Quote:

Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.

I'm not sure what a "perfect writer" would look like. The scriptural claim is that Daniel constitutes authentic prophecy confirmed by history and extending to the present day. You have raised objections which are common among secularists. I have supplied rational answers. If Daniel was a retrospective, calculated deception, why wasn't Nabonidus mentioned? What was the motive?

Quote:

1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

Quote:

2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?

Quote:

3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

answered

Quote:

4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!! 

Quote:

5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.

Quote:

6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.

Quote:

- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.

Quote:

This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

So feel free to ignore them. That's your choice.

how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.

Quote:

Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!

Quote:

I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

Quote:

Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.

see my answer on Baruch.

Quote:

1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.

the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.

Quote:

Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI

thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?

Quote:

I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.

you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts?

Quote:

I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.

Quote:

1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?

Quote:

This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19

Quote:

Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

well spotted..........do you see the common theme?

because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:

Quote:

The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!

Quote:

4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?

Quote:

The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .

yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved. 

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.

Quote:

5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?

Quote:

Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

Quote:

6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

Dan 11:40 does not say that.

Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood."

⁴² He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?

 

Quote:

The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurrs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.

no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.

Quote:

7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?

Quote:

Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*

I didn't cite Daniel 11.

Quote:

Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV

Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)

²⁵ He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 164 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem.........as you said.

 

Quote:

8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.

Quote:

More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land) going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.

  wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia!

Quote:

9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?

Quote:

It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus? 

Quote:

It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.

you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!

Quote:

9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?

Quote:

While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

Quote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?

Quote:

Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*

no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. ^[e] '

Quote:

Translations once again disagree.

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 

Quote:

I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 ¹ "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. ² Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. ³ Those who are wise ^[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. ⁴ But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

  

Maybe we should send you a recording of this so you can play it every time you forget.

Daniel clearly was an imperfect writer, he more than demonstrated that. Though you overlook it all and pretend to have answers. These problems were exposed but you claim they aren't problems.

I'm not sure what a "perfect writer" would look like. The scriptural claim is that Daniel constitutes authentic prophecy confirmed by history and extending to the present day. You have raised objections which are common among secularists. I have supplied rational answers. If Daniel was a retrospective, calculated deception, why wasn't Nabonidus mentioned? What was the motive?

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century without an Internet and a local library in a tumultous time with strife, violence, persecution under conditions where the writer could be executed for his work his accuracy in regard to ancient history could be less than perfect. Lo. that is what we find.

1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

This differs with the babylonian Chronicles - see here - which mention no such adventure by Nebuchadnezzar that year against Hattiland or Judah. The taking of captives is in the 7th year of his reign per the Chronicles while 2 Kings claim it is in his 8th year. Jeremiah also agrees it was the 7th year. "The date in this Biblical story (the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar) is contradicted by this chronicle and the Biblical book of Jeremiah, which both state that it was the seventh year:"

Regrdless, only the Bible claims that captives were taken in 605 BCE.

It is more than a little interesting to see that your primary critique of liberal Christianity is that they make up stories about a book of made up stories.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the greatest made up story ever - the the Bible is not a collection of made up stories but was in fact written by men inspired by an omnimax God and should be taken literally (except for the parts that you have to make fit your interpretations)

You wouldn't be able to make a recording - you and miner can't hold a consistent interpretation. You'd have to re-record it each time.

Which is pretty much what it comes down to for the Bible. If you don't like what it says keep swapping shit out until it says what you want it to say.

Also, as I said, you have to presuppose Daniel is a book of prophecy because you need it to be prophecy. If you couldn't call it prophecy, you wouldn't be able to interpret (and re-interpret and re-re-interpret, etc.) it till you got what you needed.

And they didn't call people kings just because they sat in rulership. The judges weren't kings. When they were under military occupation the lead general was not called king.

And as for father in the royal line sense, that could be. then again, Belshazzar wasn't serving as king so it probably wan't the case.

Keep spinning kids. I hope the wheel stops on where you want it this time.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If Daniel was written in the 2nd century without an Internet and a local library in a tumultuous time with strife, violence, persecution under conditions where the writer could be executed for his work his accuracy in regard to ancient history could be less than perfect. Lo. that is what we find.

the fact that you cling on to the notion that Daniel was written in the 2nd century in the face of all the academic evidence to the contrary is a measure of your deep irrationality. Daniel put his head above the political parapet on various occasions. The stories you tell yourself are absurd. The kings under whom he served had no reason for concern at prophetic writings intended for Israel.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1-Did the Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar called king by Daniel seize him and others in 605 BCE, when he wasn't king until later?

