Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Offline Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.
Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. 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.
Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.
- Login to post comments
Offline It seems like this can be summed up in two statements.
Gramster, freeminer (and other apologists) - "The prophecy has to be about the Roman Empire. If it isn't, it's not a prophecy and we need it to be a prophecy"
pjts, myself and other scholars - "why does it have to be a prophecy at all?"
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline gramster wrote:pauljohntheskeptic wrote:gramster wrote:~ripped out many quotes that are tedious and long that you can go back and read if you really want. ~.................................
I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.
I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.
You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.
As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.
As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.
As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.
As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.
SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!
OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.
YOUR CHOICE.
1- Yes you have been constant in your fervent beliefs.
2-I'll get to Daniel 7 eventually, but y'all make it difficult what with all y'all's avoidance of the credibility of the writer of Daniel. Tell me y'all buy into all of the Sci-Fi and why y'all do.
3-Your claim in regards to the kingdoms that are still around again leaves out many countries and I'll go back and grab it and show you a few problem and ask a few questions as to why some countries are bothered to be on the list and why others are not.
Gramps post #356 wrote:
The 10 horns and the little horn play an important role in identifying this 4th beast. Helpfully, Daniel is given an explanation specifically addressing these horns.
Daniel 7:23-25 "...the fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom...the ten horns are ten kings who shall rise from this kingdom. And another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the most high, shall persecute the saints...intend to change times and law...the saints shall be given into his hand for a time times and half a time".
Identifying points of the 4th beast:
1. An exceedingly great and powerful kingdom.
2. Had ten kings arise out of its dominion.
3. Had another power arise out of these 10 kingdoms after them that would speak pompous words against God, shall persecute the saints for a time times and half a time, and intend to change times and laws.
The only major kingdom following Greece (or Macedonia) that fits this mold is Rome. Rome was not conquered by a single power, or even an alliance of powers. The Goths or Germanic tribes began moving in and breaking up the Roman empire. These tribes became major nations of Western Europe that still exist today.
Anglo-Saxons became England
Franks became France
Burgundians became Switzerland
Visigoths became Spain
Alamanni became Germany
Suevi became Portugal
Lombards became Italy
Heruli destroyed completely AD 493
Vandals destroyed completely AD 534
Ostrogoths destroyed completely AD 538
These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.
Next we will go further into the identifying points of the little horn. This will give us further details helping to confirm Rome as the 4th beast of Daniel 7. After that I will consider any alternate kingdom suggested as this 4th beast and see if it can possibly fit this prophecy.
1- England is composed of Celts, Anglo-Saxons & Normans
2-France is composed of Franks, Celts, Latins, and some Alamans
3- Switzerland is comprised of Burgandians, Celts, Franks, various Germanic tribes - Why do you bother with this one?
4- Spain is not only comprised of Visigoths but also Moors, and Basques
5-Germany is not only of the Alamannis but also Franks, Saxons and other tribes
6-Portugal is comprised of not just Suevi but earlier by Celts, later by some Visigoths and of course the Moors - Please explain how this one has any importance?
7-Italy is a diversity not just Lombards obviously Latins, Ostrogoths, Greeks especially in the coastal city states.
8-I'm not even sure why you have the Heruli on the list at all. Can you explain?
9-Vandals were clearly not killed to the last person, and most integrated with the Berbers in Northern Algeria, though their kingdom did end. Many others were incorporated into the Byzantine Army. So what's the point of this one?
10-The Ostrogoths after their defeat in Italy mainly resettled in Austria. You don't list Austria but you mention the Ostrogoths, why?
So then the question is where are all of these countries:
1-Greece
2-Turkey (Ottoman Empire)
3-Austria
4-Hungary
5-Poland
6-The Scandinavian countries
7-Egypt
8-Saudi Arabia - surely the god would know about "black gold"
9-Russia - one of the largest & sometimes powerful countries
So, why have defunct tribes that assimilated into other territories and ignore places like Russia and Saudi Arabia? Doesn't work with you prophetic interpretation?
4- I haven't opened the door as of yet on the pope dictators yet. And I most definitely haven't said anything in regard to the EU
There is not a need to type in large letters unless you have lost your spectacles.
Finally at last you are at least giving me something. Thank You! I don't like to have to get so unpleasant but it is that important. Now we can get back to discussing the prophecies.
I never really started as I was awaiting verification that y'all bought into the magic and Sci-fi.
