Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 91 of 327 (507060)
05-01-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by kbertsche
05-01-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Apocalyptic genre
quote:
Why are you even posting here? (The subtitle of this forum is "what the Bible really means".)
I didn't know that this forum was closed to anyone that disagreed with you.
I am not arguing that people interpret the bible. My argument is that you cannot know the original intent of the write. You can infer a lot, but you can never KNOW for sure what the original intent is.
As for your postings in Message 25, I have already said that just because New Testament writers tried to shoehorn Jesus into these prophecies does not make it a fulfilled prophecy. Looking at the vagueness of the prophecy, we can see it is not specific and lots of things could fit. Like maybe the whole nation of Israel.
You sir, have given nothing to back up that this is a prophecy except for New Testament writings. You have not explained how Jesus fits and when discrepancies have been shown you have completely ignored them. Remember this thread is "Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy". The only people convinced so far are you and the original poster Peg, who has seemed to have backed out of the conversation. Maybe you could try another "prophecy" other than Isaiah. Maybe that would be more convincing. A little advice though, if you continue with the argument, that by some special divination you can KNOW what the original meaning of the symbolism, you will get nowhere.
quote:
Really?? The prophecies in Is 53 are not a modern argument for Christianity. They were seen to speak of Christ since even before the founding of Christianity
By New Testament writers. The provenance of which is very disputable. No one else.
quote:
quote:
(Jewish rabbis saw this passage as speaking of Christ).
Which Rabbis? When?
Any references to Jesus in the Talmud have him existing anywhere between 300 BCE and 100 CE.
Any reply to this? Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2009 1:02 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2009 3:44 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 92 of 327 (507063)
05-01-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by kbertsche
05-01-2009 4:52 AM


Re: Apocalyptic genre
quote:
One who has not studied physics or advanced mathematics could insist that the symbols in Maxwell's equations are subjective and unknowable.
One who has not studied theology or biblical interpretation (you?) could insist that the symbols in Scripture are subjective and unknowable.
So you are saying Theology is as objective as Physics and Mathematics? Interesting. I guess I never knew that math could have multiple interpretations. Like 4+4 doesnt always = 8?
Laws of physics are just guidelines?
Because if Theology is as objective as Physics and Math then there must be lots of interpretations. Because there certainly are a lot of Theological interpretations. For example, look at evolution. The Catholic Church teaches that evolution fits perfectly fine within its theology, now the fundamentalist churches(some baptists, Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church) teach that evolution is not true and only the creation story of the bible is true. Now these religions are based on the same book. If that isn't subjective, what is?
Is your argument that the one is wrong? That they do not know true theology or know how to correctly do biblical interpretation.
There is one way to correctly explain and interpret the symbols in Maxwell's equations. Any other explanation is objectively wrong.
There are multiple ways to explain and interpret symbols in your bible. There is no way to prove conclusively what is the "correct" way to interpret them. All explanations are subjective. If they weren't then there would be only one explanation. To declare all others wrong and yourself correct is extremely arrogant. But typical christian.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2009 4:52 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2009 1:57 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 93 of 327 (507073)
05-01-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by kbertsche
04-29-2009 2:51 AM


