|
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 3939 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Prophecy in the Bible - Theology of Double Fulfillment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
It's a shame that kbertsche hasn't posted more, because he is the only one of the believers who seems to have any detailed understanding of the theology.
Peg and Buzsaw both take the first alternative identified in Message 30, and both clearly rely on the fact that the end did NOT come in the 2nd Century BC as their major argument. The fact that their claimed fulfillments do not fit well with the actual prophecy is ignored (i.e. they assume that their beliefs trump the Bible). While Double Fulfillment deals well with past fulfillments it still has problems with future fulfillments. For instance, do we have to have another Alexander ? Do we have to go through all the struggles in Daniel 11 over again ? Or is it just a matter of picking bits and pieces out of the prophecy, and ignoring even more than the other futurists do ? In hindsight Daniel might have been a poor choice. Isaiah 7 might have been better since Double Fulfillment of that is more necessary, theologically. Even then you have those who ignore the context and insist that it must be about Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: As an honest person who cares about the truth. Did you actually bother to read kbertsche's posts ?
quote: By which you mean that I put the idea that the BIble means what it says above the assumption that prophecies must be fulfilled.
quote: There are very few references to Rome in Daniel, and those to Republican Rome.
quote: I don't know. Who ?
quote: Apparently you, for one. (Not that I believe that there was such a person).
quote: As I said, the only ones who require a double fulfillment are those who wish to keep both ideas - of Daniel as accurate regarding the time of Antiochus AND an accurate prediction of the future end of the world. Your comment here simply doesn't address my point.
quote: Are you saying that Double Fulfillment can freely dispense with elements of the prophecy or are you completely failing to address the real question ? Come to that given that you appear to have no real knowledge of the veiws of proponents of Double Fulfillment, why are you even attempting to answer a question which would require such knowledge ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It also says that this will be in the "latter days" of those four kingdoms - i.e. while they still exist (8:23). It has been more than 2000 years since the last of Alexander's successors, Egypt, fell to Rome. This prophecy, therefore cannot accurately refer to our future. This tells us that your interpretation of "Prince of Princes" as meaning the Messiah cannot be correct. On the other hand, as we know, Antiochus is depicted as defying God, which would certainly fit.
quote: As Jazz has pointed out this is not a problem for the mainstream interpretation. The instruction is to keep the actual text secret. Daniel was known in the Maccabean period, and we have no real evidence that the book was known before then. Thus the Maccabean period is the latest possible time that fits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Who has to turn up in the "latter days" of the Diadochi Kingdoms (8:23). If he didn't show up then, the prophecy has failed.
quote: True, that part of the prophecy DID fail.
quote:As I have already pointed out, Antiochus IV Epiphanes did fulfill that part of the prophecy - it is your interpretation of it that is the problem quote: Perhaps you should try a more modern translation. Especially since you don't understand Jacobean English that well. (In this context "craft" probably means "deceit" - as in "crafty").
quote: 8:10 is part of the vision. In it the "little horn", grows into the sky and dislodges stars and stamps on them. Are you really going to take this literally ?
quote: And I certainly don't intend to. Of course later writers reinterpreted Daniel's prophecies after they failed. Those reinterpretations, however, cannot stand against the evidence. The fact remains, that the prophecy of Daniel 8 culminates in the Hellenistic period - Daniel 8:23 is quite clear. And - to bring it back to the topic - this is a clear motivation to appeal to Double Fulfillment. If there is a single fulfillment, it must have occurred more than 2000 years ago. Only Double Fulfillment can allow a futurist reading, while remaining true to the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
No,Buz. All you have shown is that you have a daft interpretation of Daniel which doesn't fit with the text. Or reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So the "man" in question is a literal horn who literally grows into the sky and knocks down satellites. I'm sorry for underestimating just how crazy your ideas were.
quote: No, Buz he didn't. We've been over that already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: How else is a giant horn - so big it reaches the stars - going to to make those stars fall out of the sky ?
quote: But so far there are no reports of a giant horn leading a terrorist cell. The trampling would be a bit odd, too.
quote: Er no. So says somebody who actually reads the Bible and knows what it says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think that I see the problem. Jazz is referring to 12:4
...But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end...
and you are referring to 12:9
...And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
quote: The question comes down, then to whether John could be the "unsealing". 12:4 rules that out. 12:4 cannot refer to a lack of further revelation - as it is an instruction to Daniel. 12:4 must refer to keeping the Book of Daniel (or at least that part of it) secret to the "end times". And as Jazz and I have both pointed out, the Book of Daniel was definitely known by the Maccabean period. 12:4. therefore indicates the "time of the end" occurring in the Maccabean period or shortly before, in agreement with Daniel 8:23.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: By which you mean that I'm NOT ignoring the bits of the Bible you don't like.
quote: The "Prince of Princes" is God (as I already told you) and the "ruling saints" would be the Jews who remain loyal to their faith.
quote: OT references to the Messiah just refer to the restoration of Israel and Davidic rule. Daniel doesn't really go into that.
quote: Come off it Buz. You;re not even up to novice level at understanding Daniel. There's more real BIble study in my last post than you typically manage over an entire thread. You can't even manage to make arguments consistent with your own position (hint: do you really think that the "end times" refers to the time Revelation was written ?). The real facts are that we do NOT have to assume that the NT references are anything more than an after-the-fact reinterpretation of Daniel (which is, of course, all that they are). And there's no need for Daniel to even be consistent with other OT references, let alone Christian interpretations of OT references. What is far more important - and which YOU are far too willing to set aside is the actual text of Daniel. Even a novice would know that.
quote: By which you mean that we should stop reading Daniel for what it says and start twisting it to fit in with your beliefs. Sorry Buz, but why would I want to start misrepresenting the BIble just to prop up your false beliefs ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words you worship the Watchtower Society. That is why you feel that you can dismiss evidence of deception on the part of the Watchtower society by making baseless accusations against critics. That is why your idea of "looking at all the evidence" means "looking only at the evidence that the Watchtower Society would like you to see".(see Message 93) I submit that this obvious aversion to the truth is clear evidence that God has less to do with it than you say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Make light of it if you will, but would God want you to willingly follow deceivers ? Even to the point of "defending" their deception with false accusations ? I cannot believe that any Christian would endorse that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
That is an odd statement, because you are certainly not here in this thread to discuss the topic. In fact you seem to be here mainly to argue against the view that Daniel can be read as referring to the period of the Maccabean revolt.
But since the whole topic is grounded in the reasons to accept a particular interpretation, I would say that your faith in the Watchtower Society - who provide the doctrines that you follow seems to be clearly related to the topic. Now in Message 93 you claimed that you were "not bothered" by the evidence against the Watchtower Society's claims simply because you falsely accused the author of the article of being "absolutely against the idea that scriptural prophecies are true" - without examining the evidence he presented at all. Yet in the same post you suggested that we should look at ALL the evidence. Of course, if the Watchtower Society were really guided by God, why would they have to engage in deception ? And if you believed that they were guided by God, why would you seek to cover up the evidence of their deception- in a very dishonest way - instead of - at the least - disowning the article in question ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024