Gramps wrote:As for the credibility of Daniel, it looks like freeminer is doing a good job with the history part. He has also pointed out, once again, as both of us have before, the credibility lies in the fulfillment of prophecy.
History does not prove fantasy and magic, though I note you agree with his opinions.
Gramps wrote:Yes, many countries that were part of the Roman Empire, or arouse out of it were left out of this prophecy.
To say the least.
Gramps wrote:The text seems to be referring to 10 kingdoms that arouse from this Empire for some particular reason. It would be logical in moving forward to keep this in mind and discover the reason for this.
I'm all ears.
Gramps wrote:I mentioned the Heruli because they were a Gothic tribe that became a kingdom, and were destroyed. This fits into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The reason I chose those particular kingdoms will be apparent further along.
Please don't forget to show why you bothered with them and not others, further along.
Gramps wrote:The point I am making now is that the Roman Empire and no other fits this prophecy as the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7.
You have been put on record you think the 4th kingdom is Rome.
Gramps wrote:The Vandals existed in some form as a kingdom 335 to 534 AD. After that they completely disappeared as a distinct ethnic unit. The prophecy did not make any statement about not a single person surviving.
And you will also explain why you think this group has any merit too, right?
Gramps wrote:The Ostrogoth's kingdom existed from about 493 to 553 AD. With some "rallies" after that. After their final defeat in about 562 AD the Ostrogoth name "wholly" died out. The survivors did go back and resettle in Austria, but their kingdom was no more.
I know, that's what I said, don't trust me? Don't forget to include the reasons for including this one too.
Gramps wrote:The prophecy refers to a major power following "Greece" that would not be conquered by or followed by another single major power. Once again I use the term "Greece" because it is the term used in the text. Out of this kingdom would arise 10 kingdoms specifically mentioned. Three of these kingdoms would be destroyed. The other 7 would endure until the coming of the kingdom of God. The territory of that kingdom (the Roman Empire) would not "ever" be united under one kingdom again.
At what point do you define the territory of the Roman Empire? Pick a year or decade.
The 10 kingdoms you picked earlier then are based or them being current today.
An error has occured in your choice of Germany.
The territory of Germany was not in the Roman Empire. See - http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html
And see - http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t27.html
It has been over 2300 years since that prophecy was given. This prophecy still stands. The Roman Empire, and it alone fits this description. Man could not have known this would happen. Only God could know that. Therefore the bible is not the construct of man. It is indeed divine.
Then god has made some errors.
As for verification of the "sci-fi" stuff, I take it you are referring to the historicity of Daniel. We discussed that and found that there were some issues that were questionable, but not impossible to resolve. My position was that the proof of the authenticity of Daniel was in the fulfillment of prophecy. So that's where we are now. So let's keep the focus and not stray back until we finish examining the prophecies.
Technically, a country that arouse out of the territories of the Roman Empire could include any part of that Empire from any decade.
One of the criteria I used in picking those particular 10 is yes, they are still with us today.
Yes, my position in Daniel 7 is that the Roman Empire is the 4th kingdom.
Germany? The first site states strongly that Germany was one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire. The second site talks about a 1st invasion of German territories?
Whether you use the countries that I have listed, or substitute others at this point it does not matter. The point I am making now is that Rome, and only Rome fits this prophecy. I am still waiting for your substitute.
In examining prophecy it is important to build a solid base methodically. One can not correctly identify a later power until the earlier ones are well established. For example Rome follows "Greece". Knowing which country Rome follows is very important. If we had no idea what Empire the Roman Empire followed it would be much harder to identify.
For this reason we are "hung up" on establishing the Roman Empire as you claim there are many interpretations but have not yet given me one.
I am still waiting.
- Login to post comments
It's also stacked with evidence of an Egyptian civilization that, according to the Bible, should have been underwater.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No, of course Christianity wouldn't kick someone out for doubting. But according to the creators of this site, one could by their definition be a Christian Atheist. I believe they did this to win "converts" by default and thus deserve to have that definition "mocked".
Are you getting hung up on agnostic v. atheist?
Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism.
I think that agnostic atheist and agnostic theist are the extremes of the scale. I don't believe anyone can really know for sure one way or the other.
Knowledge eliminates the need for belief. It can also be articulated so it is understood by all.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Not long ago you were "stumping" strongly for proper use of critical analysis. Now you seem to have completely lost the will or ability to use it yourself.