 

freeminer wrote:

Nebuchadnezzar commenced the siege in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. According to the Babylonian system of computing the years of a king's reign, the third year of Jehoiakim would have been 605 BC. since his first full year of kingship began on New Year's Day after his succession in 608 BC. But according to the Judahite system  which counted the year of accession as the first year of reign, this was the fourth year of Jehoiakim.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This differs with the Babylonian Chronicles - see here - which mention no such adventure by Nebuchadnezzar that year against Hattiland or Judah. The taking of captives is in the 7th year of his reign per the Chronicles while 2 Kings claim it is in his 8th year. Jeremiah also agrees it was the 7th year. "The date in this Biblical story (the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar) is contradicted by this chronicle and the Biblical book of Jeremiah, which both state that it was the seventh year:"

Regardless, only the Bible claims that captives were taken in 605 BCE.

good isn't it!.........the Bible gives us all sorts of information other sources don't.

if you put up your references I'll tell you where your misunderstanding is.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2-What invasion in 605 BCE. - no historical evidence for this.

yes there is....... Biblical evidence.

freeminer wrote:

There were three deportations the first in 605BC included Daniel. The Bible supplies the historical evidence.......on what grounds do you dismiss it?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Babylonian records. See above.

the Babylonian records don't contradict the Biblical account.........if you think they do...........cite where.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

3-The error in regards to Chaldeans

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not answered.

 

This refers to the Chaldeans being described as astrologers or a priest caste not the people or population. I asked this in post #499 you had it in post #505 but made no comment in its regard.

So, no you never answered this. If you think you did, please refer to where.

Genesis 11:30-32 (in Context) Genesis 11 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 15:7
He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."
Genesis 15:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 15 (Whole Chapter)
Nehemiah 9:7
"You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham.
Nehemiah 9:6-8 (in Context) Nehemiah 9 (Whole Chapter)
Job 1:17
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
Job 1:16-18 (in Context) Job 1 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 12:13
I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia, the land of the Chaldeans, but he will not see it, and there he will die.
Ezekiel 12:12-14 (in Context) Ezekiel 12 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 23:14
"But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red,
Ezekiel 23:13-15 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
Ezekiel 23:23
the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses.
Ezekiel 23:22-24 (in Context) Ezekiel 23 (Whole Chapter)
 

what is the problem?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

4-Nebuchadnezzar's madness - not mentioned in any historical record

the Bible supplies historical evidence not available from other sources. You object at what is included and at what isn't!!!! 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course I do because the Bible is what we are analyzing here isn't it.

no 'of course' about it. It is irrational to doubt the veracity of scripture either on the grounds that it contains information that other sources don't or vice versa.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

5-Belsalzzar called king when the evidence says he was a prince and never performed the New Years Ceremony

freeminer wrote:

the Bible gives the correct situation, for which you have no explanation.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Bible gives a situation in conflict with Babylonian records, the Nabonidus Chronicles. 2 claims differ. The tablets are the originals, the Book of Daniel who can say what it is for sure.

the Bible account does not conflict with the Chronicles, it merely deals with Belshazzar because he is the relevant character:

From - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation November 1996 - 16[11]:81-85

Babylon: A Test Case in Prophecy [Part I]  by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

 

The historical facts are not disputed. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.), was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (562-560 B.C.), who is mentioned in 2 Kings 25:27-30 and in Jeremiah 52:31-34. Next came Neriglissar (560-556 B.C.), an evil conspirator who was defeated and slain in battle by the Medes and Persians (Sanderson, et al., 1900, 1:54). Labashi-Marduk subsequently came to the Chaldean throne in 556 B.C., but was assassinated after a few months. Finally, there was Nabonidus, who ruled from 556-539 B.C. His son, Belshazzar, was co-regent with his father. Actually it was Belshazzar who was occupying the city of Babylon when it fell (see Daniel 5:1ff.). Inscriptions have been discovered which make it clear that Nabonidus had entrusted the “kingship” of the capital city to his son while he campaigned in Arabia for about a decade (Vos, 1988, 1:276). When Cyrus advanced against Babylon, Nabonidus marched east to meet him, but fled before the Persian general’s army. Later, after Cyrus had captured the city (539 B.C.), Nabonidus surrendered to the Persians. And so, the biblical prophecies regarding the conquerors of the city of Babylon were fulfilled exactly.

why is it that atheists, like lemmings, collude in their own destruction?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

6-Belshalzzar said to be Nebuchadnezzar's son.

freeminer wrote:

explanation given from the Aramaic and ignored by you.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not ignored, discounted in favor of the Babylonian records.

scholars in the field don't see the need to discount one in favour of the other since they don't conflict......it's just part of your story.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

- The Cyrus Cylinder says it was bloodless.

freeminer wrote:

I think you mean that rightly or wrongly you infer this.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It was bloodless or it wasn't. Simple choice that.

not my point.........which is that you can't cite the translation which states this.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This list is not totally inclusive, there are more errors, but none of these seem to matter to you at all.

freeminer wrote:

how can there be errors if Daniel is retrospective? You ignore the answers........that's your choice.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See above, no Internet. Walking to the library in Alexandria was a bit of a distance. Not to mention it was through a war zone. Writing in regard to the evils of your current dictator king might also be hazardous, as might going on field trips for verification might just get you executed by Antiochus' soldiers.

you are perfectly free to tell yourself whatever stories you wish but it is quite obvious that the Jewish translators had the text in front of them and they were already in Alexandria!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Another book making similar errors that is pseudepigraphia or a forgery was Baruch alleged to be Jeremiah's scribe. It has false claims about individuals in Babylon sending money to Jerusalem mentioning that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. see Baruch 1. Baruch is considered by most to be a 2nd century forgery though the RCC doesn't see it that way.

freeminer wrote:

well, now you know why Baruch is not in the Reformed canon!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So, the question is why is Daniel when it has the same problems.

your problem and that of assorted liberals and secularists is precisely that Daniel doesn't have authenticity problems.

