|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: No, it is NOT the question, since Daniel 9 doesn't worry about the issue at all.
quote: 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: 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 Ahaz Since 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: So obviously it COULD be a Kingdom formed by God. Just as I said.
quote:And Peter is said to be the rock on which Jesus built his Church. So what ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No. Because it is only if you look at in a certain way that you even get a close miss.
quote: 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 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: There are none that hit "bang on"
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I agree with this.
quote: No, this does not seem to be of any great importance.
quote: 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: I note that although this is asserted to be important it plays no role in your argument.
quote: 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: In fact the opposite appears to be the case. In the 70 weeks the most detailed portion is the 70th week.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: I'm not dictating what they MEAN I'm just pointing out that it would be very silly to take it literally.
quote: The context would include the fact that the relevant verse is part of the description of a symbolic vision.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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:It's not a case of liking it. It's a case of understanding what it says. quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: You're the one who brought it up, treating it as if it were literal.
quote: Yes, but you have to actually do it. Not say you've done it, while ignoring the bits you don't like.
quote: 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: 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:Yes, 8:22-23
22 "The broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation, although not with his power. 23 "In the latter period of their rule... quote: 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: By which you mean that you have to invent a jump, which isn't there in the text.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: In other words you ignored the context while looikig for a bad argument.
quote: 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 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: 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: Daniel 8 and Daniel 11-12 DO say exactly that. So you are calling the Bible ridiculous.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Well that is odd since it is a description of Antichus IV Epiphanes !
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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,
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Simple. It wasn't really destroyed. Obvious, really. Oh, and Daniel doesn't say anything about "not one stone left upon another".
quote: Why exactly should the Bible be insulted by accurately reporting what it says ?
quote: And I don't play with the order. As you would know if you actually paid attention.
quote:It wasn't because DANIEL WAS WRONG. 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. quote: Really ? They were in his past then ? Want to explain how you work THAT ?
quote: Oh, so he WAS talking about events that were in the future to him after all !
quote: Yes ! That PROVES that Daniel got it wrong !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: As usual, you use the term "yada" to dismiss facts that you cannot refute.
quote: 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: 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: 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
But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time;
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
He said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.
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 liveby 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: The prophecy of 70 weeks doesn't claim to span all time. Just 490 years. Any longer time period is of your invention.
quote: The text DOESN'T demand it. YOU do. And there's no "hiding" from the rest of the Bible. Except on your part.
quote:I see you've forgotten again. 9:27
...in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate...
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: I wasn't talking about history. I was talking about the "destruction" in Daniel 9.
quote: 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: 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: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: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: 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 ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024