Your assertion that if God knew the vastness of the earth He would have included it in these prophecies is completely irrational. Since God was communicating with Jews about events that would be relevant to them, why would He waste time and space giving a world history lesson. Especially since the prophecies would have to be hand copied down through the ages.
Your insistence that these prophecies include, or should include more than just an "itty bitty slice" of world history just shows your ignorance, or reluctance to face the facts.
You can keep harping about China and the Western Hemisphere all you want. It just shows your gross stupidity, or at least desperation.
Tell me how starting with "These are prophecies written by God himself" constitutes critical analysis.
It's more like "I have a conclusion and I'm going to support it. Damn the evidence against it!"
Oh, just looking at the wiki tells me that no scholar save for Christian apologists lists Rome as the last kingdom. I wonder why...
Perhaps because it wasn't and the Rome fears came from nervousness about the common market (and now the EU) and paranoia about one of the Popes being the anti-Christ?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Still waiting for you to even attempt its use.
Are you suggesting the god of the Jews had no idea there was more to the world?
If these "prophecies " are only relevant to the Jews, then it is inappropriate to stretch them to include the rest of the world and try to puzzle piece fit them to the "end times" or latter days which include it.
If you attempt to interpolate these "prophecies" to include the rest of the world outside of the world of the Jews later on as in the "end times" you do so in contradiction to your stated assumption they only apply to the Jews.
Making excuses for your god's inadequacies now?
Funny the Hindus managed to hand down extremely long versions of their stories.
If the rest of the world isn't in these prophecies, how can you suddenly conclude they should be and stretch it to include the rest of the world in the end times scenario it supposedly sets up?
Are you being inconsistent in order to promote your interpretation?
Have I made comments in regards to your level of intelligence? When you start name calling it doesn't help your case. Do you throw out courtesy suddenly when you have no answer and resort to desperate statements?
Yes or no, do you construe these Daniel prophecies to set up the "end times" scenario that includes all of the world?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Fine, I'll just reply to you the same way and let you sift through the maze too. I was hoping you'd want to try to be a bit more organized, but that's too much to ask I guess.
No, it just means you'll have to sift through the maze yourself.
Actually, I do recognize they also were a major center for olive oil production as well.
Who has more nuclear weapons today, China or Israel?
If you think the State of Israel of today has any resemblance to the land mentioned in the ancient writing you are quoting you are mistaken.
Please feel free to support from secular sources (meaning other than the Bible) the Moses' stories and all the details. You did mention you believe in all the "fun things".
Please also show that Ezra didn't do for the Jews as Homer did for the Greeks.
Daniel probably also had ignorance in regard to the masking of substrates in multiple layer ICs. So, yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge to properly design a custom hybrid IC. And yes I'm saying he lacked the knowledge in regard to what the "entire world" encompassed.
You and Gramps have taken the position that the prophecies of Daniel were aimed at the Jews. That being so, interpolating them to include the rsst of the world for the "end times" is unrealistic as events elsewhere in history are ignored as they aren't pertinent to the Jews. But suddenly y'all want to apply the prophecies to include all the world after y'all claim it is only for the Jews. Apparently the rest of the world is just pawns to be used by the god.
In the above case I refer to the larger group of the people who followed the lead of the priests. It can also be said of the ancient pagans that consided Zeus, Enki, Ra, or Odin as gods. Though the Vikings weren't "goat herders".
Preaching gets no answer.
Again, taking prophecies of the Jews, that in your words " as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel." then using them to include the rest of the world which is ignored in the assumption is inappropriate. It assumes the rest of the world was of no importance until the "end times" when they are used to fufill the "god's" desires.
Funny, I missed it in Daniel, but wait you said it wasn't included, "as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel."
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Well maybe not currently, but the Church did burn, torture or otherwise dispose of anyone in the past that doubted the "true doctrine" of the "Church".
Oh yeah, that was the Catholics, they clearly weren't Christian like you were they?
And of course, the Church never did torture, burn or execute anyone, it was the secular authoriities that did, right?
You had a personal interview with one of the founders of RRS?
Please detail that conversation.
Otherwise, what is posted on this site under this thread - http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
suggests that is not so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
You could stretch the point......
But it is a stretch since cattle were their livestock of choice.
I was the one who probably started the goat herder thing. It was not intended as a put down, but rather a statement of reality. Olive, onion, grain and grape farmers, goat herders, my point was this society could not understand geology, ecology, evolution, astronomy, genetics, physics, chemistry, and all the other pieces that make up our understanding of the world. They didn't have the tools - microscopes, telescopes mounted on satellites, and so on and so forth.
