gramster wrote:

Gramps post 1040 wrote:

vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

Once again the writer of Daniel shows his  poor knowledge of history. And once again you show your puzzle piece technique of slamming square pegs into round holes. What Daniel 2 actually says is "And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.." JPS version. As this supposedly begins before any Persian kings it indicates Cyrus (549–529 BCE), Cambyses (529–522 BCE), Darius I (521–485 BCE). The 4th king is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus, 485–465 BCE) who attacks the  uncentralized Greek city states. Daniel ignores Bardiya (false Smerdis). Daniel only mentions the 4 kings and ignores there were 9 kings jumping to Alexander immediately after Xerxes. The other kings were Artaxerxes I (465–425 BCE), Darius II (425–405 BCE), Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE) and Darius III (338–330 BCE) who is defeated by Alexander and not mentioned by the writer of Daniel.

gramster wrote:

Still playing ignorant? The author mentions the 1st three kings, than in order gives us details on the 4th (Artazeres II). There was no need to list the next 5 kings. They were not relevant to this part of the story.

pjts wrote:

Remember your statement of relevance later. Even from the perspective of the Jews, who was more relevant to them? Xerxes? Or Artaxerxes II?

So which king was the 4th king? Xerxes or Artaxerxes II? You indicate in your comments both were.

Like many of the kings of that period, Artaxerxes II went by more than one name or title. But you already know that.

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

Gramps wrote:

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

pjts wrote:

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

Interesting just how "not crystal clear" secular accounts of history often are. Yet they are still used to try to disprove the Biblical accounts of history.

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.

Really what has occurred is a stalemate or detente where both sides are in a standoff mode.

 

Your point exactly? He did not attack again. The text is accurate.

 

Is it? Only if you accept certain records and ignore others.

 

Yeah right!

PJTS wrote:

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramps post 1051 wrote:

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.

Again, he fought back and recovered most of the territory in the east (Babylon) and pushed back in Syria, though the coast was still held by Egypt.

Yes, he did have a "come back" later. Your point again?

 

Your summary was not accurate is the point.

Wrong again! Accurate yes. But I did not see the need to follow history down past the point where the text left off.

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

Interesting how the mention of Seleucus II (the father) "jumps over" the actions of Seleucus III "the son"???

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

 

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

Another brilliant observation on your part. Read the text. Nothing was detailed about false Smerdis. He was only part of a list counting down to Artaxeres II who was the real focus. Likewise Seleucus III was not relevant enough to discuss. So the author did not.

A skeptic and a free thinker? I am continually amazed at how you guys think. Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place. You still amaze me! 

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

Once again you come "a bloggin'". You sure like to try to put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. There are "credible" accounts of history that are supported and verified, and there are highly questionable accounts of history that conflict with other secular accounts of that period.

This has nothing to do with whether something agrees with the Bible. That is your fabrication.

Why don't Ya'll contribute something useful to the conversation??

I'll be awaiting your intelligent views on the topic at hand.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

Once again you come "a bloggin'". You sure like to try to put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. There are "credible" accounts of history that are supported and verified, and there are highly questionable accounts of history that conflict with other secular accounts of that period.

This has nothing to do with whether something agrees with the Bible. That is your fabrication.

Why don't Ya'll contribute something useful to the conversation??

I'll be awaiting your intelligent views on the topic at hand.

 

You mean like you with your "Daniel's history because I want it to be" examples?

You have credible histories that disagree with your view of Daniel - you insist on claiming that Daniel is still right. Just because you disagree with history doesn't mean you can ignore it (unless you're a Christian?).

Poor grams - my "blogs" carry more weight than your collection of "insightful" fabrications and that just drives you nuts.

 

That's interesting because I have asked repeatedly for one single credible historical account that disagrees with Daniel, and you have failed to provide even one.

Until you can find one you might be able to save yourself some embarrassment by not making that claim over and over like some mindless parrot.

Gramps post 1040 wrote:

 
vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

However, you skip back in forth in the name for him in this case and the result is not being clear when several kings have the same or similar name. Not very consistent and makes what you say easy to misunderstand.

To be clear, do you refer to Xerxes (485-465 BCE) or Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE)???

 

Xerxes. As Artaxerxes II was further down in history and not of much consequence. 

 

 

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

Gramps wrote:

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

pjts wrote:

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

Interesting just how "not crystal clear" secular accounts of history often are. Yet they are still used to try to disprove the Biblical accounts of history.

pjts wrote:

Herein lies your entire problem. The bible accounts, especially the book of Daniel is not crystal clear either. If it was crystal clear we'd not be having this discussion at all. So instead of considering all of them, you dismiss the secular accounts or accounts from other countries in favor of the Bible. Which since the Bible is actually copies of copies of translated copies is rather illogical for a position.

I'm not per se trying to disprove the Bible, as it's never been proven in the first place.

Proof would be actual manuscripts from the 6th century BCE just like those of the Persians and the Babylonians. The accounts from Nabonidus, Cyrus, and the verse account of Nabonidus all date to that period from clay tablets. The Bible does not date to that period. The oldest scraps of Daniel are the DSS from the 1st to 2nd century BCE.