 However your problem is probably irremediable. When you've refused the claim of Christ on your life, where do you have left to go?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I notice you didn't address why such a great well known prophet as Daniel had little written about him.

is a whole book not enough for you?

No. It isn't for Baruch.

so now scripture isn't true because Daniel isn't long enough!!!!!!............ give me a break!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Why per chance did ben Sira not include him in Sirach? See chap 44-50.

freeminer wrote:

see my answer on Baruch.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There is no reason to doubt Sirach was written by ben Sira in about 180 BCE. Whether canon or not in the religious persuasion you accept,  Daniel is not mentioned which is the point.

You probably don't accept 1 & 2 Mac either but regardless they have a lot of history in the 2nd century BCE. Oh, I see further down this response you also don't consider them to be worthwhile.

we know when the Book of Mormon was written but that doesn't make it true......... gullible or what?!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1-See 1 Mac 1:16-20 - [16] And they made themselves prepuces, and departed from the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathens, and were sold to do evil. [17] And the kingdom was established before Antiochus, and he had a mind to reign over the land of Egypt, that he might reign over two kingdoms. [18] And he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a great number of ships: [19] And he made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt, but Ptolemee was afraid at his presence, and fled, and many were wounded unto death. [20] And he took the strong cities in the land of Egypt: and he took the spoils of the land of Egypt.

the reason why Mac is not in the Reformed canon either will hopefully slowly sink in. I have already dealt with this in my overview of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

freeminer wrote:

The reason these events are not dealt with by v36 et seq is precisely because they have already been dealt with by v 25 -27. Thank you for conceding the point.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Spin . . whee...

you're the only one of us with a motive.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Perhaps we have some sort of communication problem between us or so it seems. After one of us chops and rips it becomes tough to grasp what was what. Also true of grabbing a piece of discussion and commenting.

My best guess here is this is what you mean:

Antiochus fits v25-27 as described in the 1 Mac quote therefore it's not in the v36?

If you mean something else then be straight forward about it.

you keep attributing events described post v36 to Antiochus IV which have already been described pre v36 and then pretending they resolve your dilemma.  Some might take it as an insult to their intelligence.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Another attack is in 168 BCE and is the one frustrated by Popillus Laenas who was supposedly his friend in Rome. Laenas handed him an ultimatum from the Roman Senate which was clear they would back as they had come with warships. So, yes, it wasn't a good time to invade as he would have had his ass handed to him.

Antiochus returned after the 1st Egyptian invasion with great riches he seized in Jerusalem where he stopped to plunder as per Dan 11:28.

He attacked or invaded 4 times.

See 1 Mac 1:21-25

[21] And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year, he returned and went up against Israel. [22] And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude. [23] And he proudly entered into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of proposition, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the little mortars of gold, and the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. [24] And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found: and when he had taken all away he departed into his own country. [25] And he made a great slaughter of men, and spoke very proudly.

As to the alliance mentioned, he took captive Ptolemy VI captive and made an alliance with him in the 1st war and his brother Ptolemy VII was made king, causing he hoped dissension and chaos. He manipulated Ptolemy VI

freeminer wrote:

thank you for repeating the account I've already given...........now..........how does any of that apply to verse 36 et seq?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Egypt with intent of violence (or attack), and how he gained riches etc.

all of which is described pre v36.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have no scenario, what I suggest are what non-Bible scholars consider to be the most likely.

freeminer wrote:

you mean you consider it more rational to trust non-experts?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Bible scholars have an agenda as well as believers such as you and predetermine the meaning as has been shown throughout this thread. These non-experts are historians, linguists, archaeologists, literary scholars.

far from pre-determining anything., you've been shown how the Biblical account concurs with history. My personal basis for belief is entirely unrelated to the existence of Daniel I can assure  you........thus my agenda has nothing to do with it. You said your 'experts' were not Biblical scholars. Do you need me to post up examples of archaeological support for scripture?.........all the times 'experts' have mocked it and been proved wrong? Sooner or later one would think they and you would get the message.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I generally agree, even with the Rev Henry Cowles in regard to Daniel that it is about the Jewish persecution under Antiochus IV not far off in the future scenarios of the "end times"

freeminer wrote:

you mean because he's a liberal and therefore doesn't operate in the realm of Biblical truth? Fine......make it stick.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What do you want to make stick? His view? Your statement he's a liberal? Have you read his book on the link I posted or not? He's was a Christian, date of this book was 1870.

if I had a quid for everyone who's used that title! Liberalism is not a 20th century product.

freeminer wrote:

1] In your scenario, what is 'the time of wrath'?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god, and it has an end.