God: "Hey Joshua, I want you to write the history of my creation. 13 billion years ago..."
Joshua: "Excuse me. How many is a billion?"
God: "Never mind. I started with abiogenesis and created proteins, RNA, DNA, prions, viruses, then bacteria...."
Joshua: "Excuse me. What?"
God: "Never mind. I created the heavens and earth in six days. Okay?"
Joshua: "Got it."
It's not that Joshua was stupid or that he was unsophisticated or uneducated for his time. But when discussing what the bible says, what it means, we need to never forget what was known in that time and place about the world around them. And to never assume that what was an adequate explanation of the world for those farmers and goat herders can be applied to our world today. There may be bits that are applicable, there may be some that has some vague connection to history. You may find some of the passages comforting or beautiful. But the people who wrote the bible had no idea of the real size of their world and basic science. And that goes for the New Testament as well as the old.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
the "goat- herder" thing is common across forums. The Bible does not set out to be a scientific text book. Why would it? It deals with the totality of human experience ......something atheists conspicuously avoid when they come on forums. The issue is whether it is accurate when it touches on those things which science is concerned with. Thus you must make up your own mind how those goat-herders knew about the 'fountains of the deep' or the 'circle of the earth' or that God, 'stretched out the heavens like fabric'.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
back this with evidence.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I have replied to pertinent points in order. We await your scenarios.
Does this mean we won't be treated to your own paradigms backed by "evidence"? What a shame! I'm sure gramps was looking forward to it as much as I was.
well gramps and I are gonna be really glum if you aren't forthcoming!
what has this got to do with the price of eggs? We all have enough.......and anyway Israel doesn't have any.......remember?!
did I even imply this?..........do you have reason to suspect that God isn't up to speed?
please feel free to explain on what rational basis you draw a dichotomy between Biblical and other history.
isn't Ezra a bit late for you to start propping up your thesis? Do you mean Ezra wrote a fictional history and no-one noticed? Don't you think the existence of the Second Temple would have been a bit of a giveaway?!
aaah!..........so to you everyone is "ignorant" who is not also omniscient! And where do you stand in all this?! Do we have reason to think that Daniel's world encompassed any ICs?..........don't you think the abacus might have fallen out of favour?!
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."
no we haven't. I used the word "initially"
except that the Bible itself tells you that prophecy has the end times in view.
where did either of us claim this?
no, you have a choice........remember?
neither does reasoned argument apparently!
God used a nation of his choosing to bring the opportunity of salvation to a world which had alienated itself from him. Sorry that doesn't seem inclusive to you.
well, one minute you're complaining that God used a single nation and the next you're trying to argue that the end times shouldn't include the whole world! The Bible says what it says whether we like it or not.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
for precisely the same reason you don't like the idea.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Because Rome as the last kingdom is incorrect? Because it doesn't fit the prophecy?
Because of a reason in your head?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
First, I never have started with "these are prophecies written by God himself". I have always held that we are looking at these prophecies to see if there is evidence that they were written by God.
Second, I have supported my view with history. This is something you have yet to do with an alternate view.
Third, I have never claimed that the last kingdom is Rome. The last kingdom in these prophecies is the kingdom of God.
As for the Popes and the EU, I have made no claims at all. I do not go forward and discuss more detailed prophecies until the much simpler and basic ones have been examined. So far you are still trying to stick China in there. Show me how this fits into critical analysis.
First, of course I am not suggesting that God had no knowledge about the rest of the world. I can find no logical reason why God would be revealing events in China to the Jews of the 6th or even 3rd century BC. If you have one please let me know.
As for trying to make the later prophecies include the rest of the world, I have not. Once again you are arguing with yourself. Not with me.
As for keeping these prophecies short, it just makes sense. I'm sure God knew that people like you would go way out on a limb to try to twist and distort these for their own purposes. I wouldn't suppose He would have wanted to give you more to do that with than necessary. I guess the ancient Hindus were not quite as wise as God in this respect.
Once again, how can I be inconsistent in my interpretation by saying something that I have not said?
As far as statements about intelligence, and name calling, that is simply a means of pointing out the absurdity of your argument. You know how I feel about people just "farting around" in the middle of a discussion. Nobody has disputed that the world is a very big place. So far, you are only arguing with yourself.
If you can make an intelligent case that China and the Western Hemisphere should be included in the first four kingdoms than I will offer an apology. If not we will assume you were just "farting around", and my assertions will be justified.