Isaiah 53 - Line by Line
Since the NT writers quoted the Septuagint the most, I'm using an online English translation of the Septuagint.
quote:
Re Is 53:1--
John 12:38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?
How does this fulfill Isaiah?
The author of John said that even after the miraculous signs the people still would not believe in Jesus. I can only go by the English translation. Who has believed our report, not my report, but our report. Both questions are in the present, which would be Isaiah's time, not that of Jesus 700 years later. Believing in Jesus and believing a report are not the same thing.
They didn't like verse 2 apparently:
2 We brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.
quote:
Re Is 53:3--
John 1:10-11 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
I don't see that the author deemed this a fulfillment. How does that verse make the Isaish 3 verse specifically about Jesus?
3 But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed.
The author of John is talking about believing in Jesus.
John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, ...
Isaiah 3 is not describing belief in the servant.
quote:
Re Is 53:4--
Matt. 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES.
I don't see that this matches at all for what Jesus was doing.
4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.
I don't see that Isaiah was speaking of the servant as healing others. Again Isaiah still seems to be speaking more for his present time and not a future person.
quote:
Re Is 53:5--
Rom. 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Paul doesn't claim this as a prophecy fulfillment of Isaiah.
5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.
How does this fulfill one verse of Isaiah?
quote:
Re Is 53:5-6--
1Pet. 2:24-25 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
The author of 1 Peter also does not claim this as a prophecy fulfillment.
5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed. 6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.
Did Jesus claim to be taking all mankind's or believer's sins upon himself as a scapegoat to die with him on the cross? You do realize that sin is not something that can be transferred don't you?
quote:
Re Is 53:7--
Acts 8:32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;
AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,
SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.
The others weren't claimed as prophecy fulfillment so I'm not going to address them.
You did notice that the author didn't answer the direct question of the eunuch. He just had Philip tell the eunuch the good news about Jesus.
7 And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
The author also didn't quote from the beginning. Due to his affliction he doesn't open his mouth. Does that fit with what has been presented of Jesus?
They passed up verse 8:
8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.
quote:
Re Is 53:9--
1Pet. 2:22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;
Again the author is not claiming this as a prophecy fulfillment. He's telling the people to submit to rulers and masters. He was pulling a line from Isaiah to make his point as many clergy do today, not to show prophecy fulfillment. He was telling him this was the example to follow. He didn't specify it was from Isaiah.
9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practiced no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.
You would need to show that no one else fit the description the author gave for it to be counted a fulfillment of that one line of prophecy.
quote:
Re Is 53:10--
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Again the author doesn't claim this as a prophesy fulfillment, but I also don't see how the comment is related to what Isaiah said.
10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
I guess they didn't like 11.
11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.
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.
So do only those words count or was he referencing the whole verse?
12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.
Doesn't the whole prophecy have to fit for it to be fulfilled? I would say yes.
This tidbit is interesting concerning Israel being considered a servant.
Luke 1:54
He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers."
This is titled Mary's Song. Feel free to read the whole thing. So it isn't unlikely that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel.
quote:
The NT writers portray Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies in Is 53
It looks like only 4 claims were made concerning fulfillment of the Isaiah 53 prophecy. Does completion of 4 out of 12 count as fulfilled even if they do match? I would say no.
Of the 4 what makes it only Jesus who could be the answer?
Is it unlikely that the arm of God has been shown to anyone else?
Is it unlikely that anyone else can heal the sick?
Is it unlikely that anyone else would be numbered with transgressors when they shouldn't be?
Is it unlikely that anyone else would be considered not to have sinned or be deceitful?
Check reality and let me know.
If you disagree with my reading of the scripture, please explain how your own interpretation is more correct.

"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 111 by kbertsche, posted 05-02-2009 5:39 PM purpledawn has replied

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


Message 94 of 327 (507075)
05-01-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jaderis
04-30-2009 5:33 AM


