|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I will note that a commentary is where you go for interpretation. If you want the text, you go to an actual Bible.
quote: Actually I haven’t settled on an interpretation of the four Empires of Daniel 2. However the idea that the Persian Empire was lesser than the Babylonian (Daniel 2:39) is highly questionable and the divided nature of the legs (2:43J fits well with the Diadochi kingdoms as described in Daniel 11-12 And the idea that the chest and arms somehow matches the symbolism of Daniel 7 and 8 seems odd indeed. But all this is interpretation.
quote: The last sentence is especially daft in light of the fact that both descriptions fit Antiochus. But just because you object to the interpretation doesn’t make it wrong, and still you argue about interpretations.
quote: Well you could show that there was actual mangling of the text on my part rather than simply disagreeing with your preferred interpretation. And you could try showing that things you claim to be in the text actually are. Which is what you were meant to be doing.
quote: And there you go, attacking me for simply disagreeing with your interpretation. There’s nothing in the actual text that contradicts me, despite your assertion. So deal with the text. Instead of confusing the text with your preferred interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It would help if I could quote the text though. I'll make a bigger effort. Please do. It is actually very easy given all of the free Bible test available online.
VICARIVS FILII DEI and how its Roman numerals add up to 666. That would be superstitious numerology and of course complete hokum. I know this will come across as harsh, but I find crap like this an embarrassment. It makes it appear that Christians are a bunch of idiots who are just as likely to believe fairy tales as the Bible. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is the Bible that tells us that the Antichrist is identified by the number 666. This one works, all the others are ridiculously inadequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's not in Daniel and that is what the topic involves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I will note that a commentary is where you go for interpretation. If you want the text, you go to an actual Bible. I read the text and then I read the commentary preparing to do what you'd asked me to do. While reading the commentary I came upon the statement about how liberals treat the text of Daniel 2.
Well I could have guessed you were following a liberal interpretation, juust found the evidence. Perfect example of how liberals mangle the scripture in order ot impose their prejudices on it. this is how you arrive at Greece and not Rome eh? Kind of makes a mess of the pretty symbolism of the statue which has the two-nation Medo-Persian empire represented by the chest and two arms, which echoes the symbolism of Medo-Persia in the bear of Daniel 7 which has one side higher than the other which symbolizes that one part of the empire is stronger than the other, and likewise the symbolism of the ram in Daniel 8 which has one horn that is higher than the other. The liberal interpretation destroys this beautiful symbolism. Actually I haven’t settled on an interpretation of the four Empires of Daniel 2. OK I look forward to what you come up with. Meanwhile the liberal view fits what you've been saying about Daniel 7 where you turn the fourth kingdom into Greece which is what the commentary says liberals do with Daniel 2.
However the idea that the Persian Empire was lesser than the Babylonian (Daniel 2:39) is highly questionable and the divided nature of the legs (2:43J fits well with the Diadochi kingdoms as described in Daniel 11-12 Interesting with all this complaint about how I don't quote scripture how you hardly ever do. And you don't even bother to paraphrase it, which I at least do. So now I have to go look this up to find out how the two legs fit the Diadochi kingdoms which we know were four and not two?
Ad the idea that the chest and arms somehow matches the symbolism of Daniel 7 and 8 seems odd indeed. But all this is interpretation. Yes it is. And please take note, NN: What good would it have done for me to actually quote the verses that describe the arms of the statue and the lopsided bear and the ram with one horn higher than the other. Yes it's all online but tracking down three different locations takes work and how would it be better than paraphrasing as I did in this case? And here's the upshot: I quote it and he just treats it the same way as he treats my paraphrase. Just calls it odd, end of subject. Two arms, a bear with a difference between his two sides, a ram with a difference between its two horns, which certainly looks to me like a lot of similarity in the symbolism and he waves it sll away with "just odd." And says it's just interpretation. Well of COURSE it's interpretation. Nobody would even notice the sequence of two parts in the images if it wasn't pointed out, and in pointing it out it is interpreted.
