Determining a book's truth.

check that prophecy again:

quote:

---

Eze 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

---

---

no, read it again. it says that tyre will forever be a rock upon which fishermen cast their nets, and never anything more. not that the same city will not be rebuilt, but that the land itself will never be occupied by a city ever again.

---

that's actually irrelevent. the text says, as has been posted a number of times, that tyre will become a rock, and nothing will ever be built there again. the fact that there is something there now -- whether or not we play semantics about it being the same city or not -- defeats the prophecy that says there should not be anything there.and it doesn't matter which part of the city, as modern tyre covers both the island stronghold AND the mainland, and a new stretch of land between the two.

---

a prophet in judah. or actually, in daniel's case, babylon.kings david and solomon ruled a united kingdom of israel, but after solomon's death, there was a dispute over who the rightful heir was. jeroboam ended up ruling the northern kingom of israel, and rehoboam ruled the southern kingdom of judah. they are different kingdoms, and often bitter enemies.starting in 597 bc, the kingdom of judah was attacked by babylon, and babylon began to take the jews into captivity. this happens in a number of waves, ending around 581 bc. the kingdom of israel was taken into captivity sometime earlier, from 740 bc to 720 bc, by the kingdom of assyria. assyria was subsequently conquered by babylon, and the israelites were either absorbed, lost, or killed. nobody, to this day, know what happened to the ten tribes from israel. in 537 bc, persia conquered babylon, and allowed the jews to return home to the kingdom of judah. i wont cite chapters and verses, but this is basically a summary of the books of samuel, kings, and chronicles.anyways, daniel was from judah, and was advisor to king nebuchadnezzar of babylon. he was not from israel. and the sons of jacob, according to law, do not just immediately recognize anyone who claims to speak for god.

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

​

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

---

daniel is partially written in aramaic, which is a colloquial (NON-HOLY) tongue. it's what the common people began speaking around the 4th century BCE, which puts daniel rather late, or indicates we have a translation. it also indicates the approximate time daniel must have been added to the canon: between about 400 BCE and 200 BCE (when the septuagint was compiled and translated). the language of the judean kings and high priests at the time of daniel would have been (biblical) hebrew. aramaic, coincidentally, was the language jesus spoke, at least to the populace at large, god, and himself.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

it's still a pretty big error -- one that usually indicates that someone doesn't know israel/judah's history, or hasn't understood the book of kings. which, granted, gets mildly confusing due to the switching back and forth. the version we have has to have been after aramaic began being used by the jews. that puts it after about 400 bc. so sometime between 400 and 200. it's possible that it is a partial translation (it is partly in classical hebrew), or has been reconstructed from a portion of an original and the translation, at about that time, and the text itself is actually older. i wouldn't totally dismiss that the dogmatically presumed date for the original book of daniel is incorrect -- the time around the exile was a very fertile period in jewish authorship. many of the books of the old testament were written near that time.as a side note, i'm not sure if you aware of the structure of the jewish canon. it comes in three sections, the torah ("the law," five books of moses), the nevi'im ("the prophets," joshuah, judges, samuel, kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and 12 minor prophets), and the kethuvim ("writings," psalms, proverbs, job, five megillot, daniel, ezra, and chronicles). you can find a more detailed outline of the structure here.the interesting thing is that it provides a loose outline of when books were canonized, where the christian arrangement does not. kethuvim is kind of the "odds and ends" section, where books that were used in service (psalms) and the most recent writings of questionable holiness are kept. daniel is among the most recently canonized jewish texts of the tanakh (old testament), and is necessarily after isaiah and jeremiah. that should be obvious, actually. so this date doesn't come completely out of thin air; it's consistent with other factors. i am not arguing this point, i was merely providing historical context you seemed to be lacking, what with using the name of the wrong country.but the bible makes constant use of a particular theme: god manipulating the head of a foreign (occupying) nation. think exodus. the point is that god is the god of everyone, and it is by his consent only that anything happens to his particular favourite children, the sons of jacob. it is a message of hope -- if god can speak to nebuchadnezzar, and put daniel in a high place, surely he will save us from exile. again, the country you are looking for is "judah." it really does make a difference at this point in history. during the exodus, "israel" is the proper word. during the book of samuel, under david or solomon, "israel" is the proper word. but after that point in time, the tribes of judah and benjamin are abandoned by the other ten tribes, and form the nation of judah. for them, the proper word is "judah." what thoughts, in particular, are you looking for?this could be an issue where keeping the countries straight in your head is of utter importance. isaiah did not live to see the babylonian captivity, but he did write a fair deal about the assyrian exile of israel. in one famously misread chapter, he predicts that the assyrians will take over israel, and thus they will stop attacking judah.so this bit would almost certainly be talking about israel -- but as for setting the exiles free, it's a sad fact that almost nobody came home from assyria. the only tribe that was in israel that's still around today is levi, and that's because they lived in both countries.though, in what seems to be an odd coincidence, cyrus the second set judah free from babylon.

