who???

quote:

---

If you have the record then show it to us. But you don't have, and it is very likely that the gMat that we have is not even the same one that the early church used.

---

You can dream all you like, it is very likely you don't know what you are talking about. The record of Matthew was there, and we had it. Whether some wrote it a little different passing it around does not matter at all. The ones that picked the records to use in the bible likely had a grip on things you don't. Relax.

quote:

---

What does God have to do with anything?

​

Tell me, do you believe that the Bibles we have today are identical to the earliest texts we have?

---

God has everything to do with His book, what do you have to do with it is the better question! The answer is squat, except doubt for no apparent reason.

quote:

---

You do realise that gMat is an anonymous work, we do not know who wrote it, now that is a fact.

---

Yes we do, you don't. We know it is the record of Matthew! That was known as the record was passed down. You don't know it, no, so?? What do you know??

quote:

---

You do not know it is his. Look, if you have proof that the gMat we have belongs to the apostle Matthew you can pick up your ph.d from any uni you want, the uni will even pay you a great deal of money to associate yourself with them. But the fact is, you have nothing, you have shown us nothing except that you really don't know the subject very well.

---

Of course we know that God is real, and His book was inspired, and that we who passed the record on in our blood knew what was what. No proof that is better is needed or could exist. There is no real reason at all to doubt Matthew. None. Setting some criteria of so called proof that our records, that we died for, and held sacred must meet in your doubting head is a not needed.
Jesus gave the royal stamp for the book of Daniel, Personally, and there is no reason to doubt Daniel was a captive in Babylon, at that time of captivity, that is known. [quote] 'The way we did stuff' means what? That each text was carefully copied so that there was an accurate record kept of each book, is this what you are saying?Do you know the earliest gMat in existence that mentions the Temple 'prophecy'? {/quote It gDoes? So??? Is the temple destruction news?? What copy is theis, where, and why would anyone care??

quote:

---

The evidence we do have suggests that the gMat we have was written well after the destruction of the Temple.

---

I call you out, I don't believe you. Some copy of the record is no more evidence of that, than finding a copy of the bible under a burnt house, and claiming it was written around the time the house burned.

quote:

---

I doubt whether the Jesus of the NT ever existed.

---

I don't doubt you doubt anything that has to do with anything that you can't pick out of your nose. So??!

quote:

---

And your proof that Jesus defied all of temporary universe physics (what ever that is) is what exactly? The same collection of tatty ancient contradicting texts?

---

The ones that the calendar are set to, and that billions over time have been convinced it was true. Passing through walls to be seen by many, and raising from the dead, does transcend our laws, yes. Since the bible says these heavens and earth will pass away, yes, the laws here are temporary. Your baseless doubt against our sacred record, testified on their lives, by many thousands, or tens of thousands. Your doubts look pretty pathetic.

quote:

---

Only if you blindly accept everything you read in the Bible. But the realisty is, we have NO idea what Jesus said as He left nothing behind Him. He wrote nothing, He left NO possessions, we do not know where He was buried, we do not know when He was born, or when He died. We really do no know very much about Him for being the so-called Messiah, so you do not know if Jesus mentioned Daniel or not.

---

But we knew where He was buried, but since we saw Him often after He rose from the dead, that doesn't matter. We know where He lives, that is better. He wrote His word in the hearts of deciples, and they imprinted that to others. We have the record, we always have, and it goes right back to creation.

The topic was also Daniel, and if it diverged to another book, it can swing back. The thread originator can say what is topical, as well as anyone.In either case, all some have is doubt, that is not reasonable. Not based on anything at all. And God cannot be divorced from a biblical discussion, like it or lump it. If science had Him covered, and more than squat to say about it, yes, then one could talk. It is too pitifully limited to begin to do that. There is no possible proof that He never inspired the bible. No possible science as we currently know science that covers the spiritual, or God.
Dating some 'most recently found' part of our record cannot date the record itself,just some more recent copy- only in some people's head.The great timetable of events that started near the captivity, and climaxed in the time of Jesus (except for the famous last week yet to come) is beyond any reasonable possibility of some fraudulent conspiracy. And, if imagined late dates were right, that is what it would have to be.Just as science can't tell us if the 3 captives were tossed into the fire, and lived, it cannot tell us almost anything about the book! Therefore doubts cannot be supported with evidence. Can any prove there was no fire!!? Can one expect every ancient document to come with scientific proof of all it speaks of!!? That is what the doubters seem to be asking for.The life of Jesus sets the western calendar, and was cross referenced by some extra biblical people, as I think I linked. But a google should show plenty of links to support that, and a lot more. It would be more reasonable to doubt the life of Napoleon.The gospel record, according to Matthew need not have secular proof, the issue is whether the witnesses that had the record, and lived then, are more worthy of trust than ignorant, biased, and in many cases, antiChrist modern scoffers.The dead sea scrolls show that Daniel was a very important book, as I think they say more fragments of that were found than any other book. Jesus spoke of it, and the book has a special place in history.The desperate efforts of some to try to cast doubt on the book, and dates, are evidence that what is in it is so incredible, only a real living, time traveling God could explain it!!!No real case could be made that it was an elaborate hoax, that involved Israel, and all sorts of others, that would have had to have been part over great time!!It is high time that worthless doubts were not confused with any evidence, or science. The prophesies of Daniel, and Jesus, and others rock the ages!Edited by starman, : No reason given.Edited by starman, : No reason given.Edited by starman, : No reason given.