So either you're arguing for a position you don't hold (Socratic exercise?) or you are backing off of your writings here. Which is it?
PJTS and I and the scholars who don't hold that Rome is the kingdom before God's (I should have made that specific - apologies) have used history. For the writers of Daniel, it was history. PJTS is correct - There was something called the "Roman Empire" around for several hundred years after you claim it was destroyed. It didn't end with Domitian.
As for the kingdom of God - How many years has it been "coming"? Is God waiting for all the Evil he created to come to fruition?
The popes being antichrists and the EU being the "new Roman Empire" are common to Christian aoplogetics. As for China, PJTS brought it up because your claim for this being an end of the world prophecy hinges on your interpretation that there were those four empires and no more in the world. I only bring up the other civilizations when lunacy like the flood comes up. you know, like how the Egyptians were building pyramids and the Babylonians were brewing beer at a time when the Bible claims they should have been underwater.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"Fountains of the deep" == wells. In the desert, your life revolves around water - where, how much, purity. I know, I grew up in Yuma AZ. Google it, Yuma is real close to being as empty as the Empty Quarter. 3+ inches (8cm) of rain per year. Of course they knew about and were knowledgeable about wells. We have many archeological examples of wells. Water is life. And it is no wonder so many of the OT metaphors revolve around water.
"Circle of the earth" == curvature. When people started going to sea, they knew the earth was a sphere. They didn't know the exact size or geography, but they knew it was round. How? By watching ships sail away, gradually losing sight of first the bottom of the ship or boat, and finally the very topmost of the topmost mast. You get the same when you travel long distances with long views. Why do you think you can not see the Rocky Mountains from central Kansas but you can see them from west Kansas? No one said or implied said goat herders were stupid.
"Stretched out the heavens like a fabric"? - very poetic. What is your point? That you can see stars from anywhere on the earth? So?
Give me an example where the bible states some scientific fact that the people of the times could not have known. Like the definition of a billion perhaps. Not a statement about "many", "lots" or some other vague number, but a real concept of what 1,000,000,000 really means. Or perhaps geologic knowledge of their area - as in did they know where to dig those wells based on evidence of underground rivers or aquifers? Or did they just dig where ever artesian wells already surfaced? Biology - did they know about blue-green algae and that it was what made some water poisonous? (Hint - it is not always visible through coloration of the water.) Did they know what was in pond scum? Did they have a clue as to why entire tribes would come down with some illness? Goddidit? Not very scientific, I would say. Though if you insist god created the viruses and bacteria that caused the illness, I guess you could stretch it there, but still not scientific.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You reply to that which you choose, not necessarily pertinent points.
This thread is supposedly about Gramps dispelling common myths and such in regard to Christian beliefs. As such, it is on Gramps and you as his sidekick to prove your claimed interpretations are based in reality. It is not required I provide you an analytic theory or model as an alternative, only that I show your basis is suspect and unrealistic. Questions in that regard have been asked and your answers are avoidance.
Since you didn't like the goatherder label, I also mentioned their major product in the ancient world, olives.
Israel was claimed as the reason for the prophecies by you -
Is there something in Daniel that suggests that these prophecies "ie sequentially.... but also primarily until the Church Age." Which I suppose means the establishment of the "Church"? So what did Daniel say about the establishment of the "Church"?
Then you decide to be confusing in exactly what scripture is:
So, you claim the scripture is aimed "firstly" at the Jews, then you waffle and say you can't presuppose scripture are Jewish concepts. Can you make up your mind?
You do say that the OT is the history of the Jews. So, what I expect is something that indicates this "history of the Jews" has any relevance to the rest of the world if it is used as "prophecy" as you claim. My problem is how do you interpolate "history of the Jews"who don't indicate any knowledge of the Western Hemisphere and the Chinese to include them in "end times" and "latter days"? One would think that the discovery of the world being far more vast with kingdoms just as powerful as Rome, even at the same time period should cause a questioning. Ignoring them as you do is your method of rationaling, which is your choice. But it is not a reasoned argument.
Reasoned arguments have not been presented by you.
By the way, I'm still waiting for that reasoned argument from you that your Yahweh is something more than a construct of man.
There are many things in the Bible that are claimed, assuming they are true without question as you are doing once again is the problem.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Exactly!
Gramps and the Miner both are wearing rose colored welding helmets when they look at these supposed prophecies.