The time of wrath is mentioned in Dan 8:19

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Dan 8:19 has several translations that are dissimilar.

NIV - He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

DRO - And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation: for at the set time the end shall be.

JPS - And he said: 'Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.

freeminer wrote:

well spotted..........do you see the common theme?

please explain 'dissimilar........ how do the meanings differ?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you refer to previous vendettas by the god then yes. The Jews claims to have been abandoned as claimed throughout the OT is simply their refusal to accept responsibility for their actions and blaming it on the god, not on the situation in which they are involved.

the common theme is 'time of the end'.

freeminer wrote:

because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.

so:

1] what was the time of wrath and when did it happen?

2] What is the time of the end and when did it happen?

you answered:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The end of the persecution and the God's visitations of judgments against his Chosen people.

freeminer wrote:

I hesitate to point this out but this is contradictory.........surely the end of persecution would not be a time of wrath?!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Whee - spin ....

I said, "This in effect is the Jews being punished by persecution once again by their god.." = time of wrath.

The time of the end is the end of the persecution.

except that the text identifies both as occurring at the same time.

ok, I'll spell it out.............

 40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

 41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

 42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

 43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

 44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

 

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3

here's the connection:

40And at the time of the end ........................ 1 "At that time

thus the time of wrath and the time of the end are in the same timeframe. The 'deliverance' of Israel is included. Furthermore there was resurrection!....... we should have a record of this!

freeminer wrote:

4] In your scenario, who is the 'king of the North' who attacked Antiochus IV?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The 1st king of the South is Ptolemy, his general Selecus I is the 1st king of the north.

The Kingdom of the north is the Seleucid empire, the Kingdom of the south is Egypt or the Ptolemaic empire.

Your question is strange, you have misunderstood what was said in v40.

How can Antiochus IV attack himself?

What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . .

freeminer wrote:

yes, we know all  this, but v36 is non-specific. It simply says, "the king". Therefore there is nothing in this:

and the king of the North will storm out against him

to tell  you that the 'him' referred to is in fact the 'king of the south'.......which is what you would like to presume. In fact the construction is open to the interpretation that there are three parties involved.

That said, the issue for you is to identify these events apart from those already covered pre v36.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What is it you want? You want me to see it your way? I don't. I was clear with what I said: "
What is meant is: the king of the south will come at the king of the north, who will come at the king of the south like a whirlwind . . ."

You can interpret 3 parties in this if you'd like, I don't.

at the end of the day, you'll choose whether to tell  yourself irrational stories. I am merely pointing out where rationality lies. There are other prophecies which provide more information.

freeminer wrote:

5] In your scenario, why is Antiochus IV attacking a land he already occupied?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Which land do you think he occupied?

He does go into the’ beautiful land" Judea, to suppress rebellion, as the Maccabees had begun their fight at the end of Antiochus' reign.

but this is dealt with pre v36. and actually he left Lysias to do the job.

Antiochus was already in occupation...........he has a garrison in Jerusalem. Why is he attacking a land he already occupies?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What part of rebellion don't you understand?

what part of normal syntax don't you understand? When the Romans put down Boadicea's rebellion, were they 'attacking the land'? You display all the usual symptoms!

]6] Why does v40 say, 'Egypt will not escape' when, even in your scenario, it clearly does?!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Dan 11:40 does not say that.

Daniel 11:40 NIV wrote:

"At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood."

42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape.

I repeat, why does the text say Egypt will not escape? The imagery is clear - when did Antiochus do this?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The time at the end in this case means the end of the persecution of the Jews, which occurs eventually when the Maccabees rise up and rally the people.

freeminer wrote:

no it doesn't...........look at chapter 12.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yes it does. NIV Dan 12:1 - "At that time...." That time means the same time as the other events in chapter 11, occurring at, during and after Antiochus IV.

'fraid not, since this is all dealt with pre v36, as I pointed out.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Further - see Cowles pp 447-458. Great explanation. though he still is one of you in Jesus belief.

what does that mean?....... the demons believe.

freeminer wrote:

7] In  your scenario, howcome v 45 describes the end of Antiochus IV when the text has already described the end of Antiochus IV pre v36?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Where in Daniel 11?

*edit*

I didn't cite Daniel 11.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Do you mean these references -

"...but only for a time" v24 NIV

"....until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time." v35 NIV

Daniel 8:25 says:

Daniel 8:25 (New International Version)
25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

we know that Antiochus died at Tabae in Persia in 163 BC. The man in view dies at Jerusalem........'holy mountain is common prophetic terminology.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Spin... Whee...