---

hi, welcome to evcforum. this is a public debate forum, and although some members have been known to speak outside of the forum, for most people the debate goes on right here. if you have something to add to the discussion, please feel free to do here.also, it might not be wise to post email addresses so publicly -- granted, it's a hotmail account, but expect even more spam.Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tag

---

you were replying to a message posted this month. however, should you mean something else, please feel free to dig up that old thread if it is not closed. if it is, perhaps you could post a proposed new topic? or at least related to me what it is, and if i'm interested, i could propose one?

---

it's a little off-topic. but i'll help anyways... anymore and we should probably start a new thread. i've written the hebrew words in italicized roman script. if you like, i can show you the hebrew too, but you seem interested in pronounciation and such. the god of the hebrew bible is named yahweh. it means "he exists." you will sometimes see it rendered "jehovah" but that's wrong for a number of reasons. a person who knows hebrew would [b]never[/i] pronounce those four semi-vowels that way. the added vowels (and thus the hardening of the vav) comes from the addition of the vowel points from adonai, "my lord," to remind the reader to speak that word instead of god's holy name. this is why you see, in english "THE LORD," where the text really contains god's proper name. and according to christian scripture, his son's name is yeshua which is an aramaic diminutive of the hebrew yehoshua, which means "god is salvation," and is commonly rendered in english as "joshua." from hebrew to aramaic to greek to english, this becomes "jesus." technically, that's what god says about his name, not his name. he says, ahayah asher ahayah, i am what i am, and thus his name is yahweh, "he exists." the verb root in hebrew is hayah. the vav in god's name come as a standard conjugation -- verb in hebrew take a vav in the middle in some cases. it makes an "oh" or "oo" sound, not a hard "va" sound. this is the problem of splitting up god's name, adding extra syllables. that yah is actually a shortened form of yahweh, not it's own word. it's often translated "god," but it's more like a nickname version of his real name.god's name is only four letters, a yud, a hey, a vav, and another hey. that makes at most three syllables, but since that vav works as a vowel, it's really two. the yud and the hey make a "yeh" or "yah" sound, and the vav and the hey make a kind of slurred "oo-eh" sound, like "way". thus, "yahweh." i tend to write "yahueh" because it more correctly follows how i think the vowels should go. that would be meshiach, with the hard phlegmy "chh." you probably know the english version, "messiah," but it's also related to the name mosheh or "moses." it literally means to "draw out" as in from the water, as moses was saved from the river. the town noach founds after landing the ark has a similar name. you could also use the word yasha, as in joshua's name (or jesus). well, it might seem a little peculiar at first, yes, but it's actually quite straight forward. funny, really. the whole "i am what i am... so my name is 'he is.'" is something of a pun. but this is relatively common in the hebrew bible. everyone has an appropriate name -- and how do you begin to describe god?

---