Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

I can understand why you don't want to discuss the date of writing. Mainstream Bible scholars date it to the mid-2nd Century BC.So lets look at your evidence for the date of writing:

quote:

---

First, the book was alluded to in the first book of Maccabees (2bce).

---

2 BCE is much later the the likely date for the writing of Daniel (probably completed in 164 BCE). 1 Maccabees does not help your case.

quote:

---

It was included in the Greek Septuagint version, the translation of which began in the 3rd century BCE.

---

The translation of the Torah began in the 3rd Century BC. There was no organised effort to translate the complete Tanakh as we know it today at that time. Hence this is no help to you either.

quote:

---

Most notabley though, it contains historical details that would have been unknown to a second-century writer such as Belshazzar, the ruler of Babylon who was killed when Babylon fell in 539 BCE.

---

Nabonidus (the father of Belshazzar) was ruler of Babylon at that time - and HE is completely absent from the Book of Daniel. This surprising omission suggests that the author of Daniel did not have very good information about that time.However you are also missing something very important from Daniel 8.Daniel 8 is said a vision of the end times (8:17) I think that we can agree that the world did not come to an end at the time Daniel 8(which is the mid-2nd Century BC). That's a big mistake for a genuine prophet.

quote:

---

Would not what is classified end times be determined by the duration from Genesis 1:1 until the melting of the earth, which is less than 4 billion years away?

---

No. On that basis ALL Biblical Prophecies would be about the period termed the End Times - and it would make absolutely no sense to single Daniel 8 out when it has no special connection to the melting of the Earth.

I'll agree that we need good reason to conclude that the prophecy was written in advance of events. However, asking for carbon dated scrolls is going too far. There are good enough reasons to doubt the "traditional" dates for Daniel without making demands that we shouldn't expect to be met.The other conditions are reasonable. I'll add a fourth.We need to take the whole prophecy in context - looking at bits and pieces is not enough.
It's a lot easy to claim a great success if you can ignore all the things that don't fit.We did have a thread discussing the issues that needed to be considered, although that was quite a while ago. I may go looking for it.

quote:

---

Ez 36:24 "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.

​

This began in earnest in the early 1900's, and was culminated in 1948 with the establishment of the nation of Israel. The rest is history.

---

Wasn't Ezekiel written during the Babylonian Exile ? What makes you think that it has anything to do with the 20th Century ?

quote:

---

When the Jews were sent into Babylonian exile, they were sent primarily to Babylon, not to "all nations" of the world.

---

Ezekiel's pre-Exile predictions say otherwise. Ezekiel 5:12 predicts that 2/3 of the Jews will die and the remainder will be "scattered to the winds" . And as Jeremiah tells us some Jews were living in other places, and some fled to EgyptBut it is also necessary to look at the context:Ezekiel 36:5 claims that Edom has taken the land of Israel. But Edom was conquered and converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans and effectively destroyed by the Romans - vanishing from history after the Jewish Revolt ended in 70 AD.Certainly Edomites could have moved in following the Babylonian exile, and could still be there when the Exiles returned. But it would be difficult to find Edomites in the early 1900s - 1800 years after they vanished from the scene.

quote:

---

In order to avoid such debates, I would suggest looking at Isaiah, especially chapter 53.
This chapter contains some fairly specific descriptions of Jesus' death.

---

It seems to have more to do with Christian theology about Jesus death, rather than the actual events (which are, of course, doubtful, since the disciples were supposedly in hiding at the time).There are other doubts: The same Jesus who preached to huge gatherings, and was triumphantly welcomed into Jerusalem ? This is the Jesus who whipped the money-changers out of the Temple ?

quote:

---

Yes. The gospels paint the Jewish nation as fickle, first wanting Jesus to be king, and then rejecting him and wanting him to be killed. The religious leadership were against Jesus all along.
So I don't see the problem. If Isaiah is describing the official reaction, or the final reaction of the people, he is correct.