And of course make all the symbolism of the fourth kingdom apply to Greece, which is ridiculous since none of it describes any kingdom that has yet appeared on the earth, and then it must also iturn the Great and terrible beast of Daniel 7 into Greece as well, and try to make the little horn there the equivalent of the little horn in Daniel 8 though the one arises out of ten kings, subduing three of them, and the other arises out of one of four kingdoms. The last sentence is especially daft in light of the fact that both descriptions fit Antiochus. Daft? To point out that the circumstances of their arrival in history are completely different? Again, how can one expect to have a rational conversation with someone you treats the information as you do? I sometimes keep going if I want to work out the argument even if my opponent is a mad destroyer of all reason. What I started to do earlier today I may yet finish but it will take a while: to muster all the references to the little horn and the prince who is to come to show how they are both similar and different and how the text changes which you keep denying. You want the proof and I'll still try to muster it, unless your mangling of the whole enterprise just drives me to abandon the whole futile mess.
But just because you object to the interpretation doesn’t make it wrong, And still you argue about interpretations. \= The text SAYS the little horns arise out of completely different circumstances. THIS IS NOT INTERPRETATION. Next you say I should show how you are mangling the text without identifying the context of my remark so I can't show it. But I've given many ways already, including the fact that you try to make the two different little horns mentioned above into one.
It's even got you accepting two messiahs that come nowhere near the sixty-nine years to Messiah the Prince of the text. Oh it goes on and on. And there you go, attacking me for simply disagreeing with your interpretation. There’s nothing in the actual text that contradicts me, despite your assertion. How can you make such a statement in the teeth of the fact that your messiahs DO NOT FIT THE SIXTY-NINE WEEKS PROPHECY THE TEXT SAYS POINTS TO THE MESSIAH? THIS IS FACT, THIS IS TEXT, THIS IS NOT INTERPRETATOIN. 69 is 69, it is not 49 or 7 or whatever other wrong number applies. This discussion is impossible but NN wants ME to correct my approach!. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The complaint is that you say things are in the actual text and are not interpretation - without offering any support for it. Not even citing verses. Indeed quoting would be better than citing for that purpose but you haven’t even cited verses.
quote: Thanks for admitting it.
quote: The symbolism is different but both can reasonably be interpreted as referring to Antiochus.
quote: I included a sufficient quote, and you can easily go back to your own post to see more. Of course the reason you can’t show it is that I’m not doing it.
quote: In other words it is just disagreeing with your interpretation, not mangling the text at all.
quote: But I don’t mangle the text there, either. The 49 years are there, as even you admit. About the only valid point you have is that the 434 years doesn’t fit. But I don’t mangle the text even there. I simply argue that it is the author’s mistake WITH SUPPORT FROM THE TEXT and the context. Holding that the text has an error is not mangling it. You, on the other hand claim that there is a gap between the first 483 years and the last seven, and you claim that the text actually says that - you deny that it is interpretation. It should be easy for you to find that text. Daniel 9 is not that long and you only need to read the last four verses. That is the entirety of the seventy weeks prophecy and there is no additional explanation of it. But you haven’t done that. Why spend time reading commentaries when you only need to read four verses to find the text that you say is there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
PaulK, to Faith writes: I can see Pauls(and also jars) argument concerning what the Bible actually says and (in their mind) logically what it also means. I disagree but admit that I want it to mean different things than critical (and usually atheist) scholars interpret it to mean. I will give you the argument that many Christian apologists attempt to have the text mean what they believe, but my question--in a broader context---is what the critical scholars want. Is it a goal to defang (or attempt to defang) the Bibles message? Is the overall goal to show a picture of reality that is the opposite of what the fundamentalists want? So the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, because you don’t like it. Honestly, I am having trouble picking out the heroes from the villains. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The primary goal of Bible scholars is to understand the Bible in context. Most of them are Christian of some flavour. They just don’t unthinkingly accept fundamentalist views of the Bible (at leat not completely - even those that are evangelicals often disagree with common beliefs)
There are others who treat the Bible as a collection of historical documents rather than scripture, which is the line I try to follow. Opposing fundamentalism for it’s own sake is not and cannot be the primary agenda of anyone worth listening to. It’s not even my agenda, appalled as I am by their behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: I will give you the argument that many Christian apologists attempt to have the text mean what they believe, but my question--in a broader context---is what the critical scholars want. You got it half right. One group decides what they want the conclusion to show. One group simply looks at what the text says regardless of any desired outcome. One group sells the sizzle rather than the steak. One group simply says it is steak of a particular cut with marbling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Where does this idea come from that "fundamentalists" come to the Bible text in any different way than any other person who is sincerely intent on understanding it? Some come with a bias against the supernatural, and that is NOT a sincere intent to understand it because the Bible presents itself as a supernatural text.
