|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Since Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, was king when Babylon fell, his omission is surprising to say the least.
quote: Belshazzar was co-regent while his father was at Tema.
quote: Which is what I said.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
The following post is completely incorrect when talking about dates, and I suggest that it be ignored.
---------------- Original message text hidden to avoid any further confusion. Click "Peek" if you're interested in just how silly I can be
Peg writes: 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 . The extra year for year '0' isn't required, it's included in the basic math. Let's take a simple example I can count out to show you: 4 BCE - 7yrs = 3 CE"Add 1 year to make it 4 CE" Which is right? 4 BCE to 3 BCE = 1 year4 BCE to 2 BCE = 2 years 4 BCE to 1 BCE = 3 years 4 BCE to year 0 = 4 years 4 BCE to 1 CE = 5 years 4 BCE to 2 CE = 6 years 4 BCE to 3 CE = 7 years 4 BCE to 4 CE = 8 years We can clearly see that the basic math is correct.You do not add another year for year '0', doing so will give you the incorrect answer of 8 years duration when we're only looking for 7. Therefore: You are not at 29 CE, you are at 28 CE. Of course, it makes more sense to make sure Jesus even existed, or at least solidify the date of his supposed birth, before saying he actually started baptizing and gathering disciples on such a specific date. I don't see how anyone could complain if you simply moved your date from 29 CE to 28 CE. But, well, it will kind of show how malleable the dates are... which kinda removes any impact of this prophecy.
Edit - after I cleared my head: Ha ha... sorry Peg, I understand what's going on now. I'm looked into "regular math" mode too much to understand "year's math". My error, and your calculations are perfectly fine. Edited by Stile, : Remembered how grade-school math actually works Edited by Stile, : Hiding the confusion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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:
24 Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but 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, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
We will start with 2.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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 . Daniel further stated that "After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself." (Da 9:26) Remember that the 'week' is equivalent to 7 years, so 'half' a week equates to 3.5 years. This was the length of Jesus ministry. He was baptized in the autumn of 29CE and crucified at the passover of 33CE - 3 & 1/2 years in total. That would be an assumption that Christ was born right at the BCE CE which has shown to be incorrect. Even back in the middle ages it was determined that Christ was born somewhere between 3 BCE & 13 BCE. If one accepts Matthew's story of the Magi, than Christ would have to have been born prior to 6 BCE since that is the date of Herod's death.Just to say that Christ was born the same year that places the Crucifixion no later than 27 CE. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Re the Wiki link... are you looking at later rulers of the empire? Initially the 4 generals took a section each and the kingdom was divided into 4 quarters. Not true. Rule was originally granted to Alexander's half brother, who would have to share rule with Alexander's unborn son as soon as he came of age. Perdiccas, who supported letting Alexander's son rule was installed as Regent, and Meleager, who supported Alexander's half-brother was to be Perdiccas' lieutenant. Perdiccas, however, murdered Meleager and the leaders of the opposing faction (the infantry), thus gaining full control himself. He rewarded his suporters (the cavalry) with the partition of Babylon, which I linked to in my previous post:
wiki writes: Ptolemy received Egypt; Laomedon received Syria and Phoenicia; Philotas took Cilicia; Peithon took Media; Antigonus received Phrygia, Lycia and Pamphylia; Asander received Caria; Menander received Lydia; Lysimachus received Thrace; Leonnatus received Hellespontine Phrygia; and Neoptolemus had Armenia. Macedon and the rest of Greece were to be under the joint rule of Antipater, who had governed them for Alexander, and Craterus, Alexander's most able lieutenant, while Alexander's old secretary, Eumenes of Cardia, was to receive Cappadocia and Paphlagonia. No where do I see four generals dividing up his empire. There were many more than 4, just in Babylon, not to mention his holdings in the far east.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Not true. Pick a date, e.g. July 1.From July 1, 1 BC to July 1, 1 AD is only one year. Your logic would give two years, which is incorrect. Peg is correct; an extra year has to be added because of the absence of "year zero." OOPS--I didn't see that the original message had a correction. The correction is correct, so I've hidden my rebuttal to the hidden original message. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
But does Jesus fulfill all that is written in Isaiah 53?
