gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

The differences between how Gramps sees the kingdoms and beasts and what is really the most probable interpretation causes a split that is not reconcilable.

"Most probable?" A view that does not even fit the prophecy, or make sense is hardly the "most probable" view.

pjts wrote:

Another difference, you see a prophecy and I do not. Fortunetellers are most generally con artists. The content of Daniel is not a prophecy, it is Apocalyptic writing.

This bias of Paul John's is precisely the reason he cannot see the real meanings of the texts being discussed.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

This difference allows Gramps to slam in Rome, the popes and the RCC into a puzzle to which they do not belong.
Another major point of difference is in regard to Daniel 8:8. Here Gramps has taken a position that the verse "The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. " And the 1st part of v 9 "Out of one of them came another horn,....".

Gramps view is that the little horn comes from out of the 4 winds as opposed to one of the other horns. This is a minority view held by RCC hating denominations such as the JWs. Gramps has presented a link from one of the JW scholars that supports his view. OTOH, nearly all translation are otherwise and in the OG (Old Greek), LXX it says "and four other horns rose up in its place toward the four winds of heaven." and in v 9 "And out of one of them came forth one strong horn...". As the Septuagint is the oldest versions other than the DSS, one can't come up with the Gramps JW version without "puzzle piece fitting".

More of Paul Johns many errors and distortions of fact.

First, the view that the little horn and the acknowledgment that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for a tremendous amount of persecution in the middle ages does not make one an "RCC Hating Denomination".
If that were true Paul John would himself be guilty of being a "RCC hater" due to his acknowledgment of these horrific acts. History is History, and to acknowledge it does not make one hateful or bigoted.

Secondly, John Paul errs in calling Shea a JW. This is just plain not true.

Now regarding the interpretation of the text in v 9, winds is argued as the best fit due to word gender commonly used in the Hebrew language. I cede that it is possible, but not likely that the reference (out of one of them) could be to horns. My interpretation does not rely entirely upon this one text.

pjts wrote:

Unlike Christians that speak violently in regard to those of beliefs differing from theirs, I don't bother to hate. Their religion I can do without.

I know of the RCC's actions, I know of the actions of the German people who after my ancestors left followed a madman.

Do I hate them for their stupidity, no. I consider many of them to have been evil and many to have been deceived.

One would think that torturing people as the RCC did or killing them as the Germans did would have set off severe questioning of the validity of the commands.

Did the god or the Jesus really will it? What part of killing innocent people or looking the other way when they were detained and hauled to concentration camps did they not get.

My error, he's a 7th Day Adventist, I confused the Christian groups that hate the evil Church of Satan aka the RCC.

Once again Paul John repeats his "smoke and deception" attempt.
He is once again projecting that "Christian Groups" that acknowledge the horrific acts of the Catholic Church during the middle ages are "Catholic Haters". He is however using a double standard since his own acknowledgment of the same acts does not make him one.Paul John uses these tactics to divert attention away from the fact that his own arguments have been shown to be erroneous, and without basis.Nice try!

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

There is no basis for the claim that the little horn comes from out of the 4 winds, therefore the Rome claim is misconstrued interpretation and is not supportable.

There is just as much basis for the claim that the little horn comes from the 4 winds as there is that it comes out of one of the 4 horns. Here Paul John once again errs, and tries to mislead the reader. Unfortunately this is a common  tactic he uses throughout this discussion.

pjts wrote:

Nope.

Now here's an argument that one can hardly debate.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps will not concede this error and consequently continues to slam Rome in as a piece where it does not belong. It's not like this is not further explained in the interpretation:

No error has been shown to exist. Only unsupported accusations, based upon erroneous facts.

pjts wrote:

See. He searched hard and wide to find a way to justify Rome being pulled out of thin air. And he found it with Shea.

Once again Paul John is attempting to avoid actually discussing the text by making accusations, and implying that my interpretation is thereby invalid.

As Paul John will recall. This point actually came from a careful inspection of the actual text. Something I still have yet to see him do.

gramster wrote:

pjts #745 wrote:

Also consider Daniel 8:22-23(NIV)- which makes it clear that it is a king from one of the kingdoms, not a new kingdom from across the 4 winds as you claim.
"The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.  23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise."

pjts wrote:

So, if we are talking about Rome, who does this mean? If we are talking about the Seleucid's, it's clear it is Antiochus IV.

It looks like Alzheimer's has really set in, and Paul John has completely lost his memory. I have repeatedly shown that the words used for kings and kingdoms are used interchangeable throughout the Book of Daniel. And the same word used for kings here was used for kingdoms earlier in the book.

This text can just as properly read "a fierce kingdom". Paul John knows this, but still continues to bring up this argument to try to deceive the reader.