I said no such thing that the man in question dies in Jerusalem. I said it does not indicate where.

hmm.........but it does.........otherwise there would be no point in v45.

freeminer wrote:

8] v45 describes the geographical location of his death but we know where he died.

 so Tabae is the 'beautiful holy mountain'!!!........ and which seas is it between then?

45 He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain.

and which are all these countries that he invaded then?.... .....so far we have Cyprus plus occasional visitor to Egypt..........oh, and by the way, just to recap, everyone knows that the LXX was complete before ever Antiochus came to power.........no doubt you have a story for this!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

More or less v45 indicates that even though he set up his tents between the sea (the only one they really knew) and the holy mountain (meaning in the good land)

nice bit of re-writing......... if you don't lke the text, change it!...........I suggest it means what it says!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

going against the God or the God's holy city and Temple,  he will die in an ordinary manner without help. It does not indicate exactly where.

freeminer wrote:

wel, well, that is a very long way from Persia!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What it says - "He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at [f] the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him." His tents are his armies, does not mean he's in one of them.

his tents are his armies?!!!!!..........I didn't say he was in a tent!!!...... I want to know how this description has anything to do with Tabae. Where is your version of the 'holy mountain'?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

He was as is said - " But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. "

Which is where Antiochus was, East.

which historical event does this relate to?......... after all, this is retrospective! I'll answer my question, it refers to his defence against Mithridates, rather some distance from Israel!

freeminer wrote:

9] When did Antiochus invade the Libyans and Nubians?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It only says they will be at his steps KJV,  while DRO says -  and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia.; and NIV says - with the Libyans and Nubians in submission.

This does not indicate invasion.

freeminer wrote:

what does 'passing through' look like to you? OK, when were the Nubians and Libyans in submission to Antiochus? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since you consider the DRO to be erroneous what does it matter? Submission can be mercenaries, or they can be giving tribute which is a form of submission.

well, if you have no concern for accuracy, it may as well be fantasy anyway....... you see, you like history and evidence except when it doesn't support you......... I would have said, 'your case' but you've already admitted to not having one.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It could be: 1)he had mercenaries from those areas 2)he passed through them 3)They paid tribute.

freeminer wrote:

]Is this your story? evidence? you could make up stories all day  but Jerusalem is not Tabae......and this is supposed to be retrospective!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

See above, he went East, he divided his army, his tents per se were in Judea as well as in Persia.

you see, ultimately atheists become semantic mystics...... when language doesn't say what they want it to, they make it mean something else! The character in question 'pitches' his armies does he?! You will find the phrase, 'between the seas' elsewhere in prophecy...... it refers to the Mediterranean and Gallilee.......... which, as we all know is in Persia!

freeminer wrote:

9] In your scenario, what were the 'reports from the east and north'?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

While he was fighting rebellion in Judea, he had reports out of Parthia, Persia, and Armenia of rebellion and divided his army. These rebellions were for the same reasons in Judea, Antiochus' degrees to abandon their religions for the Greek gods.

freeminer wrote:

cite your historical reference and we'll see how it relates to the context.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

During this period Parthia under Mithridates I seized territory from Antiochus, circa 167-64. Antiochus was suppressing the worship of gods elsewhere and seizing or trying anyway the treasures from their temples. He also suppressed rebellion in Armenia. I'm sure you are capable of looking these up yourself.

well he was out of power after 164 and these dates cover most of his reign! As I've pointed out, the pre v36 prophecy deals with the Maccabean revolt so unfortunately your explanation doesn't explain why the events to which you wish to attribute this should pop up out of sequence. Furthermore the events described clearly relate to the demise of the person referred to. How is this true of Antiochus' death by illness or accident?  As to Greek gods:

37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god,

clearly this does not relate to Antiochus IV.

freeminer wrote:

10] Where is your evidence that he 'distributed the land at a price'?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Are you referring to the bribes taken for the high priest's job? Jason and then Menelaus. Selling the office of the high priest in effect is selling the land.

*edit*

freeminer wrote:

no, scripture is explicit that the land is sold to those who..........

'will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e] '

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Which is what selling the high priest's office did in effect.

no it didn't .........it didn't create fiefdoms

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Translations once again disagree.

freeminer wrote:

no, only the CRO but if you will use sources which directly contradict the Greek...............!

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You read and speak Greek then? Ancient Greek that is?

How does this particular verse translate in  the DSS??

see the LXX

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

JPS, the MT - "And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price." easily can mean he took bribes for the high priest's office as mentioned.

that is bizarre...... and anyway the priest didn't hold land........furthermore the term is the land.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

But don't get hung up on this, I don't need to show everything in Daniel perfectly matches what Antiochus IV did or didn't, reporters today with far better resources screw up. Imagine if you had to be stealthy in your research, had only fragmentary information, No Internet, and the nearest Library was in another country.

why do it if it's so risky?!........you see, not only don't your facts fit but you can't provide a motive and we know the LXX was complete prior to Antiochus....... it all  smacks of desperation.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I forgot to ask you to answer the same questions you proposed to me. Please.

freeminer wrote:

certainly, here's a starter..........once again the Bible gives you the timeframe.

