Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 327 (506793)
04-29-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
04-29-2009 5:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 5:23 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 7:15 AM PaulK has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 32 of 327 (506797)
04-29-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
04-29-2009 5:10 AM


Basic Math
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
----------------
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2009 1:58 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 7:19 AM Stile has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 327 (506798)
04-29-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
04-29-2009 5:10 AM


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:
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 7:36 AM PaulK has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 327 (506799)
04-29-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by kbertsche
04-29-2009 2:57 AM


We will start with 2.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2009 2:57 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 35 of 327 (506800)
04-29-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
04-29-2009 5:10 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 7:44 AM bluescat48 has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 36 of 327 (506811)
04-29-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peg
04-29-2009 6:41 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 6:41 AM Peg has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 37 of 327 (506820)
04-29-2009 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Stile
04-29-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Basic Math
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 04-29-2009 7:48 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 327 (506823)
04-29-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by kbertsche
04-29-2009 2:51 AM


Isaiah 54 - The Suffering Servant
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2009 2:51 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John 10:10, posted 04-29-2009 7:37 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 41 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2009 1:21 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 54 by Peg, posted 04-30-2009 8:54 AM purpledawn has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 39 of 327 (506852)
04-29-2009 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
04-29-2009 3:10 PM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 04-29-2009 3:10 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 04-29-2009 9:24 PM John 10:10 has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 40 of 327 (506868)
04-29-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John 10:10
04-29-2009 7:37 PM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
I've missed nothing.
What's your point concerning my post?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John 10:10, posted 04-29-2009 7:37 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John 10:10, posted 04-30-2009 7:07 AM purpledawn has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 41 of 327 (506878)
04-30-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
04-29-2009 3:10 PM


Re: Isaiah 54 - The Suffering Servant
quote:
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.

Yes, this would be a problem for someone who takes the text so literally that he ignores idioms and figures of speech.
quote:
No matter what translation I read, offspring and a prolonged life is part of the prophecy.
Then you haven't read "The Message":
...Even though he’d never hurt a soul
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.
This translation/paraphrase takes the "offspring" as figurative.
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!")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 04-29-2009 3:10 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 04-30-2009 7:39 AM kbertsche has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 42 of 327 (506879)
04-30-2009 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
04-29-2009 5:10 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Peg, posted 05-01-2009 10:24 AM Jaderis has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 43 of 327 (506883)
04-30-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by purpledawn
04-29-2009 9:24 PM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by purpledawn, posted 04-29-2009 9:24 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 04-30-2009 7:49 AM John 10:10 has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 44 of 327 (506884)
04-30-2009 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
04-29-2009 7:31 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2009 7:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2009 7:55 AM Peg has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 45 of 327 (506885)
04-30-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Stile
04-29-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Basic Math
10 points for enthusiasm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 04-29-2009 7:48 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stile, posted 04-30-2009 7:21 AM Peg has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024