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.

So, what do you do. 

Sorry, wrong again. Paul John repeatedly makes this mistake. He fails to realize that this document was not written in English. Words like "he, she, him, and his" are not in the original.

I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

Once again Paul John's bias has obscured his vision.

gramster wrote:

pjts #881 wrote:

There is of course this thought you miss, if the writer of Daniel wanted to say the little horn came from the 4 winds of heaven he'd have actually had said that straight up. He did not.

What was said in the Hebrew JPS version of Daniel 8:8 was "And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up the appearance of four horns toward the four winds of heaven."
It indicates that after the great horn was broken or dead, meaning after Alexander, there came 4 other horns that appeared towards the 4 winds of heaven.

Considering this, it means the kingdom of Alexander was broken into 4 other pieces in 4 different directions. And that's what happened.Next we have the Hebrew JPS version of Daniel 8:9 - "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous land."The subject in the last part was 4 other horns not the 4 winds of heaven. Your interpretation is just strange and makes no sense at all in sentence analysis.

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either.

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.

pjts wrote:

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

I guess Paul John can't seem to get anything right. Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

See the following links, mostly Christian that do not see a little horn coming out of the winds:

http://www.truthnet.org/Daniel/Chapter8/

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=008

http://www.schooloffaith.com/_assets/files/Salvation/SH0609.pdf

Interesting that Paul John uses the argument that "most Christians" who he himself sees as deluded and confused, and believers of myths, do not share my view. This does nothing to further his arguments.

Paul John often does this when logic fails him. He uses the faulty assumption that the majority view must be right, or if he can find a "scholar" to agree with him, it makes his view valid. This is pure nonsense, and deception. This is much easier than simply coming up with a rational argument. Unless of course there is none.

pjts wrote:

I said they were mostly Christian web sites, I did not say most Christians.

Having trouble with those spectacles again?

Did the smoke you make get in your own eyes again?

"Most Christians", "Mostly Christian Websites". His point??? It does not look Paul John has one. He is still just attempting to distract and deceive rather than come up with a rational argument.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

He continues with this very obscure interpretation/translation to the end of his arguments and into his summary discussion.

Since Daniel's audience was  the Jews and written to the Jews what purpose would it serve addressing the non-existent Christians? 1 & 2 Maccabees  discuss the leaders of the rebellion, the so called stars in detail. I also love how he tried to inject the characters, James, Stephen and Paul? Tell me, where in the OT are they mentioned? And why do he throw wet twigs on the fire?  Is this to make more smoke so no one will notice his sleight of hand? The NT stories are legends for another day, adding them in will only mean he will have to prove James the Just was something other than a very observant devout Jew. He will also have to defend the Stephen legend as not being a rewrite of the Jesus character's trial as well. I think he should stick with the OT and Daniel for now, but he seems to need to go into the other myths and storytelling to support his beliefs.

Once again Paul John makes another attempt at deception by cleverly implying that my interpretation is not reasonable, because it does not fit into his unproven assumptions. That is nothing more than thinly disguised circular reasoning.

My argument included the belief in the existence of God, and upon the belief in the Jewish Messiah, and the validity of the Christian faith. For my arguments to be valid they need to fit into these parameters, not John Paul's assertions that God does not exist, The Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and that Christianity is a Myth.

Arguments and deceptions like the one above do nothing to help Paul Johns case, but do call into question his basic values and principles when it come to debating an issue.

pjts wrote:

You rely on more myths and legends for your interpretation, such as the Jesus, the story telling of Stephen and assertions in regard to James.

You wouldn't know a Jewish mashiach if he fell from the sky on top of you.

And duh, of course for your assertions to be valid you have to include further myths and legends. Though you will have to prove them as well.
Christianity is not a myth, it is developed from myths and legends.

Arguing against your assertions calls in question my values and principles?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 10.......I tried to chill however...

You're the one that keeps tossing more into the mix, Paul, James, and Stephen came from you, not me.

If you inject it, you have to be willing to prove it. You dodged this completely.

Whenever something comes up you dislike you either ignore it or resort to using the power of legitimacy, which you don't have anyway.

As to your values and principles they are far from honest. You follow Ambrose and Augustine's lead in that.

Wrong again. I guess I will have to give poor little Paul John an F on this essay. He has failed to get even one answer correct.

I simply have shown that the text here in Daniel fits hand in glove with the Jesus/Messiah as portrayed in the New Testament Scriptures. And that it does not fit into the Antiochus IV theory presented by Paul John.

The myth, legend, and sci fi lingo spewed out incessantly by Paul John are just further attempts to avoid the real issues.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

In regards to the sacrifices, the Jews would only be concerned about the Temple, not your "puzzle-piece" Christian view, as the Jews were the intended target of the book.