So, you wish to discredit older original documents from Persia and Babylon with unknown dated but no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE scraps and copies of copies.

 

Do you see your problem here?

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

Since the book of Daniel does not conflict with any credible secular accounts of 6th century BC history including the clay tablets, I have no conflicts to have to deal with. All is peace and harmony between them.

Interesting that scraps of copies of copies of copies are so accurate and detailed about events so far back in history. Especially for a goat herder without a library.

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

pjts wrote:

This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

gramster wrote:

Interesting how the mention of Seleucus II (the father) "jumps over" the actions of Seleucus III "the son"???

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

pjts wrote:

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

gramster wrote:

Another brilliant observation on your part. Read the text. Nothing was detailed about false Smerdis. He was only part of a list counting down to Xerxes (edited for correction) who was the real focus. Likewise Seleucus III was not relevant enough to discuss. So the author did not.

A skeptic and a free thinker? I am continually amazed at how you guys think. Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place. You still amaze me!

pjts wrote:

You did note that I left out Smerdis who you included. The text didn't mention the names of the kings, you did. And I responded with a different list.

First off, we have multiple documents describing the events of Babylon and Persia that date to the period. Your approach really should be comparing the text of Daniel to see how it agrees with the far older actual originals since Daniel is a copy of a copy of a copy no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

Instead, you take your undated copy of a copy with a newer date and argue against the events described in originals. You want to use the Daniel text as reality over the original text from Persia and Babylon.

Next, you miss the point of why Babylon fell to Cyrus. Nabonidus was the cause, and if Daniel wrote then he very obviously would have included it.

More later on.

Really? My approach precisely is comparing the text of Daniel with the far older actual originals and so far I have not been able to find any conflicts. I have never argued against any of the events described in the "originals"

You however, commonly read things into the original texts that are not there, and try to use such methods to build a  case against the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel. No that is neither a scholarly nor a rational approach.

Once again you jump in and try to second guess the author of Daniel, and argue with the author about what should have been included in his writings.

The author of Daniel was not writing a book of reasons why empires fell. Your assertion that Daniel "very obviously would have included it", is nothing more than empty speculation on your part. Really?

You never cease to amaze me!

I await your "more later on". 

Quote:

I would think that if the book of Daniel were written in the 2nd century BC it would be very easy to find obvious and indisputable example

 

  When did  this  get so far off-topic ?   What was the idea of "quoting" the Book of Daniel in the first place ?

Daniel wrote what is supposed to be an accurate portrayal from Nebuchadnezzar to some point in the future according to you. Leaving out important events in the events such as the fall of Babylon discredits it as originating in the period.

You have:

1-Nothing that supports Daniel was present in the Babylonian court from secular sources.

2-You have omissions in the account that cast suspicion on the origination date of the writing.

3- You have nothing mentioned of Daniel in Jewish writing other than the discussion of the lion's den myth in 1 Mac. And a reference to a guy named Daniel in Ezekiel. Neither one discusses where Daniel was located, what he did, nor any relationship to the story telling in the Book of Daniel.

4- There are no manuscripts prior to the DSS to support Daniel existed.

5- Supposed interpretations that can be viewed in multiple ways as meticulously shown to you that can fit various scenarios.

6- Bad history:

a) Dan 9:1 - Darius said to be "the son of Ahasuerus" - Ahasuerus aka Xerxes ruled 486-465 BCE over 50 years off.

b)Dan 4 - Claims Nebuchadnezzar was insane or crazy. No secular account supports this.

c)Dan 3 - The image to be worshiped is not given the name of any Akkadian, Sumerian or Babylonian god. It appears to be the invention of an unnamed god. In addition, the claim to fall down and worship at the sound of music from " horn, pipe, harp, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe,.." or horn, flute, harp, lyre uses words that are of Greek origin from the later Hellenistic period. It is also not clear these instruments were invented at the time.

d) The spelling of the name of the King of Babylon in the book of Daniel is of the later Persian period. The correct spelling is shown in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is Nebuchad R ezzar. Daniel spells it as the later Persian method 100 years later - Nebuchad N ezzar.

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

g) Dan 5 - The supposed writing on the wall - "MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN" is Aramaic. Funny Aramaic was the language used by the Babylonians, why is it they could not read it?

h) Dan 10 & 11 - Daniel errors in the number of Persian kings regardless of how you ignore it by "puzzle piece fitting". In Dan 11:2 "Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece." - The last king in this list means Xerxes who invaded Greece. Yet in Dan 11:3 - "And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. - Alexander is suddenly injected. Alexander did not overthrow Xerxes, it was Darius III he conquered.

 

This list is not totally inclusive and represents some of the other issues you ignore in the account of Daniel.

 

 

You do not have:

Verifiable evidence the writer of Daniel ever was in Babylon from any sources.