"Fundamentalists" preconceptions are that we believe prophecy is real, which is how the text presents it, we believe God doesn't err, which scripture clearly affirms, so we expect the text to make sense, we expect numbers to be precise, not allegorical, and we aren't going to settle for approximations because we know God is precise and perfect in all His ways.; If we can't work out all the calculations that's our fault, not God's, we know they do work out even if we aren't up to the computing. And really, truly, we leave the text to speak for itself. What preconceptions could we possibly have about a prophetic text anyway? The imagery is hard enough to understand without trying to impose something on it when you don't yet even understand it. The first thing you have to do is figure out what all the imagery means. At first it is just total confusion. Beast with many heads? many horns? horns fall off and others grow in their place? one horn has eyes and speaks? What the? No "fundamentalist" could impose anything on such a welter of confusing images. You have to make some kind of sense out of them first, and prophecy often entails knowing something about history apart from the biblical record. I've only very recently reached the point where I feel I understand the images in Daniel well enough to argue about them on this thread. Next I want to tackle Revelation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
'
Faith writes: Some come with a bias against the supernatural, and that is NOT a sincere intent to understand it because the Bible presents itself as a supernatural text. "Fundamentalists" preconceptions are that we believe prophecy is real, which is how the text presents it, we believe God doesn't err, which scripture clearly affirms, so we expect the text to make sense, we expect numbers to be precise, not allegorical, and we aren't going to settle for approximations because we know God is precise and perfect in all His ways.; If we can't work out all the calculations that's our fault, not God's, we know they do work out even if we aren't up to the computing. Except those are all simply the dogma of your Cult and unconnected to reality or what is actually written in the Bible stories. It's not a matter of bias but rather honesty and accepting the reality of what is actually written instead of the Fundamentalist position of first creating the conclusion and then willfully ignoring reality. Edited by jar, : missed a '
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't see the point of trying to make a case for the shift in focus in the text that alerts us that we have left the original context and are now being presented with something that is yet future, as long as PaulK insists that the two little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 are the same person.
The text says that the one comes from among ten kings and the other comes out of one of four kingdoms. We agree that the second is Antiochus Epiphanes who was defeated by the Maccabees around 200 BC. He says the first is the same person.; I say the text says he's a different person. The TEXT, not me, not my interpretation, the TEXT which says he comes from an empire with ten kings while we know that Antiochus came from the kingdom of the Seleucids which was one of four of the divided Greek empire. There are other things that make the men different, and other things that make his reading of the text wrong in other ways, but just that one is enough to stop any kind of reasonable discussion in its tracks. It's a blatant denial of what the Bible says. If he can't get that simple fact straight about what the Bible actually says there's no point in trying to make a case for the subtle switch in focus that takes some of the prophecy into the future. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Let us note that you have refused to support that claim from the point you made it. Let us also note that the challenge before you is expressly not about interpretation - so complaining that I dare to disagree with your interpretation on another matter is hardly a valid excuse.
quote: And both descriptions fit Antiochus.
quote: And I have already presented my explanation of how that text fits Antiochus. Ten Seleucid kings preceded him - at least technically - and three of them were deposed to give him the position. Which fits the description. Which even supports the idea that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 represents the Seleucids. Abe: Message 77 quote: Funny how you make that claim even though you ought to know that I already explained how that text fits Antiochus.
quote: Since I did get it right I expect an apology. No, only kidding. You see nothing wrong with making blatantly false accusations - if we’re to believe you Jesus did it all the time. Note to Phat. Are you still unsure who the bad guys are ? Faith has pretty much proved that she is one of them. Again. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Prove your claim about the ten Seleucid kings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
list of Seleucid rulers
Antiochus is preceded by 1 Seleucus I2 Antiochus I 3 Antiochus II 4 Seleucus II 5 Seleucus III 6 Antiochus III 7 Seleucus IV (elder brother of Antiochus IV) The three who were uprooted are Heliodorus - murderer and usurper of Seleucus IV. Defeated by Antiochus IV Demetrius - son and rightful heir of Seleucus IV (who managed to gain the throne later, but outside the relevant time period) Antiochus - infant son of Seleucus IV, co-regent with Antiochus IV until his murder.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024