See above. Just more "smoke" to throw the readers off of the trail of the real facts of the case.

pjts wrote:

Just more dodging the issue on the part of Gramps.

I am not the one that has been continually trying to divert attention from the real discussion of the text. As I have shown, that is about all that Paul John has to offer.

gramster wrote:

gramps post #843 wrote:

Vs 13 the question is asked, how long will the sanctuary and host be trodden under foot.

Vs 14 the question is answered, unto 2300 days than shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Vs 15 Daniel does not understand the vision, and is seeking understanding.

Vs 16 The angel Gabriel is instructed to give Daniel understanding of the vision.

Vs 17 Gabriel tells Daniel that this vision refers to the "time of the end".

Here is what we can determine with certainty from these texts.

1. A specific time period is given for the fulfillment of this prophecy.

2. Daniel does not understand this vision.

2. This vision refers to "the time of the end".

Now from a 2nd century BC writer’s perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed. This seems to be the case.

pjts wrote:

In response I said

pjts #853 wrote:

V 13 describes a period of time you wrongly say is days, it was 2300 mornings and evenings in the text. It isn’t 2,300 years though, which would have been 1844 or so which a group of "end days" wackos in the 19th century thought as they gave away all and waited for the Jesus to return on a hill. If you have a date for the end can you leave all of your possessions to a good charity, such as the RRS, though it’s not tax deductible.

V14 says it would be sanctified in 2300 evenings and mornings, not days.

Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this.

This is just one more attempt to confuse or deceive the reader.

pjts wrote:

One more attempt by Gramps to deceive. The words were plural for one.

He wants it his way.

Wrong Again! I will rejoyce to see that day when Paul John gets just one answer right.

In the Hebrew, this is not plural. I must repeat. Maybe it will eventually sink in. This was not written in English!

Any Jew would readily understand "evening and morning" to mean one day, as in the creation account in Genesis. And any Jew would know that the "morning and evening" sacrifices are ALWAYS referred to as "morning and evening", and not "evening and morning". That is "ereb boqer" ve "boqer ereb".

Biblical texts for the sacrifices include 1 Ch 16:40, 2:4, 31:3, Ezr 3:3, 2 Ki 16:15, and 2 Ch 13:11.

Biblical texts for "evening and morning" include Gen 1:5,8, 13, 19, and 31.

No, this clearly not referring to "evening and morning" sacrifices. This is just a desperate attempt to split this 2300 day prophecy in two so that it can be puzzle fitted to apply to Antiochus IV which it does not.

The shoe does not fit. This can not be referring to Antiochus IV. 

pjts wrote:

2-Daniel was considering the visions and trying to understand them does not specifically mean he didn’t get it at all as you suggest. The text only says while he was trying to understand the vision he heard talking and Gabriel being told to tell him the meaning of the vision.

3-The vision refers to the time of the end, the end of what is the question. Later on it describes what this means in other places in various chapters and it is describing the end of persecution of the Jews or the people of the god. You assert it has to do with the end of the world and the return of the Jesus in your overall arguments.

You are guessing that this means it is a history to the end of time whereas the end of persecution fits the entire situation.  The point of the writing wasn’t for the 2nd century BCE writer to understand as he obviously did, he wrote it. No it was intended for the 2nd century BCE reader. You put too much into so little in regard to the understanding that which was discussed.

If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

pjts wrote:

If you had gotten chapter 1 right you'd not be lost by this part. You missed the boat there and have been wandering in the land of never was ever since.

Obviously I got chapter 1 right. That is why my interpretation holds up and is consistent throughout the Book of Daniel, and Paul Johns falls flat in every chapter.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps argument on Dan 8:12-14 boils down to him buying that 2300 days was not 2300 missed sacrifices based on his interpretation. In the end he sees them as years. This enables him to construct the end times in the future, being now or later on, which, however it all fits with AE IV with no creativity needed.  There is nothing else for it to fit unless you smash puzzle pieces in when they don't belong. Which you most certainly do.

As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

pjts wrote:

Much creativity required to make this be 2300 years. You have shown throughout you are creative.

Thorough yes. Creative no.

gramps #884 wrote:

I see the 2300 days as symbolic for years. That takes us down to our time. This date I see as marking the beginning of the "time of the end" or "last days of our earth's history. It is right around the time of the great industrial revolution or the modern age. After that date knowledge and technology has increased exponentially.


I also see the cleansing of the temple to refer to the heavenly temple. The one that was shown to Moses as a pattern in which to make the earthly one. This I cannot elaborate on this briefly so I won't at this time.

pjts wrote:

Here's the Gramster's whole point, the end is now. He denied being a follower of Harold Camping however.