Jaderis writes:
Why is it necessary to convert weeks into years? To make it fit after the fact, maybe?
Not at all. Its certainly symbolic language to us, i doubt we would use such a term. But in Hebrew it was understood. The Jewish Mishnah phrases the verse as 'weeks of years'.... and there is also a similar expression in Leviticus 25:8 "And you must count for yourself seven sabbaths of years, seven times, seven years, and the day of the seven sabbaths of years must amount to forty-nine years for you."
so while the term is strange to us, it was not strange to the hebrew speaking person.
Jaderis writes:
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?
Daniels prophecy stated in vs 26"And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself"
The jews understood this term because it was in the mosaic law with regard to the death penalty. Those breaking certain laws were to be 'cut off' from the congregation...that is 'put to death'.
Jesus confirmed that he was about to die when he gathered for the passover meal with his disciples.
quote:
Luke 22:14At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. 15And he said to them: "I have greatly desired to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer;...Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: "This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me." 20Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf."
Jaderis writes:
How does "being cut off with nothing for himself" equate to being baptized?
it doesnt. The being cut off equates to his death.
Jaderis writes:
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?
Daniel 9:27 states: "And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week [or seven years];
Its not referring to the Law covenant because that was removed by God when Jesus was sacrificed a few years earlier. Its talking here about the Abrahamic covenant which excluded the Gentiles in favor of the seed of Abraham. The jews were given the first opportunity to recieve the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant but that situation was not going to be permanent. It was only going to remain that way for 7 years or the 'one week'. This is the week that began with the appearance of the Messiah in 29CE - 36CE.
There is a lot of talk about how Paul was the one who preached to the gentiles and bought them into the congregations through some strange new teaching that he had invented, but thats not at all true.
It was actually the Apostle Peter who was directed in vision to go to the gentiles. He was sent to an Italian army officer named Cornelius and told to baptize him and his family. (Acts 10) At first Peter objects but Jesus tells him in vision to "stop calling the clean things, unclean"
When that happened the part of the prophecy that says: "and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease."came into effect. Cornelius was baptized in the autumn of 36CE, which marked the end of the 70th week .
Jaderis writes:
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."
that part of the prophecy came after the 70 weeks as a result of their rejection of Christ
When Titus came against Jerusalem the army entered into Jerusalem and the temple itself, like a flood, and desolated the city and its temple. To the jews, anything pagan, such as a Roman army standing in their 'holy place' was a 'disgusting thing'
What happened in 70CE was at God's decree and as the prophecy stated
"What is decided upon is desolations...until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate."
Jerusalem has never recovered from that fatal blow. Jesus words have come true for Jerusalem ..."Your house is abandoned to you" Matt 23:38
Jaderis writes:
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)
You've got all the parts, but not in the right order
At the time the prophecy was spoken, Jerusalem was in ruins and most of the inhabitants were being held in captivity in Babylon. The prophet said there would be a length of time before the annointed one arrived and during that time Jerusalem would be rebuild so that the city would be ready for when he arrived.
This is the purpose of the prophecy.
quote:
There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
The word was given by Artaxerxes in 455bce. The 7 weeks were the rebuilding work. It took them 49 years to rebuild the walls.
7 x 7yrs = 49yrs. 455bce-406bce
quote:
And you should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks,
The 62 weeks was the waiting period from the time the walls were rebuilt to the time the messiah would arrive. During this time there was further development of the city.
62 x 7yrs = 434yrs. 406bce-29CE. (29CE was the year Jesus began preaching)
quote:
also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times.
Jesus was killed in 33CE
quote:
And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.
Destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE by Titus was to happen in the near future.
quote:
And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations.
For the length of Jesus ministry until 36CE, only the Jews were being preached to. This was the covenant of Abraham being kept in force for 1 week which is equal to 7 years from 29CE-36CE.
quote:
And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week;
These are the offerings made under the mosaic law code...these sacrifices served as a basis of the relationship the Jews had with God, but they killed Jesus at the 'half of the week' (33ce) God abandoned them as a nation. This explains why the 'covenant was kept in force for 1 week'. If they were still Gods chosen nation, the covenent would have remained in force, but instead it had to be 'kept' in force for the benefit of faithful jews.
quote:
and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.
The final destruction Jerusalem occured in 70CE by the roman army. No longer did the Jews enjoy Gods protection from the surrounding nations.
quote:
And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.
I use the New world translation...you can find it online. NWT
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jaderis, posted 04-30-2009 5:33 AM Jaderis has not replied

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


Message 95 of 327 (507080)
05-01-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
04-30-2009 9:51 AM


No mention of Nabonidus
I believe that its likely because Belshazzar was ruling babylon single handedly, as a co-regent of his father.
there is acheological evidence (Nabonidus Chronicle) to support the fact that Nabonidus did not reside in Babylon but chose to give it to Belshazzar. It also explains why Nabonidus was not killed with Belshazzar when Babylon was destroyed by the Medes and Persians.
quote:
An inscription shows that in his third year, prior to going out on a campaign that resulted in the conquest of Tema in Arabia, Nabonidus appointed Belshazzar to kingship in Babylon. The same text indicates that Nabonidus offended the people of his empire by concentrating worship on the moon-god and by failing to be in Babylon to celebrate the New Year’s festival. The document known as the Nabonidus Chronicle states that in the 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th years of his reign Nabonidus was in the city of Tema, and in each case the statement is made: "The king did not come to Babylon [for the ceremonies of the month of Nisanu]; the (image of the) god Nebo did not come to Babylon, the (image of the) god Bel did not go out (of Esagila in procession), the fest[ival of the New Year was omitted]." (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306)
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2009 9:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2009 2:00 PM Peg has replied