---

In other words if you assume that Isaiah is simply ignoring the majority of Jesus' career or only talking about the religious leaders - a relatively small group of people - the problem goes away. But there's nothing in the text of Isaiah 53 to justify either assumption.Obviously the 'accuracy' here is a product of your assumptions - not the text.

quote:

---

Where does the Bible say that he whipped them or otherwise "did violence"?

---

Matthew 21:12 Mark 11:15-16 Luke 19:45 John 2:15 This sounds like a peaceful protest to you ?

quote:

---

I think you're missing the context of Is 53. It is focusing on Christ's death, not the rest of His career

---

Following the timeline of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' actions in the Temple happened only days before his death. The idea that there is no connection between Jesus violently disrupting Temple business and the religious authorities taking action against him shortly afterward (as the Synoptics claim) or in the charges against him is implausible to say the least.

quote:

---

Really?? The prophecies in Is 53 are not a modern argument for Christianity

---

That's a complete irrelevance. The question is what is in the text of Isaiah 53. The fact that other people have made similar arguments is no reason to misrepresent what Isaiah 53 says.

quote:

---

They were seen to speak of Christ since even before the founding of Christianity (Jewish rabbis saw this passage as speaking of Christ).

​

The NT writers portray Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies in Is 53:

---

Which leads to the distinct possibility that any matches with the Gospel stories are the Gospel authors taking those details from Isaiah. (It would hardly be the only example of the Gospel writers relying on OT texts to create their story).The reasonably certain details of Jesus' death are that he was crucified, by the Romans, around 30 AD. None of these can be found in Isaiah 53.

quote:

---

Daniel did not mention the wife of Belshazzar or Nabonidus...omission does not equate to an error.

---

Since Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, was king when Babylon fell, his omission is surprising to say the least.

quote:

---

He did not need to mention Nabonidus because the ruler of the kingdom at the time was Belshazzar and it was that king who Daniel had direct dealings with.

---

Belshazzar was co-regent while his father was at Tema.

quote:

---

The prophecy did not end with the king of Greece,

---

Which is what I said.

quote:

---

it ended with the 'prince of princes standing up in the time of the end' and therefore the prophecy covered a much longer period of time...that time is still future.

---

You're simply ignoring my point (and what the Bible says). According to Daniel 8:23 the end times occur in the "latter days" of the four kingdoms formed out of the Greek empire. Those are all long gone - so the prophecy must refer to the past, not the future.

quote:

---

The "70 Weeks of Years" began when the "word to restore jerusalem" went forth in the 20th year of the rule of Artaxerxes according to Nehemiah 2:1. This is 455BCE

---

This is only one possible interpretation. There are several other possible dates - and the 20th year of Artaxerxes is 445 BC.There are further problems. As I have pointed out, Daniel places the End Times around 200 years before Jesus died - so the idea that Daniel meant Jesus creates a contradiction.

quote:

---

455 BCE - 483yrs = 28 CE Of course there is no year '0' so you must add 1yr which brings us to 29CE. The very year Jesus was baptized and began gathering disciples .

---

Aside from the fact that we DON'T know the exact year that Jesus did anything, using the correct date of 445 BC takes us to 39AD - AFTER Jesus had been crucified.And let us look at the whole prophecy - including the bits that you haven't quoted.Daniel 9: So according to your dates, in 29 AD Jerusalem and the Temple should be "destroyed". That didn't happen. By 32 AD the sacrifices and grain offerings should be stopped. That didn't happen. By the end of 35 AD we should see the "end of sin" and "everlasting righteousness". Are you going to claim that that happened ?

quote:

---

you can work out wen the 20th year of Artaxerxes, by going back to the end of the reign of his father Xerxes. He died toward the end of 475 BCE

---

That's 465 BC. Wikipediaanswers.comEncyclopedia Britannica465 - 20 = 445.

quote:

---

Its not surprising at all. According to the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" Belshazzar held a kingly position at Babylon and explains the manner of his becoming coregent with Nabonidus. While Nabonidus was away on a military trip the accounts says that 'Belshazzar was appointed coregent and placed in the position of King'

---

But what about when Nabonidus came back or before he want away ? And why not mention that Belshazzar was only co-regent ? Why describe Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar when he was the son of Nabonidus ?

quote:

---

Actually the account in Daniel shows that Belshazzar was the second highest ruler in the kingdom because Belshazzar offered Daniel the 'Third Highest Positon' in the kingdom if he could interpret the writing on the wall. This is in line with Belshazzar having kingly authority and rightly called king.