Part of the problem is believers read the "time of the end" to be the end of the world. More on this as we go on.

I do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.


Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

pjts wrote:

Believers in the Jesus have been looking for the end of the world since Paul. He thought it would come during his life.


Trying to use writing that was addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century BCE that was Apocalyptic is one of the errors made by you.


It has nothing to do with the end of the world, it meant the "time of the end" of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.


I give you extra stars for trying though.

It seems like Paul John cannot even wrap up a post without making a gross misstatement.

This book was not addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century. If Paul John thinks it was, let him show us where this if found.

Sorry Paul John. It looks like you have gotten a 0% score on this whole post.

gramster wrote:

Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!

If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.

 

A deity that sent good creatures to a place to be tortured for eternity sure would be evil.  The alternative of taking them out of existence for eternity, painlessly, is much better.  But why doesn't your deity enact compulsory salvation?  That would be the opposite of compulsory damnation, and better than your middle ground of compulsory unconsciousness.

I don't like the part of your post where you say that atheists have chosen to not have anything to do with God.  It misrepresents most atheists.  Most people are atheists because there's no evidence of any deities.  You're implying that atheists know that there is a God, and that they have chosen to reject Him.  That's false.

So if you found out that the real interpretation of Christian scripture is that Jesus intends to send non-followers to hell, you would become an atheist?  That wouldn't make sense.  You should remain a theist at that point and realize that you're following an evil dictator.  Better yet, you could re-examine your reasons for believing in a deity in the first place.  You could be wrong.

He continues with this very obscure interpretation/translation to the end of his arguments and into his summary discussion.

Since Daniel's audience was  the Jews and written to the Jews what purpose would it serve addressing the non-existent Christians? 1 & 2 Maccabees  discuss the leaders of the rebellion, the so called stars in detail. I also love how he tried to inject the characters, James, Stephen and Paul? Tell me, where in the OT are they mentioned? And why do he throw wet twigs on the fire?  Is this to make more smoke so no one will notice his sleight of hand? The NT stories are legends for another day, adding them in will only mean he will have to prove James the Just was something other than a very observant devout Jew. He will also have to defend the Stephen legend as not being a rewrite of the Jesus character's trial as well. I think he should stick with the OT and Daniel for now, but he seems to need to go into the other myths and storytelling to support his beliefs.

Vs 13 the question is asked, how long will the sanctuary and host be trodden under foot.

Vs 14 the question is answered, unto 2300 days than shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Vs 15 Daniel does not understand the vision, and is seeking understanding.

Vs 16 The angel Gabriel is instructed to give Daniel understanding of the vision.

Vs 17 Gabriel tells Daniel that this vision refers to the "time of the end".

Here is what we can determine with certainty from these texts.

1. A specific time period is given for the fulfillment of this prophecy.

2. Daniel does not understand this vision.

2. This vision refers to "the time of the end".

Now from a 2nd century BC writer’s perspective, these texts would not make any sense. If this were referring to the acts of AE IV and written in that time period, Daniel would certainly understand the vision. What's not to understand?

On the other hand, if this was written hundreds of years earlier by a real person named Daniel. And if this Daniel were to be of the understanding that this was history given in advance down to the end of time, and if he were to understand the year for a day principle, he would certainly be both confused, and vexed. This seems to be the case.

In response I said

V 13 describes a period of time you wrongly say is days, it was 2300 mornings and evenings in the text. It isn’t 2,300 years though, which would have been 1844 or so which a group of "end days" wackos in the 19th century thought as they gave away all and waited for the Jesus to return on a hill. If you have a date for the end can you leave all of your possessions to a good charity, such as the RRS, though it’s not tax deductible.

V14 says it would be sanctified in 2300 evenings and mornings, not days.

Here you err once again. It does not take much of a Bible scholar to realize that the phrase "evening and morning" refers to a day, as in the creation story and throughout the OT. The Jewish day has always started in the evening at sunset, and was commonly refer ed to as an evening and a morning.

The twice daily sacrifices, however are referred to as "morning and evening" sacrifices. The first offered in the morning, and the second in the evening. Some scholars try to make this text refer to the sacrifices. But that does not work due to the text putting evening first.

No this can not be referring to 2300 half days. An evening and a morning was simply the common way of saying one day. Every Jew would immediately understand this. [/quote[

pjts wrote:

One more attempt by Gramps to deceive. The words were plural for one.

He wants it his way.

gramps wrote:

Wrong. In the Hebrew, this is not plural. I must repeat. This was not written in English!