 1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise [a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I commented on this above in regards to "At that time", and how this relates. See the link to Cowles and read his 20 or so pages in regards to Chap 12.

why adopt his mysticism? Liberals don't critique the Bible according to it's own claims anyway.... they make up stories......... now where have I seen that before?! Anyway........ I'm off camping....... have just packed my army!

 

According to you and freeminer I haven't got any of Daniel right. That's what happens when you don't buy into myths and stories as real.

Actually I also gave you the Rev Henry Cowles interpretation and the RCC's. Cowles views are found in this link -http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

He like you claims it is prophecy, but of the Antiochus IV variety. His claim is Daniel prophesied the persecution by Antiochus in the 6th century BCE. He like you was a Jesus believer. He doesn't see it as the end times like you do. You obviously didn't read his work.

Go to newadvent.com and type Antiochus IV or Daniel in the search box for the RCC's view, though you consider them to be evil incarnate you should at least know what they have to say.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

Thanks, yes, now we are clear. Sorry for the delay on this.

You are right when you say that Media and Persia were actually separate kingdoms and should be viewed as such. Separate kingdoms that were represented together by individual beasts. I have looked into your interpretations carefully, and still have some pretty significant problems.

First, since we are separating out Media from Persia, Media never did follow Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Babylon was "conquered" by Cyrus. Now technically, Cyrus was the king of Persia and Media. When he rebelled against his grandfather Astyages and gained victory in 550 BC he became the king of Media. This made him the king of Media and Persia.

Under Persian rule the Mede's who were close kin to the Persians retained a prominent position in the kingdom. At the beginning the Geek historians were still calling it a Median Empire. History still considers Persia to be a successor state to Media.

Thus, it would not be correct to use two beasts or sections of a statue to represent Media and Persia. One would have to either represent Persia alone, or considering the Median role "Medo-Persia". The writer of Daniel chose to acknowledge the Median connection by including them in these beasts.

That being said, we have the bear raised up on one side that corresponds nicely with the Ram with one horn larger than the other. Both symbols representing a greater Persia with a Median connection.

Second, we have the leopard with four wings and four heads. This is a very poor symbol for Persia. Yes, Persia did have more than four kings, but was never viewed as having four distinct power centers. Heads being greater than horns would more than likely represent something more than individual kings in succession.

Greece now is a perfect fit. The four wings represent the swiftness with which Alexander conquered all of the vast areas of Persia. The four heads represent the four major divisions that came out of Alexanders kingdom. Now here's a perfect fit.

Than we have the little horn in Daniel 7 who's appearance was greater than his fellows. Antiochus VI was definitely not greater than his predecessors. Yes, he was a "nasty little bugger", but not great in the scheme of things.

If one just takes the book as what is claims (prophecy from God), and does not try to make something else out of it, everything works out just fine.

If one bends the needle of the compass 180 degrees to try to avoid acknowledging God, there are always problems.

Once again, we have a storyline "made up" that just does not work.

 

No problem on the delay, Freeminer and I have occupied ourselves with sparring.

The Medes and Persians were as we both agree separate kingdoms. After Cyrus conquered the Medes in 550 BCE they became vassals. The Medes were always inferior to Babylon as indicated by Daniel as well. The Persians on the other hand had a kingdom that lasted over 3 times longer and encompassed most of the known world thus being greater than Babylon. The Medes did not do so and so were inferior as Daniel indicated.  Thus the Persians do fit in the scenario as Daniel described. The little horn is explicitly stated as coming out of the Macedonian empire of Alexander from one of the 4 kingdoms. That being so, the Seleucid kings fit while Rome does not fit. None of the Greek Kingdoms included Rome or the Etruscans before them so it doesn't fit.

Since we cannot agree, it is pointless to beat each other senseless, that's already going on what with the sparring I have with Freeminer, so I suggest you go ahead and finish your interpretation.

When we get to the end, we can both summarize our views and critiques and let it be what it is. OK?

 

It is not possible to correctly understand or interpret the later prophecies, or portions of Daniel if the earlier ones have been misunderstood. Therefore I build a solid base, carefully examining, and than go on.

Well, you and freeminer don't seem to have a problem building upon a morphed misconstued view.

gramster wrote:

So before I continue we will recap your position. Let me know if this is what you believe.

1. The book of Daniel was not prophecy written in the 5th century BC by Daniel as it claims. It was written in the 2nd century BC by an unknown Jewish author who was writing history as it happened. This was not being dishonest, even though the book claims to be prophetic and written by Daniel.

First off, I thought you claimed it was in the 6th century BCE, you know from late 7th (605 BCE) through all of the 6th (599 to 500 BCE) If he wrote it in the 400s, Daniel was trying to catch Enoch for age.