---

It doesn't show that Belshazzar was only the second most powerful person, and it calls him king anyway.

quote:

---

not if the 'Prince of Princes' had not arrived. that part of the prophecy is still future.

---

According to Daniel 8 the "Prince of Princes" (8:25) is supposed to be around in the "latter days" of the Diadochi states (8:21-23), If he didn't turn up then it doesn't mean that the prophecy refers to the future - it means that the prophecy FAILED.

The question that you are not addressing is why is there no mention of Nabonidus at all in Daniel ? It is a surprising omission given that he was king and that Daniel was supposedly active for the whole of his reign.

quote:

---

if it hasnt happened yet, that doesnt mean that it has failed, that just means it hasnt happened yet and its is still 'for the time of the end'

---

The prophecy says that the "time of the end" is in the "latter days" of the Diadochi kingdom. Those kingdoms are long gone, the end didn't arrive. Therefore the prophecy failed. You can't push it off to the future without contradicting the prophecy itself.

quote:

---

...the symbols in Scripture had a very specific meaning to the original authors. Biblical interpretation is figuring out this original meaning.

---

For the purposes of this discussion the author's intent is a minor issue at most. The question we need to answer is how much freedom of interpretation is available. This is especially important because the proponents of Bible prophecy are clearly mainly interested finding an interpretation that fits their ideas - regardless of what the original author actually meant.It is quite clear that Isaiah 53 contains few, if any, precise confirmable details. It is also clear that the proposer is more interested in reporting the opinions of other writers than actually discussing the text itself - in fact doing so only to find a convenient interpretation of pieces of the the text that do not easily fit with the ideas that the author meant Jesus.In conclusion:1) Isaiah 53 isn't a convincing example of predictive prophecy.2) kbertsche is not even trying to make a case for it being a convincing example of predictive prophecy (probably knowing that it isn't - I can find no other reason for such a complete failure to even attempt to make a valid case)3) If it is possible to find the original author's meaning (which I doubt) kbertsche seems to have no interest in trying, preferring instead to find a meaning which fits his beliefs.

Authorial intent may be paramount in "proper" Biblical interpretation - but if it is neither you nor Peg nor John 10:10 are doing "proper" Biblical interpretation.

quote:

---

You say this, but NO ONE here has yet given a point-by-point response to the details I presented in Message 25, though I asked again in Message 65. All I've received are vague dismissive comments and off-topic red herrings.

---

Well I'll look again and see if there's anything worth a detailed reply - remembering that this topic is about prophecy as a convincing argument FOR the reliability of the Bible.Firstly we can eliminate all those where the confirmation is simply Christian theology. After all that is not confirmably true - and may well be derived from Isaiah 53 in the first place.Well that didn't leave many.Next we can eliminate those that rely on questionable details in the Gospel accounts. Beyond the usual biases of the Gospels, as I pointed out in Message 27 the accounts of Jesus trial and execution do not identify any sources and any matches with Isiah 53 may even be due to the details in question being derived from Isaiah 53, rather than the actual events.Well that leaves us with just one. Or rather part of one:

quote:

---

Re Is 53:12--

Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.

---

Yes I will concede that Jesus was convicted of a crime. And that can be dismissed on the grounds of sheer triviality.So I think we're left with two alternatives. The first is that you haven't been seriously trying to build a case (and probably made a lousy choice of prophecy to start with) and the second is that you can't build a decent case because there isn't a convincing predictive prophecy to be found in the Bible. Which do you prefer ?