Any Jew would readily understand "evening and morning" to mean one day, as in the creation account in Genesis. And any Jew would know that the "morning and evening" sacrifices are ALWAYS referred to as "morning and evening", and not "evening and morning". That is "ereb boqer" vs "boqer ereb".

Biblical texts for the sacrifices include 1 Ch 16:40, 2:4, 31:3, Ezr 3:3, 2 Ki 16:15, and 2 Ch 13:11.

Biblical texts for "evening and morning" include Gen 1:5,8, 13, 19, and 31.

No, this clearly not referring to "evening and morning" sacrifices. This is just a desperate attempt to split this 2300 day prophecy in two so that it can be puzzle fitted to apply to Antiochus IV which it does not.

The shoe does not fit. This can not be referring to Antiochus IV. 

pjts wrote:

As I pointed out many times, if you wish to twist the text to be that which it is not, nothing is clear or concise. That you see it that way is your problem, not mine.

And why do you think it was all written in Hebrew?

Oh yeah, you have the original copy.

Well don't just sit on it, get on Fox News with it. Headline : -  Gramps discovered the original copy of Daniel at a Garage Sale"

Please try to use reason and common sense. No, I do not have the "original copy", but copies in the original Hebrew, and Arabic do exist. It is from the Lexicons that provide the original words, and their literal meanings that I get my information.

If you can find a reputable language scholar that states that these words "evenings and mornings" are of the plural form in the original language please post a link. If you can find where the "morning and evening" sacrifices are referred to the "evening and morning" sacrifices please post the text. 

Really, I am trying to be nice about this. But I must insist that we discuss the issues in an adult and rational manner.  

gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

2-Daniel was considering the visions and trying to understand them does not specifically mean he didn’t get it at all as you suggest. The text only says while he was trying to understand the vision he heard talking and Gabriel being told to tell him the meaning of the vision.

3-The vision refers to the time of the end, the end of what is the question. Later on it describes what this means in other places in various chapters and it is describing the end of persecution of the Jews or the people of the god. You assert it has to do with the end of the world and the return of the Jesus in your overall arguments.

You are guessing that this means it is a history to the end of time whereas the end of persecution fits the entire situation.  The point of the writing wasn’t for the 2nd century BCE writer to understand as he obviously did, he wrote it. No it was intended for the 2nd century BCE reader. You put too much into so little in regard to the understanding that which was discussed.

If you had gotten chapter 7 right, you wouldn't be lost in this part of the woods to begin with. It is clear from reading chapter 7 that this parallel vision is referring to times far distant into the future from the 2nd century BC. Not to mention that Antiochus IV does not fit the text as I have clearly shown.

gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

If you had gotten chapter 1 right you'd not be lost by this part. You missed the boat there and have been wandering in the land of never was ever since.

Obviously I got chapter 1 right. That is why my interpretation holds up and is consistent throughout the Book of Daniel, and Paul Johns falls flat in every chapter.

Not hardly, as you have been lost throughout. You started wrong and have duped yourself into believing something that is not true.

You are welcome to do that, enjoy your visit in the land of fantasy.

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps argument on Dan 8:12-14 boils down to him buying that 2300 days was not 2300 missed sacrifices based on his interpretation. In the end he sees them as years. This enables him to construct the end times in the future, being now or later on, which, however it all fits with AE IV with no creativity needed.  There is nothing else for it to fit unless you smash puzzle pieces in when they don't belong. Which you most certainly do.

As I have shown, the 2300 days can not refer to "missed sacrifices", and the 2300 days or 6 1/3 years cannot refer to the actions of AE IV. It takes a great amount of creativity, skewed facts, and even deception to try to make the case for Antiochus. The end time view needs no special construction. A simple reading of the text of chapter 7 and 8 brings to mind the biblical descriptions of the end times, and 2nd coming of the Lord.

pjts wrote:

Much creativity required to make this be 2300 years. You have shown throughout you are creative.

Thorough yes. Creative no.

Well that was the only points I thought you deserved. Thorough self deception perhaps.

gramster wrote:

gramps #884 wrote:

I see the 2300 days as symbolic for years. That takes us down to our time. This date I see as marking the beginning of the "time of the end" or "last days of our earth's history. It is right around the time of the great industrial revolution or the modern age. After that date knowledge and technology has increased exponentially.


I also see the cleansing of the temple to refer to the heavenly temple. The one that was shown to Moses as a pattern in which to make the earthly one. This I cannot elaborate on this briefly so I won't at this time.

pjts wrote:

Here's the Gramster's whole point, the end is now. He denied being a follower of Harold Camping however.


Part of the problem is believers read the "time of the end" to be the end of the world. More on this as we go on.