Clearly the Jews had no idea of the size of the Han Empire in China that had as large a population as Rome at its height of power. This was 1/3 of the world's population. I don't see how 1/3 of the world's population should be dismissed so easily as Gramps and the Miner do.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
~ ripped~ a lot of repetative quotes
See previous posts, Chinese Empire of the Zhou dynasty was larger than Babylon. The Han Empire around 1 CE was equal in size and population of the Roman Empire, including 1/3 of the world's population.
If you think 1/3 of the world's population is insignificant admit it. You will be reminded of your choices at a later time.
The writing in Daniel which you have said was aimed at the Jews does not indicate any such knowledge. The OT in general does not acknowledge the world beyond the immediate area of the Jews. this is no better actually in the NT. Since Daniel makes claims about powerful empires neglecting Eastern Asia is inappropriate when they are as powerful and even more so in later times.
If you take a Jewish originated prophecy and attempt to construe it to the rest of the world, you are.
Do you consider the Daniel prophecies to be the basis for the messiah and the claims in Revelation or not?
If you are not taking this to include the rest of the world all of us in North & South America and those in Eastern and Northern Asia, and Australia are not included at all in the "end days" mentioned and it is only the Jews and those involved with them or those inferred by you to be pertinent.
Perhaps I got ahead of you thinking you bought into the Revelation scenario and "end times". If so, and you think the "end times" are only for the limited set who are supposedly discussed in this interpolated prophecy then you are right, I'm taking this further than you. If you however take this further than the supposed characters in play in Daniel than you are discussing the rest of the world and my criticism is appropriate.
What say you?
What you may see as "farting around" may be valid objections to your interpretations.
Short prophecies have the advantage of what you are doing as well. You can stretch and twist them in your own interpretative angles.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I am not aware of having avoided any point raised by you.......not a point on which you are able to reciprocate. This is an open debate; if you have an unanswered question, ask it.
Discussion of the nature of 'reality' could open up a whole new discussion. The case has to date been history based. Given your arbitrary approach to history it is difficult to know how you relate it to "reality".
"it is not required" by whom? Do you mean that rationality does not demand that rejection of the authenticity of Biblical prophecy does not demand some rational alternative explanation? I see no basis for such a claim. Are you able to provide one?
I thought you were the one making a plea for "neutrality"! Of course you will suspect it. This is because you are not engaged in anything even approximating to an objective search for truth but in an effort to console yourself that you are not answerable to God. Our case to date has been rooted in historical reality.
example please.
this is a reasonable historical extrapolation - I don't have production statistics for the period in question - what is your point?..........was it that olive production calls into question the veracity of Biblical prophecy?!
The Church was a mystery hidden from the OT patriarchs and prophets including Daniel. Daniel had as much explained to him as he needed to know. There is no indication that he was given the historical explanation I've given for example. The Church's place in prophesy may become clearer if this discussion ever gets that far.
the issue in question is the question of what the Bible is. ie. whether it is or is not the communication of the creator to his creation and thus inspired by him as it claims . The quote from post 332 above, was pointing out that you start by presupposing that it is not. That's fine, that is your prerogative, as long as you are aware that:
1] it is not very scientific of you and
2] God promises to be found by those who seek him.
the claim is that it is a history which contains prophesy, not which comprises it, of course. Well historically, I can point out that the history of the Jews has had a tremendous relevance, not only culturally but in establishing Christianity. Your question of the relevance specifically where prophecy is involved brings us to its relevance today and in this I should defer to gramps, at least initially.
no, I'm not ignoring anything, we simply haven't got around to discussion of the fourth kingdom or of timescale yet. I suggest we do so asap. The reason prophesy centres on Rome has nothing to do with size and power but relevance. Your question may as easily be applied to the USA in the modern era.......my view is that it is mentioned but only extremely obliquely and for good reason.
but you have to keep telling yourself this! On the contrary, I have given you the scholarly consensus on the dating of Daniel and an outline of the reasons for that conclusion. I then gave you my own rationale based on the known dates of the LXX. I have then backed gramps' argument with the alignment of Daniel's prophesy with history.