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


Message 96 of 327 (507100)
05-01-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Theodoric
05-01-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Apocalyptic genre
quote:
So you are saying Theology is as objective as Physics and Mathematics? Interesting. I guess I never knew that math could have multiple interpretations. Like 4+4 doesnt always = 8?
Laws of physics are just guidelines?
Because if Theology is as objective as Physics and Math then there must be lots of interpretations. Because there certainly are a lot of Theological interpretations. For example, look at evolution. The Catholic Church teaches that evolution fits perfectly fine within its theology, now the fundamentalist churches(some baptists, Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church) teach that evolution is not true and only the creation story of the bible is true. Now these religions are based on the same book. If that isn't subjective, what is?
Is your argument that the one is wrong? That they do not know true theology or know how to correctly do biblical interpretation.
I'm saying that both have only one correct interpretation. Finding this in Scripture is the job of biblical interpretation.
quote:
There is one way to correctly explain and interpret the symbols in Maxwell's equations. Any other explanation is objectively wrong.
And there is one way to correctly explain and interpret the symbols in Scripture. Any other explanation is objectively wrong, in exactly the same sense of "objective".
quote:
There are multiple ways to explain and interpret symbols in your bible.
Yes. Many are wrong.
quote:
There is no way to prove conclusively what is the "correct" way to interpret them.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some people ignore the disproofs, just as in science. (Have you heard of cold fusion?)
quote:
All explanations are subjective. If they weren't then there would be only one explanation.
False. Existence of many wrong explanations doesn't mean that the right explanation is subjective. Look at any disputed scientific claim for an analog. (Have you heard of cold fusion?)
quote:
To declare all others wrong and yourself correct is extremely arrogant. But typical christian.
I have not declared this. I maintain that one correct interpretation exists, not that I have necessarily found it with absolute certainty.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Theodoric, posted 05-01-2009 9:49 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 97 of 327 (507101)
05-01-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peg
05-01-2009 10:47 AM


Re: No mention of Nabonidus
quote:
believe that its likely because Belshazzar was ruling babylon single handedly, as a co-regent of his father. there is acheological evidence (Nabonidus Chronicle) to support the fact that Nabonidus did not reside in Babylon but chose to give it to Belshazzar.
The Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that Nabonidus had returned to Babylon by the 17th year of his reign (most of years 12-16 are missing), but fled the city because of the Persian victories. SO the Chronicle does not explain why Nabonidus is not mentioned at all.
The Book of Daniel jumps right from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar (Daniel 4 to Daniel 5) - who is repeatedly described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (have you READ it ?) when he was in fact the son of the usurper Nabonidus.
If we relied on the book of Daniel we'd not known that Nabonidus or the other kings (or that more than 20 years had passed !). Worse, the Nabonidus Chronicle makes it clear that the Persians were known to be attacking, yet there is no mention of it in Daniel 5 - the conquest just happens, out of the blue
(BTW I've checked Herodotus and he DOES seem to know of Belshazzar - he just gets the names wrong, calling both Nabonidus and Belshazzar "Labynetus")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 05-01-2009 10:47 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2009 6:40 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 05-02-2009 2:10 AM PaulK has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 98 of 327 (507115)
05-01-2009 3:36 PM


edit
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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


Message 99 of 327 (507116)
05-01-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Theodoric
05-01-2009 9:27 AM


Re: Apocalyptic genre
quote:
I didn't know that this forum was closed to anyone that disagreed with you.
Why would someone want to post in a forum subtitled "What does the Bible really mean?" when he believes that it doesn't really mean anything???
quote:
I am not arguing that people interpret the bible. My argument is that you cannot know the original intent of the write. You can infer a lot, but you can never KNOW for sure what the original intent is.
I understand your argument. I disagree completely. You argue not only against me, but against the entire field of biblical hermeneutics, a field which you do not seem to have studied or to understand very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 05-01-2009 9:27 AM Theodoric has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 100 of 327 (507134)
05-01-2009 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
05-01-2009 2:00 PM


Re: No mention of Nabonidus
The Book of Daniel jumps right from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar (Daniel 4 to Daniel 5) - who is repeatedly described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (have you READ it ?) when he was in fact the son of the usurper Nabonidus.
If we relied on the book of Daniel we'd not known that Nabonidus or the other kings (or that more than 20 years had passed !). Worse, the Nabonidus Chronicle makes it clear that the Persians were known to be attacking, yet there is no mention of it in Daniel 5 - the conquest just happens, out of the blue
The question I would have is, is there a factual error in the book of Daniel's history? It doesn't surprise me that Daniel is not suppose to be an exhaustive account of Babylonian politics. The writer has the things which he wants to highlight about God's purposes.
In doing so, is there a historical error that we know exists in Daniel?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2009 2:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2009 3:48 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 101 of 327 (507142)
05-02-2009 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by purpledawn
04-30-2009 7:49 AM