I do not believe "the end is now". I do believe however, we are in the time period described as "the last days". A time when "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase". (Dan 12:4) One cannot possible fail to recognize how well this fits our time. Knowledge is increasing exponentially, and with air travel we are "running to and fro" over the face of our earth like an ant swarm over an abandoned beehive.


Sorry, it is not my views that have to be constructed to fit. And I am not the one having to skew facts and deceive.

You have interpolated that which is not there starting with chapter 1. You only get worse as you go.

Skewing the facts would be too nice a word for the deceptions you promote.

JcGadfly had your number early on.

 

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Believers in the Jesus have been looking for the end of the world since Paul. He thought it would come during his life.


Trying to use writing that was addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century BCE that was Apocalyptic is one of the errors made by you.


It has nothing to do with the end of the world, it meant the "time of the end" of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.


I give you extra stars for trying though.

This book was not addressed to the Jews of the 2nd century. If Paul John thinks it was, let him show us where this if found.

The content of the book of Daniel that you misunderstand makes it clear that it is addressed to the Jews.

I didn't know we were grading posts. If so, you have scored 0% in this entire threrad.

And Gramps, it looks like you get a 0% score on life. But that's none of my business, you are entitled to throw it away believing in fantasy.

Are you done yet with expounding how virtous and perfect you are?

If so continue to the rest of my comments on the other chapters

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

I tend to get "snarky" when people start consistently avoiding the discussion of the topic, and instead try to divert the discussion by making unrelated sidetracks like the "Catholic Haters", "God myth stuff", etc. If you can find it within

yourself to actually stick to the topic, and discuss the issues at hand, I will certainly be more amiable.

I have attempted to remove the snarky comments, and cut things back to the issue and discussions about the text. Here's the first part. Maybe we can start again, and stick to relevant discussion.

So do I when someone injects unwarranted assertions such as you have been doing. That you don't see them that way is the problem.

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.
So, what do you do. 

Here we need some clarification. How does the "context argue against my view"? Please elaborate on this.


I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

In my last post to you on this I told you to go on Fox News with the"Original".
What original? Please explain your claim.

As far as I know there is no such thing as an original for this text. As I indicated, if you found it you will be famous.

Please explain this first on what you mean.

It is not known for certain how much of Daniel was written in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original document by the author(s). There are claims that the 1st half was all in Aramaic, and there are claims it was all in Aramaic.

That you claim to "look up" in the "original" is not true. No one knows what the "original" actually was.

pjts #881 wrote:

There is of course this thought you miss, if the writer of Daniel wanted to say the little horn came from the 4 winds of heaven he'd have actually had said that straight up. He did not.

What was said in the Hebrew JPS version of Daniel 8:8 was "And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up the appearance of four horns toward the four winds of heaven."
It indicates that after the great horn was broken or dead, meaning after Alexander, there came 4 other horns that appeared towards the 4 winds of heaven.

Considering this, it means the kingdom of Alexander was broken into 4 other pieces in 4 different directions. And that's what happened.Next we have the Hebrew JPS version of Daniel 8:9 - "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous land."The subject in the last part was 4 other horns not the 4 winds of heaven. Your interpretation is just strange and makes no sense at all in sentence analysis.

gramps wrote:

Are you implying that the Hebrew language uses the same rules and syntax that our English language does? Even if this is true, the sentence can refer to either. Both horns and winds were included on the previous line of text. Either can just as easily be the one referenced. I went to ancienthebrew.org and asked specifically about this verse, and got the answer that the author could be referring to either.

Shea points out that a word gender study points out that winds is the best fit. I will still allow the possibility that the author erred slightly here, and was referring to horns.

pjts wrote:

And Cowles argues against it. As did SR Driver and many others.

gramps wrote:

Neither Cowles, Driver, or any other scholar to my knowledge has made any argument against the word gender issue pointed out by Shea. I asked Paul John to name just one scholar who addresses this word gender issue that does not agree with Shea, and he has failed completely to find just one.

pjts wrote:

You actually ought to read what they had to say before you stick your entire leg in your mouth.

You claimed you did read Cowles back when we discussed this section, so you either lied about that then or you have extreme memory loss.

I gave you the reference back then, but since you have extreme Alzheimer's go to pp 374-375 to see what Cowles said. And go to pp 114 for SR Driver.

Cowles indicates,this in regard to the verse in question , "Thrace and Macedon were the nucleus of the European and Western section; Asia Minor, stretching to the Euxine and the Caspian, north as to Palestine, pushed its empire to India, and became really the eastern and great Asiatic portion; while Egypt became the center for the southern section, "towards the 4 winds of heaven" describes their location__Of these 4 the Jews stood in close relation to only Egypt on the south and Syria on the north. from pp 374-375.