The sum total of your response is, "I don't believe it"!........not a very impressive rebuttal!
well I rather thought that this was the point at the heart of the whole debate! You appear to be trying to tempt me into providing you with a diversion!
yes, the Bible never doubts its own veracity. Would you expect it to? Do you doubt yours? You are entitled to question it just as I have to point out where you depart from rationality.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
when we die no one ceases to exist... trust me on this... reality is so much greater than all this petty comments...
even the most self convinced atheist will be alive and confused after his physical body faded away... I will be there to give all you guys a hug
Almost no one would want to cease to exist.
you will never find wells referred to in scripture as "the deep"..........only the sea.
on the contrary, it is implied constantly. Regarding the circle of the earth, I agree with you entirely.........and the next time an atheist tells me the Jews believed the earth is flat, I'll refer them to you.
why like fabric or like a tent?.......what's that got to do with seeing stars? Doesn't it occur to you that this is precisely our conceptual terminology?
see above.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I'm not backing off on anything. And I am not arguing for a position that I don't hold. I have been very consistent all along. I am still waiting for one of your great minds to come up with an alternative explanation for Daniel 7. For example the lion with wings could be _______, etc. Either there is only one possible interpretation for the first four beasts, or there are more. I have just asked to see one alternative.
I have not even tried to limit you to the Mediterranean. You have the whole world and beyond if you please. Just make your case.
You are still hiding under a rock on this one. Different regions of the world and countries have been thrown out, but not one single case has been made for an alternate view for these powers. That's why you are still just "blogging". A claim was made that there are many interpretations. Let's see one. The mighty atheists can not back up their own claims on their own site. That's sad.
As for popes being antichrists, and the EU being the "new Roman Empire", I have not made that point. Quit arguing with something I did not say. As for what others believe, that has nothing to do with me. I am a free thinker and a skeptic. I do not have to believe what others believe. I look at the evidence and decide for myself what it points to.
As for Rome being the last kingdom before God's, I have not made that claim either. Daniel 7 mentions 10 kingdoms or powers that arise up out of the Roman Empire that will endure until the kingdom of God materializes. Those kingdoms we have with us still today.
As for placing a date on when the Roman Empire actually ended, use any date you want. I have made no claims that rely on an end date for the Roman Empire.
As for bringing up the flood, I have not brought that into this conversation. That is another topic altogether. I will be more than happy to discuss that at a later date. Right now you are just using it to "fart around" and stall because you can not answer my challenge.
SO LET'S HAVE IT! CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK AND PUT UP LIKE A MAN! WHAT OTHER "INTERPRETATIONS" FOR DANIEL 7 DO YOU HAVE?????? I HAVE ASKED A REASONABLE AND DIRECT SIMPLE QUESTION!!!!! BACK YOUR CLAIMS!!!!
OR HIDE LIKE A DOG UNDER A ROCK.
YOUR CHOICE.
Just a quick point about Job 9:8. The passage "who alone stretches out the heavens", is present tense no-teh. This infers that God is currently stretching out the heavens. One would have thought a goat herder would have used past tense refering to creation, but that is not the case. For God to be stretching out the heavens present tense would have to mean that the universe is expanding. Now that's quite a concept for an ancient goat herder.
What evidence do you have to back this claim up? Really so far one should trust you on your statement without any evidence to back up your claim? Most people do not want to cease to exist, however once we die, that's it, we are dead. No soul, no afterlife, just then end of our existence.
you claim that the church (including the Catholic church) tortured, burned and executed people. Please back this claim.
I have no hard evidence of course. If I did I would not be discussing it here. From my studies on NDE research there is substancial circumstancial evidence that something doesn't quite fit... One should at least be suspicious and sugest that more research is needed. For me the reports of the people who had NDE that don't corroborate any religious thought is evidence enough. Not to mention the fact that the circumstances envolving these experiences point to them occuring during a flat EEG.
Plus the fact that I have an inner knowledge and personal experience that indicates that life must continue somehow
I say the same thing, my personal experience (being dead on the operating table for 5 minutes)_tells me there is no afterlife at all. NDE have no real evidence or ways to back up the so called test results. However the default position is no afterlife, no evidence that it occurs and no way to prove it.
The scholastic interpretation wasn't good enough - now you want my "own interpretation"?
Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts, son.
My interpretation of the whole book is pretty simple. It's fiction.
What is my evidence? The fact that the same dream can be interpreted multiple ways (none, any or all of them being correct). Starving lions aren't selective (not mauling the good guy and ripping the bad guys to shreds before they hit. Fire is not selective on what it burns.
Beyond that, i base my claim on my opinion and belief. Just like you.
So quit screaming like a little bitch, m'kay?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Time to go back to go and detail it all for you.
What channel are you watching??
Good question? Is anything real? Are you something beyond electrons? Surely my mind didn't make this up. Is it all just an adventure program gone astray?