Show me writing from a source outside the Hebrew propaganda book that places him in Babylon. A copy of his stamped "passport" indicating he was there. A photo of Daniel in Babylon's famous hanging gardens, something not mentioned by Daniel either. An inscription anywhere from Babylon with the details of: Daniel surviving in a den of lions; 3 men not being consumed in a furnace; Nebuchadnezzar promoting a Jewish captive to be in power over Chaldeans.

 

I imagine you will continue to delay and not finish your presentation and final "puzzle piece" arguments to show how this all relates to Rome, the popes and the world's end.

Delay will not help you.

Bring actual evidence and proof that Daniel actually was in Babylon and did not write this in a later period.

Do you have anything of actual physical evidence to present?

 

It is refreshing to have you finally come up with some "new issues" to take a look at rather than just parroting the ones I have already debunked.

I have taken a brief look at some of these and will point out your historical and logic errors after I finish my presentation of Daniel.

Your insistence on arguing that my interpretation of Daniel does not make sense being written by a 2nd century BC author is "just plain silly". And it does nothing to support your case or make things flow better on this topic.

Of course my interpretation does not line up with a 2nd century BC author. My interpretation is based on the early date of authorship and yours on the later. Therefore I do not continue to point out that your argument does not match up to a 5th century authorship. That would be "just plain silly".

Now I will focus on the rest of chapter 12. After that I will give my summary and point out your numerous logical and factual errors. 

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

 

How you been doin'????

TGBaker wrote:

How you been doin'????

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I am doing okay - hanging in, done with finals.  Signed up for classes next fall.  Financial aide all filled out and approved.  Submitted for SSI for my husband - who improves but very slowly. 

I trust you are doing well and your transplant is still on schedule.

 

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation til that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Vs 2. "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Vs 3. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Vs 4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.

Now I will evaluate your claims and come up with a response.

 

I'm beating the odds. I was not originally thought to make it into remission (285 white cell count). I beat the pneumonia. Monday I had a blood marrow biopsy, a pulminary, a brain cat scan, a abdomen and pelvic cat scan, 24 tubes of blood removed from my bod,  EKG, an electo cardiogram ( ultrasound of the heart), met with the psychologist, the financial folk and passed all with flying colors. I meet monday with the Doctor, the pharmacist,  the nurse who coordinates my scheduling etc.  7/28 I get the transplant froma 20 something year old male.  I should feel young again. 55% odd in my favor. Thanks for your thoughts and care.

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells....

 

 

 

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation til that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Vs 2. "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Vs 3. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Vs 4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.

Now I will evaluate your claims and come up with a response.

 

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells....

 

 

IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

 

I can't understand how someone who is "pro life" can object to stem cell research. Unless they only really care about life before it is born. Maybe they have something. Once we come out of the womb we can become real "stinkers".

Anyway science and new technologies can be really something. So glad you are benefiting from this and doing well.

 

TGBaker wrote:

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

[]

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

By he way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

Quote:

A direct command of rape? No, the writers weren't stupid enough to give the God character that line. They did, however, give a lot of examples where he condoned it - here's one.

So in Numbers 31:18 when God told the Israelites to keep the virgins for themselves after killing off a lot of Midianites, he also made the virgins magically consent to whatever was going to be done to them?

or how about the time when he performed it?

You call it the way God came to earth as a baby named Jesus (you remember him - the other god you worship?). Most sane people would call it impregnating an underage girl who gave consent not to him but to his proxy.

Then again, it's just "blogman" showing you that you are a biblical illiterate and laughing at you when others show you that you are an illiterate when it comes to history as well. I gave up showing you history when you disregarded Maccoby without disputing any of his work. 

It's hard not to laugh when someone values their own unsubstantiated opinions over actual scholarship.

 

gramster wrote:

By the way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

gadfly wrote:

A direct command of rape? No, the writers weren't stupid enough to give the God character that line. They did, however, give a lot of examples where he condoned it - here's one.

So in Numbers 31:18 when God told the Israelites to keep the virgins for themselves after killing off a lot of Midianites, he also made the virgins magically consent to whatever was going to be done to them?

or how about the time when he performed it?

You call it the way God came to earth as a baby named Jesus (you remember him - the other god you worship?). Most sane people would call it impregnating an underage girl who gave consent not to him but to his proxy.

Then again, it's just "blogman" showing you that you are a biblical illiterate and laughing at you when others show you that you are an illiterate when it comes to history as well. I gave up showing you history when you disregarded Maccoby without disputing any of his work. 

It's hard not to laugh when someone values their own unsubstantiated opinions over actual scholarship.

I have corrected your misuse of the quote function. All you have to do is count the quotes and /quotes to get this one right. PJTS can instruct you further if needed.

Yes, I am familiar with that text and its context. God was "providing" for the young women instead of allowing them to be killed or left to fend for themselves. In those times a young woman left alone was in a very bad place.

By having the Israelites integrate them in and take them as wives, they would be taken care of.

And the Jesus thing. That's just plain "stupid".

When you laugh at me I take it as a complement.

If you were to agree with me now that would be scary.