If he agreed with you and your inaccurate deciphering, he'd not have said this.

There's more, in his writing you have claimed to have read, if you ever did. Though it could be your ancient age,  losing brain cells in an exponential manner every day.

Yes, I have read this, and I am fully aware that they do not share my views on Daniel. But, the issue is whether they have addressed specifically the word gender issue relating to whether the text was referring to "winds or horns". And the answer is they did not.

All you have done here is find scholars that agree with you. Anyone can do that. That is not a valid argument. I am waiting for you to prove that this text does or can not refer to "winds".

As have you.

pjts wrote:

See the following links, mostly Christian that do not see a little horn coming out of the winds:

http://www.truthnet.org/Daniel/Chapter8/

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=008

http://www.schooloffaith.com/_assets/files/Salvation/SH0609.pdf

Once again, we are not counting who agrees with us, but evaluating the text for ourselves. At least that is what I am doing.  

You are certainly doing exactly that, using others views such as with Shea and your use of Strong's.

Since this is tax season and I'm an office manager for a tax prep company my responses may take longer right now.

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This refers to me putting up with your snarky comments.

Much more and you can go play with yourself.

I tend to get "snarky" when people start consistently avoiding the discussion of the topic, and instead try to divert the discussion by making unrelated sidetracks like the "Catholic Haters", "God myth stuff", etc. If you can find it within

yourself to actually stick to the topic, and discuss the issues at hand, I will certainly be more amiable.

I have attempted to remove the snarky comments, and cut things back to the issue and discussions about the text. Here's the first part. Maybe we can start again, and stick to relevant discussion.

pjts wrote:

So do I when someone injects unwarranted assertions such as you have been doing. That you don't see them that way is the problem.

 

My "unwarranted assertions" simply boil down to my "assertion" that this book is just what it claims to be. A book containing prophecy. That being relevant powers foretold before they came into existence. I do not find that it is unwarranted to interpret a book as being just what it claims to be. Unless of course you do not believe in God.

That is your problem. You are insisting upon using circular reasoning every time you object to my interpretation on the basis that you do not believe in God, therefore you don't believe in prophecy.

Your insistence upon using this invalid and deceptive tactic does nothing but waste time, and distract from the main issue under discussion.

I wish you would stop doing this. I am trying to be nice.

gramster wrote:

pjts wrote:

Yes the author did use one or the other, but the context argues against your view in this instance.
So, what do you do. 

Here we need some clarification. How does the "context argue against my view"? Please elaborate on this.


I looked up the words in their original. We find words like "fierce, strong, mighty, cleaver, intelligent, skilled, powerful, numerous, great, extraordinary, destroy, and numerous". These words can apply to a mighty Empire just as easily as to one individual king.
Actually the Roman Empire fits these descriptive words much better than Antiochus IV does.

pjts wrote:

In my last post to you on this I told you to go on Fox News with the"Original".
What original? Please explain your claim.

As far as I know there is no such thing as an original for this text. As I indicated, if you found it you will be famous.

Please explain this first on what you mean.

It is not known for certain how much of Daniel was written in Aramaic or Hebrew in the original document by the author(s). There are claims that the 1st half was all in Aramaic, and there are claims it was all in Aramaic.

That you claim to "look up" in the "original" is not true. No one knows what the "original" actually was.

If it makes you happy, "the earliest documents that are available for scholars of today to examine".

The translators of the Bibles that we have today relied upon these early documents. They also made many judgment calls based upon bias and assumptions. I find it best to go back to an actual word for word translation of these early texts to find out just what the author was saying.

Your "rant" about "the original" is nothing more than one more "smoke screen" in attempts to distract from the issues I bring up, and to avoid my arguments, and the problems with your own.

 

The text in any of our English translations, as well as in the original language used in the earliest copies of Daniel in existence today can refer to either winds or horns. You have not made ANY logical argument to show that this is not the case. No NONE! You are still just "pooping around" on this issue. 

gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

See the following links, mostly Christian that do not see a little horn coming out of the winds:

http://www.truthnet.org/Daniel/Chapter8/

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=008

http://www.schooloffaith.com/_assets/files/Salvation/SH0609.pdf

Once again, we are not counting who agrees with us, but evaluating the text for ourselves. At least that is what I am doing.  

pjts wrote:

You are certainly doing exactly that, using others views such as with Shea and your use of Strong's.

Since this is tax season and I'm an office manager for a tax prep company my responses may take longer right now.

I am going back to the earliest source available. Strong's is considered universally among language scholars to be a good and reliable source. If you have a better one please let me know. If you have any reputable source of information that casts doubt on the reliability or accuracy of Strong's please let me know.

I wish, just once, we could actually discuss an issue without having to spend a lot of time "blowing away the smoke" that is continually pouring out of your """"".

