|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Funny how you always say that about stuff that doesn’t really work at all.
quote: Funny how you abandoned the discussion then, with no real explanation of how there could be a continuous Roman Empire or any explanation of why later empires were excluded. Until you manage that you have no viable list. Your future empire must be a new one, and the Ottomans at least must be included. Probably the Sasanians, too and the British. Last time I looked eight is not four.
quote: I am not ignoring it. I just reject your interpretation because you ignore too much of it and it’s relation to the other prophecies.
quote: You can’t squeeze it in either. The only thing you have is the rough calculation of the date of Jesus’ death. The rest all fails. Daniel 7 does not contradict it and Daniel 9 agrees more than it disagrees. Not to mention Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12
quote: The fact that the prophecy failed hardly proves that your interpretation is right.
quote: 60 years is a much smaller error than 2000 years. Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 confirm that the end of the world was meant to occur in the Maccabean revolt, and Daniel 7 is consistent with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: On the contrary. The question is whether you are prepared to be held to the same standard - or in fact a considerably more lenient one. The answer is that you are not.
quote: And that is an outright lie. I not only have very good candidates for the messiahs, i also have the city being stormed, and the sacrifice being taken away and the abomination of desolation all in the years directly following a messiah’s death. You don’t.
quote: Funny how your accusations apply more to your own conduct. I at least have not stooped to lies, double standards, or inventing gaps in the narrative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: How else do you get to our future ? If you want to say the whole thing was fulfilled in the years immediately following the crucifixion go ahead. But otherwise you need to actually account for those extra years.
quote: Well make your mind up. If the fulfilment is in our future you have at least 280 more sevens to account for.
quote: The last seven years do not work for you.
quote: If you make things up your confusion is your own fault. And in fact the entire paragraph is too confused to be worth answering.
quote: On the contrary, I am basing it on the very clear evidence from Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 as you ought to know by now, as well as the fact that much of Daniel 9 does fit.
quote: That’s your opinion. However since,overall, my interpretation fits much better with the Book of Daniel I disagree with you.
quote: Your confusion comes from not reading it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: We don’t need to look at the future to know your interpretation doesn’t work. The fall of the Roman Empire and the following empires in the region are all history. And in fact you couldn’t even offer speculations that really addressed the problem that continuity is very thoroughly broken.
quote: The fact that the Roman Empire is so thoroughly gone that any revival would be a new Empire is not speculation.
quote: The existence of all three empires and the fact that they have held the Holy Land at various points in history is not speculation. It is not a problem for my view, but it certainly is for yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s just reality. The Roman Empire IS gone. There is no continuity of government.
quote: My reading fits the text far better than yours. That’s why it is my reading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Empty assertion is no excuse for argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: According to your assumptions. However the fact that the end is the time of the Maccabean revolt according to Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 is a fact that cannot be reasonably ignored. Also the fact that Antiochus does fit the description of the little horn in Daniel 7 further supports the idea that they are the same. That events in Daniel 9 are also seen in Daniel 11 is also relevant. And that’s just off the top of my head.
quote: By which you I mean that I reject your interpretation of Daniel 7 and 9 because it contradicts Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12. That’s the difference.
quote: I understand that you must put doctrine ahead of the Bible and I am not demanding you change that. The only reason to continue this discussion is for you to deal with the serious problems in your assertions. If you can’t reasonably do that I have no reason to change my mind. I have the interpretation that best fits the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words you get to arbitrarily shove the end of the prophecy off into the future because it failed. Nope. The prophecy says 490 years. No mention of any gaps. Inventing one because it failed is twisting the text. But you’ve already proved my point that Christianity misrepresents the end time prophecies - proved it ad nauseum. So you can stop. I don’t need any further repetition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s your assumption. It finds no support in the text of Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12.
quote: That’s all interpretation. The fact that I disagree with your interpretation is not an argument in your favour.
quote: Fine. Based on the actual text rather than Christian doctrine, you can’t provide any sensible reason for inserting a 2000 year gap into Daniel 9. You can’t provide any support for the alleged change of context in Daniel 10-12, and the text is against such an idea, too. You can’t justify the idea that Daniel 8 is about anything but the end envisaged in Daniel 2. You can’t even come up with a justifiable list of four empires. That’s certainly a good point for the discussion to end - for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That isn’t true and you have no excuse for not knowing it after your failure to produce textual support for the claims I listed. All the points I raised were clearly based on doctrine not text. Putting off the seventieth week of Daniel 9 is - in your own words- based on the fact that the events didn’t happen on schedule. It is only doctrine that says that a prophecy can’t fail. There’s nothing in the text of Daniel 8 to say that the end it refers to is anything other than the end shown in Daniel 2. It’s even worse with Daniel 10-12. There is no indication of a change of context in the text. There is no textual support for the idea that the fourth empire goes away and somehow comes back (despite being destroyed as an empire or a kingdom or even a pathetic group of exiles holding onto a pretence of rule) nor that there will be other empires which get ignored despite occupying the same region the text is concerned with.
quote: Then quote the text that says that they are different. Quote the text that says that the little horn of Daniel 8 comes from the third empire. Quote the text that says that they are different people. You can’t because it isn’t there. It is all interpretation.
quote: If we straightforwardly read Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 in the light of Daniel 2 there will be no empires after the Maccabean revolt. The end is the end of the Empires (Daniel 2:44). You contradict this by interpreting Daniel 7 and Daniel 9 as referring to a later empire.
quote: Telling the truth is not devious spin. No matter how much you hate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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