Re: Offspring and eternal life
purpledawn writes:
But those are not children of his loin, his seed. How does the verse concerning the servants seed support the idea of symbolic "birth" into God's kingdom or eternal life after physical death? That's assuming quite a lot. What translation tells you he will give his descendants long life?
I think the use of the word seed is very specific, even creatively, and speaks of direct descendants, the passing of sperm, etc. I don't feel it means figuratively just anyone who joins the club.
What is causing you to reason along those lines?
Are there any other prophecies that say the Messiah will have children?
I have shown how the word 'seed' is not always used to mean physical offspring, so why do you say it means physical seed in this case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 04-30-2009 7:49 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 05-02-2009 7:39 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 102 of 327 (507143)
05-02-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
05-01-2009 2:00 PM


Re: No mention of Nabonidus
Paulk writes:
The Book of Daniel jumps right from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar (Daniel 4 to Daniel 5) - who is repeatedly described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (have you READ it ?) when he was in fact the son of the usurper Nabonidus.
Do you know who Nabonidus was? Have you checked to see how Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar are related?
The Greek historian Herodotus describes a treaty negotiated between the Lydians and the Medes by one "Labynetus the Babylonian" as mediator. As you mention, this person is Nabonidus.
He also refers to Cyrus the Persian as fighting against the son of Labynetus and Nitocris.
Nitocris was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar so Nabonidus/Labynetus was Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law. This means that Belshazzar was the Grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and is probably the reason for Nabonidus’ ascension to the Babylonian throne.
Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the "father" of Belshazzar because in patriarchal societies, the head was the father of all the offspring. 'Isreal' was called the 'father' of the nation for example and Jesus is called 'Son of David'. So its not strange that Daniel, a jew, would call Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar. Besides that, Belshazzar was the king of the kingdom when Daniel was there and he would have been obliged to call him the 'king'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2009 2:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2009 4:02 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 103 of 327 (507145)
05-02-2009 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluescat48
04-30-2009 9:53 AM


bluescat48 writes:
Peg wrote 'he was actually born Sept/Oct 2BCE'
Reference Please.
There are a few ways of working it out using the bible as the reference..
Luke says that it was in the 15th year of Tiberius that John the baptizer began his work, Jesus being baptized by him 6 months later.
quote:
Luke 3:1-3 "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, ...God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechari′ah in the wilderness.3So he came into all the country around the Jordan, preaching baptism [in symbol] of repentance for forgiveness of sins
Tiberius's rule began in the year 14AD so the 15th year of Tiberius was 29CE. This was the year that John the Baptizer began his work and when Jesus came to be baptized.
The scriptures also say that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began preaching. So in 29CE, Jesus was 30 years of age.
We know Jesus died at the time of the Passover, which began April 1, 33CE. (Matt. 26:17-30) Since Christ was about 30 years of age when commencing his work and his ministry was three and a half years long, he was 33 1/2 years old when he was killed.
So if he was 33.5 yrs old in April of 33CE, then he must have been born in the month of c.October. (no one knows the exact day of the month because birthdays were not a jewish thing)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 04-30-2009 9:53 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by bluescat48, posted 05-02-2009 9:27 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 104 of 327 (507146)
05-02-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by jaywill
05-01-2009 6:40 PM


Re: No mention of Nabonidus
quote:
The question I would have is, is there a factual error in the book of Daniel's history?
Then you haven't been following the discussion. The question at hand is whether Daniel displays such a knowledge of the period to conclude that Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC.
Since Daniel 5 seems to present Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzars (literal) son and heir the answer is no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2009 6:40 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 105 of 327 (507147)
05-02-2009 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peg
05-02-2009 2:10 AM


Re: No mention of Nabonidus
quote:
Do you know who Nabonidus was? Have you checked to see how Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar are related?
The answers are yes, and nobody really knows respectively.
quote:
Nitocris was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar so Nabonidus/Labynetus was Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law.
This is speculation, not fact. As I said nobody really knows.
quote:
Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the "father" of Belshazzar because in patriarchal societies, the head was the father of all the offspring.
I asked if you'd read Daniel 5. Obviously you haven't. There are a number of references to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar placed in a number of mouths. But not one mention of Nabonidus, the true king and father of Belshazzar.
quote:
Besides that, Belshazzar was the king of the kingdom when Daniel was there and he would have been obliged to call him the 'king'.
Belshazzar was never king, only the co-regent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 05-02-2009 2:10 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024