There are many books written during the 2nd century BCE, calling them any more dishonest than any of what you accept for canon just seems to be unfair. So is the case of other books, I guess they all were dishonet in that case.

gramster wrote:

2. The 2nd kingdom's in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to the Median Empire alone even though that empire was not successive to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom.

Nice try.

gramster wrote:

3. The 3rd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Persia alone, even though in Daniel 7 the third kingdom is represented by a leopard with four heads and four wings that perfectly represent Alexanders kingdom. You claim that the four heads represent 4 of the kings of Persia even though Persia never did have four distinct major separations or power centers.

The Jews only considered 4 Persian Kings to be important, not all 9. I explained how Dan 7 was thus. Daniel 7 does separate into kingdoms indicated in v19. But no worry, look at it whatever way you'd like.

gramster wrote:

4. You believe the 4th beast of Daniel 2 and 7 refers to Alexanders kingdom, and the 10 horns represent ten successive kings, and Antiochus IV represents the little horn even though he was not greater than his fellows.

Actually you should study Antiochus IV a bit. What matters as well is the perception of the 2nd century BCE writer.

gramster wrote:

Also ignoring that the third beast is a much better representation of Alexanders kingdom.

We'll see what you do with it. Based on your conjecture in regards to tribes of Europe you include, I really don't see much relationship to the Jews in it at all. Good Luck

gramster wrote:

5. Now you throw Daniel 8 into the mix, making the mistake of claiming that the text says the horn came out of one of the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom. Look a little closer. The text does not say that.

I can't find where I said this in regard to Daniel 8, I did say this in regard to the little horn in  Daniel 7 in post # 535 recap.

gramster wrote:

If you believe this...?? You haven't a ghost of a chance of getting any of the rest of Daniel right. But, as you have requested, I will continue further into Daniel. Making careful note of all of the huge problems with the only alternate interpretation given.

 

According to you and freeminer I haven't got any of Daniel right. That's what happens when you don't buy into myths and stories as real.

Actually I also gave you the Rev Henry Cowles interpretation and the RCC's. Cowles views are found in this link -http://www.archive.org/details/ezekieldanielwit00cowlrich

He like you claims it is prophecy, but of the Antiochus IV variety. His claim is Daniel prophesied the persecution by Antiochus in the 6th century BCE. He like you was a Jesus believer. He doesn't see it as the end times like you do. You obviously didn't read his work.

Go to newadvent.com and type Antiochus IV or Daniel in the search box for the RCC's view, though you consider them to be evil incarnate you should at least know what they have to say.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

I am not susceptible to patronisation....... get used to the idea.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all,

You correctly identify the issue as one of 'will'. However much the rational evidence is against you, you are unable to subject yours to its logic. Thus you subsume your own rationality to your autonomy. The above statement is one of your more perceptive ones. The last bit is mistaken however....... when I realised that it was a choice between autonomy and rationality, I chose the latter as an act of will! You see this as weakness but the crunch point is........... you can't do it!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

the man who doesn't accept that his legs are broken spends his life on the floor.........how is it down there?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have corrected all of your laziness in quoting to the best of my ability. You really need to learn how to use text editors. Your laziness leads to less than concise understanding by others.

I am not susceptible to patronisation....... get used to the idea.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Did you mean patronization? Y'all have a different dictionary o'r thar?

yes, the s and z are interchangeable and when shortening 'over' we would still include the 'e', as per, 'o'er'.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Too much to drink on your camping trip perhaps. Since you aren't my professor but just an elitist I'll take it for what it implies.

is this part of your case?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That you cling to your notion that a 6th century BCE writer prophesied events hundreds if not thousands of years before they occurred or will occur indicates how weak willed you are and your acceptance that you have no control at all,

Quote:

You correctly identify the issue as one of 'will'. However much the rational evidence is against you, you are unable to subject yours to its logic. Thus you subsume your own rationality to your autonomy. The above statement is one of your more perceptive ones. The last bit is mistaken however....... when I realised that it was a choice between autonomy and rationality, I chose the latter as an act of will! You see this as weakness but the crunch point is........... you can't do it!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I hear crutches are on sale at Walmart. Perhaps they would suit you as well as the ones you use. And the good thing is once you have paid for them you don't have to pay additional out each week on Sunday. You can just pick them up and limp around.

thank you for confirming my point with your absurd meanderings!

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

as a god has pre-determined the future. You are welcome to use your belief as a crutch to go through life if that is what works for you.

freeminer wrote:

the man who doesn't accept that his legs are broken spends his life on the floor.........how is it down there?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Is there a floor? How do you know for sure?

"the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge"

gramster wrote:

Yes, I know how BC dates work. As for my mistake 5th century instead of 6th. Sorry. "My Bad".

As for books written in the 2nd century BC or any other, they are only deceptive if they claim to be what they are not.