I would say no. Jesus supposedly had no offspring.
53:9-10 (Complete Jewish Bible) ... Although he had done no violence and had said nothing deceptive, yet it pleased Adonai to crush him with illness, to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering. If he does, he will see his offspring; and he will prolong his days; and at his hand Adonai's desire will be accomplished. Here's the same verse from the New Century Version
He was buried with wicked men, and he died with the rich. he had done nothing wrong, and he had never lied. But it was the Lord who decided to crush him and make him suffer. The Lord made his life a penalty offering, but he will still see his descendants and live a long life. No matter what translation I read, offspring and a prolonged life is part of the prophecy. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
No matter what translation I read, offspring and a prolonged life is part of the prophecy. You must have missed the Scriptures where Jesus declared these words: John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, `You must be born again.' John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I've missed nothing.
What's your point concerning my post? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, this would be a problem for someone who takes the text so literally that he ignores idioms and figures of speech. quote:Then you haven't read "The Message": ...Even though he’d never hurt a soul
This translation/paraphrase takes the "offspring" as figurative.or said one word that wasn’t true. Still, it’s what GOD had in mind all along, to crush him with pain. The plan was that he give himself as an offering for sin so that he’d see life come from itlife, life, and more life. And GOD’S plan will deeply prosper through him. But I think the explanation in the excellent notes of the NET Bible (net.bible.org) is more likely:
The idiomatic and stereotypical language emphasizes the servant’s restoration to divine favor. Having numerous descendants and living a long life are standard signs of divine blessing. See Job 42:13—16.
In other words, the phrase is probably an idiom and is not intended to be taken strictly literally, just as idioms today (e.g. "Break a leg!")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3453 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
If these 'weeks' were literally seven days each, then the prophecy either failed to be fulfilled or the Messiah came during the Persian Empire's rule and was not identified. So it is evident that the '70 weeks' were symbolic of a much longer time. So the prophecy failed and now we must invent some new numbers to make it fit? And it doesn't even fit given certain gospel accounts of the "messiah's" birth? And that is supposed to convert people? Why is it necessary to convert weeks into years? To make it fit after the fact, maybe? And isn't the interpretation of Jesus' death making the ritual sacrifice no longer necessary based on this particular passage an addition after the fact? Did Jesus actually say that it was so? Or did gospel writers/Paul/early church leaders declare it so based on their need to make Jesus fit the prophecy?
Daniel further stated that "After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself." (Da 9:26) Remember that the 'week' is equivalent to 7 years, so 'half' a week equates to 3.5 years. This was the length of Jesus ministry. He was baptized in the autumn of 29CE and crucified at the passover of 33CE - 3 & 1/2 years in total. How does "being cut off with nothing for himself" equate to being baptized? It goes on to say that "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven." And then "In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." So where is the confirming of the covenant for "one seven?" What covenant with who? Which "seven" is being spoken of now? And what about the end of the passage "And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (NIV I think...) It seems to me that this "prophecy" tells of an "Anointed One" who is cut off and then the "people of the prince who shall come" (aka not the "anointed one") destroy the city and much misery is to be had and "he" (lowercase he) makes a covenant for seven years and then puts an end to sacrifice and offering (including any offering...monetary or spiritual, so forget the prayers and tithes!!). This sounds to me like an "evil/not anointed" power and not the 3.5 years of ministry to which you attributed the "middle sevens." Especially since the "middle sevens" comes after the messiah has been "cut off with nothing for himself" (that's symbolic of death to me, but, whatever) If you have a decent Hebrew/Greek translation I would like to read it as I am confused with the multitudinous English translations offered online. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I've missed nothing. What's your point concerning my post? Since you do not believe Jesus fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah 53 concerning "seeing His descendants and giving them long life," the verses in John declare Jesus gives eternal life to those who are born into the kingdom of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: Since Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, was king when Babylon fell, his omission is surprising to say the least. 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'
PaulK writes: Belshazzar was co-regent while his father was at Tema. thats right, so its not incorrect to call him King. 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.
PaulK writes: 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. not if the 'Prince of Princes' had not arrived. that part of the prophecy is still future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4957 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
10 points for enthusiasm
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024