This is just one more unnecessary smoke screen to keep from having to actually address the content of the text.

If you really had an interpretation that made sense, you would not be reverting to such evasive tactics. It is obvious from your continuing to do this that you do not have anything that is supportable. 

                         This post has been going on for 18 months,  and this is my first post.       DID YOU HERE      PATRIOTS   45   BRONCOS  10; no one is tebowing tonight.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Good for war and sports.

The Broncos at least made it to the playoffs and won a game before they got sent home.

24 other teams sat home this week with no work as they were out.

Anyway, good luck to your Patriots

I'm actually a fan of Tebow. I think he is a great athlete, but sucks as a QB.

I'm extremely happy that we won't be seeing a "Cinderella Bowl" this year. I'd rather see some really good teams play rather than a team getting lucky the last three weeks of the season.

 

                         This post has been going on for 18 months,  and this is my first post.       DID YOU HERE      PATRIOTS   45   BRONCOS  10; no one is tebowing tonight.

 

Play fair?

You made claims and showed no proof.

You make general statements in regard to Rome and don't support them.

You refuse to analyze your position by showing how each claim for Rome and the popes fit the details in the text.

Play fair?

Follow debate rules?

I wish you would when asked to show your proof and details.

Your claim that Rome fits is essential to your argument. You make general claims and refuse to show how they fit beyond a general way.

 

gramster wrote:

I would have gotten to Rome, the Popes, and the Powers of Western Europe long ago, if you had simply played fair, and followed reasonable rules for debating. 

You went through your presentation one chapter at a time. The first go through you didn't present the details in how Rome fit.

It is there you should have put up the supposed detailed evidence how each verse fit Rome and the popes.

You didn't.

The 2nd go through in your summaries, you still didn't present your detailed explanation.

You made claims and brought nothing forward to show they relate.

IOW, as related to your comparison to a court case, you made many charges and presented nothing at all related to them.

A court would dismiss the case.

It was on you as the one making the claim or the charge to bring forth proof.

You have not.

What would be the point of my trying to discuss the more complicated later chapters in Daniel with someone who is incapable of actually discussing the text, and addressing my arguments without injecting circular reasoning at every step along the way?

What would be the point of continuing to try to have a rational discussion with someone who even argues against the need for an interpretation to make sense.

I have come to this site for more than one reason. One purpose was to find out just what kind of arguments atheists actually have, and how they think. We'll I guess I have gotten my answer.

I take it you have decided to call it quits on this discussion.

No problem, it has been beat to pieces sufficiently.

I wish you well in your endeavors.

Live long and prosper Gramps.

It appears that Paul John is unwilling to discuss the Book of Daniel, or probably any other subject without being allowed to inject circular reasoning consistently into the discussion.

It also appears that is the only way that he can keep from having to face the obvious.

Otherwise he would not have to revert to such dishonest debating practices.

It is very sad that he has made this choice. I would have enjoyed havingg this discussion with someone with his knowledge base if they were interested in fair and reasonable debating practices.

Since Paul John seems to be the best this site has to offer. And since he is incapable of disputing my claims without injecting circular reasoning, and other deceptive practices, I must conclude that there remains no viable alternative to my original assertion.

That being that the Book of Daniel is indeed just what it claims to be. It is prophecy written well before the events foretold.

On this site I have not "proved" definitively that.

What I have proved is that nobody on this site is capable of demonstrating otherwise. No one on this site has been capable of coming up with a reasonable argument against my original claims.

What I consider to be a reasonable argument is one that "makes sense", and does not use "circular reasoning" in attempts to deceive the reader.

Gramps

I am curious if the Book of Revelation and the book of Daniel can be harmonized ?

Hi Gramps  I have a horrible cold, not knowing why I came over.  It makes it hard to think. From what I see, I feel you are getting battered and bruised. Can I ask a honestly kinder and gentler question ? A bit self-indulgent, maybe your empathic nature will allow it ?  No?  I am curious if the Book of Revelation and the book of Daniel can be harmonized ? I admitted ask this due to the fact you wish to speak on the book of Daniel which narrows the subject matter to a ridiculous tiny amount to information.  Wanting to know the future is a very old desire. . The problem with man is he is 'too cleaver'. We all must be on guard against seeing patterns in things that might not be so.      Shermer defines patternicity as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise." The Believing Brain thesis also says that we have "the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency", Biblical texts contain a knowledge originally not spoken of outside of very limited circles. So, I dont think you know what a departure this thread is to most of the rest of the forum. Can you answer me in suggesting your thinking on what I posed to you. Whatever .. Thank you.  Oh, Do not forget my questions about the books .