As for The Median Empire being the 2nd kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, "nice try", ???. Is that an answer??? Your scenario does not work. The Median Empire was not the next kingdom to follow Nebuchadnezzars. That's a huge problem for your story. To try to sweep this under the rug this way is indeed a "nice try". You'll have to do better than this.

As for the leopard being Persia and the four heads being 4 of the kings, this is very weak. If the four heads were popping up one after the other than "maybe"???

I don't see any point in considering Antichus IV as the little horn when he was no longer around when the 4th beast came on to the scene.

I realize that there are other views and why. I have studied into these, and have not found one to hold water. Cowles is no different. He starts off wrong, and of course ends up in the ditch.

You say that the little horn in Daniel 7 comes from the four divisions of Alexanders kingdom?? Daniel 7 has the little horn coming up in the midst of the 10 horns of the 4th beast. The only beast in Daniel 7 with four divisions is the leopard which you mistakenly refer to as Persia.

You still have no viable alternative interpretation. The one you have given has already fallen apart, and I have pointed out why.

As to your views whatever works for you.

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no relationship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

 

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

freeminer wrote:

not sure where you got the 'elitist' idea from Paul. I'm firmly anti-elitist and am suspicious of it anyway since I regard it as one of those ultimate inevitable conclusions of humanism. Don't talk to me about 'class' and the English!

Have a good day.

Paul created a religion where he is the only source. He wanted to be able to show himself better than the Sanhedrin that rejected him. He wanted his works to be known as the sole knowledge of God.

How is that not elitist?

As to your views whatever works for you.

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no realtionship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

Quote:

As to your views whatever works for you.

thank you for this affirmation of liberal democracy!

Quote:

I have been clear from the start I consider Daniel not to be any form of prophecy, rejecting the "magic" and "fantasy" as stories propagated only to support the religious ideas of a culture that knew no better.

yes, we knew your position. The issue is, which party is demonstrably into fantasy? You propose the notion that Daniel is retrospective against all the evidence and have failed to back this with any possible rational motive. What has Daniel's prophecy got to do with the ideas of Judaism and how is it "supportive" of them? 

Quote:

In the end, it does not matter what scenario you pick or interpret, you went out on a limb from the start.

but you're not in favour of "argument from the masses"! Thinking about it, that sounds a bit elitist of you!

Quote:

As you previously showed  you consider tribes and countries with absolutely no realtionship to the Jews to be in this adventure story, you have already indicated where you're going with it. And again, Good Luck with that.

but you've spent a good deal of time complaining about excluded ones!.........you really are all over the place!

You mean you can't see where Paul made Christ a God?

How he preached a religion that abolished the Torah?

I have no problem with Paul preaching the gospel of Christ - he created it.

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.

See, Jesus and his disciples were observant Pharisaic Jews and what Paul was preaching was blasphemy.

From http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm (He misspells Maccoby's name but the information is there)

"Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin.

he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life.

especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist."

Daniel Chapter 2.

We will not waste time discussing the first three beasts since we have already beaten them into the ground. We will instead focus on the main points of Daniel 2 that there remains questions about.

1. What is meant by the latter days, and if they end in the time of Christ, or extend down further in time.

2. The fourth beast whether it be Rome, or the Seleucid kings.

3. The meaning of "The Kingdom of God".

4. Who the book was written to and why.

First I will give answer to the question that gives perspective to the whole book of Daniel. Who was the book written to and why? Was it written to and for the Jews only? or is there any evidence that it was also written to and for non Jews at a later time in history?

HC takes the first view, and I the second. I would like to consider the passage in Daniel 12:9+10 to begin with. "Go your way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end". What is meant by "closed up", "sealed", and "time of the end"? The answer to these questions bear greatly on correctly interpreting the passages in Daniel.

How does one "close up" or "seal up" a book until a later time in history? I suppose today one could simply lock it up in a time vault of some kind, but they did not have those in BC times. So how does one do that?

The answer is quite simple. Write the book enshrouded in symbolism and in such a manner that is would only be properly understood at the time, and by the readers that were meant to understand it. I know of no other explanation for this passage.

I therefore suggest that the book of Daniel was prophecy written well in advance of events in symbolic terms to be passed down to future readers. This we will examine further as we go forward.

I have been aware of this alternative interpretation of Daniel for quite some time. It is not new. I have not previously studied the works of Cowles.

At this point we are just getting started. My conjecture and assertions are merely defining of the issues. As we come to places where the text conflicts with stated views those issues will be examined more closely.

As for holding on to my cherished beliefs, and not considering other possibilities, considering other possibilities is just what I am doing here. Putting other interpretations side by side with  mine for careful examination. You need not accuse me of blinding myself prematurely.

I agree with you about dictators who try to force their views on the masses. They all become monsters. That's why I believe so strongly in the separation of church and state. Freedom of thought is the most precious of all.

I have not yet tried to discredit Cowles views on Daniel relating only to the Jews. I have only put forward an alternative for us to consider going forward.

There are points of conflict in Daniel 2 that I will be addressing very soon. We will see where the "chips fall".