Maybe no explanation is required as a book of Sci-Fi rants is nothing more than that.
And who is surprised at that.
I just did.
Yeah, but it has fallen on deaf ears of those who see what they want in ancient writing that has issues.
So it's truth you want it is truth you will get. See end of this post for a complete summary of "your truth".
Excuse me! What? I'd first have to have a belief there was such a creature.
You must have a problem with reception on your channel.
See above.
No you have sensitive ears.
Oh, I see, the prophets and main characters in this plot don't get all the info but you as the wiseman of the future have been given a complete insight into the workings of the scenario.
Every culture has stories, god claims, and a search for "is there nothing more". You start in obvious conflict to your claim of objectivity assuming that the Bible is true and written/communicated by the god/creator/high tech alien/master computer programmer.
Now we both understand the starting position of the other.
Me - why would the Bible's stories be any more true than the stories, Sci-Fi and magic in other ancient stories.
You - The Bible is the written true communication of the god/high tech alien/programmer to his created playthings.
I suppose this would be a case of avoidance then.
Fine, I'll wait and see what you do to integrate your perceptions into relevance of only the known empires into a complete scenario,
Though, it smacks of avoidance once again.
Sci-Fi can be written in any period and be dated to that period, So?
No, I don't believe it. I never got past the Sci-Fi in the beginning.
Give me a reasoned argument to buy into the Sci-Fi Fantasy from the start of Daniel. See summary below.
Is it?
Avoidance once again.
Claiming the book does not doubt it's own quality of truth says nothing of your perspective does it?
Summary of the issue-
1- Daniel - claimed to be a real person in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus
Gramps & Miner - claim it is true
PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - claim it has problems
Problems are at minimum-
Babylonian & Nabonidus Chronicles do not indicate Belshalzzar was ever king. The festival of Marduk was not performed while Nabonidus was out of the city in Tayma by Belshalzzar. It was only performed on the return of Nabonidus to Babylon.
Nabonidus is not mentioned by Daniel.
Nabonidus was the king from 556 BCE to 539 BCE and was displaced by Cyrus II, and is mentioned in the Cyrus cylinder.
The Darius/Cyrus issues in Daniel are not clearly substantiated with known Cyrus and Darius documentation.
2-Daniel not only interprets dreams but also knows exactly what the dream encompassed without being told.
Gramps & Miner - claim it is true.
PJTS, Jcgadfly & others - don't see how another person can know your dreams yet alone detail an interpretation. Based on present lab tests, this has not been shown to be likely.
Problem - therefore requires the Miner & Gramps to substantiate this claim that flies in the face of observation.
Result - No proof has been provided a person can know another's dream and detail meticulous interpretations that are meaningful.
Conclusion - Miner & Gramps avoid this issue claiming the god can do anything and the proof is in the prophecy.
The prophecies in this dream are another matter to be argued separately as it matters little what is in them they are not explicit as well as I haven't even given Daniel the benefit of getting out of the land of Sci-Fi and Fantasy as of yet. I have already stated these supposed prophecies are limited in scope, which both y'all agree. The scope of the nations you mention is those that affect the nation of Israel (or people as they really never have a country again until 1947).
3-The Fiery Furnace Scene
Gramps & Miner - have not taken a position that I recall. Though Miner has said he believes in all "the fun parts" he has not said so of this.
PJTS - Considers people walking around in a furnace to be unlikely. This appears to be fantasy based.
Though Gramps and Miner could provide a demonstration by walking into an open hearth furnace.
4-The claim Nebuchadnezzar suffered insanity or madness vs Nabonidus and the Verse Account of Nabonidus smear.
Gramps & Miner have not explicitly taken a position I recall.
PJTS - Considers the madness mentioned to be really a mixup and apply to Nabonidus who was not mentioned by Daniel. Whether or not Nabonidus was really mad isn't the question, it was likely a smear by upset Marduk priests.
5-Belshazzar called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5:18
Gramps or the Miner have stated that he was so or should be considered so due to relationship of some kind.
PJTS - I claim he was the son of Nabonidus who was the king and became so after a coup and had no relationship to Nebuchadnezzar.
Conclusion - Daniel errors.
6-Belshazzar & the handwriting Daniel 5:5-12.
Gramps & Miner - I don't recall a position.
PJTS - I consider this to be Sci-Fi & Fantasy. Errors in calling Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, it was Nabonidus. Errors in calling Belshazzar the king, he was only the crown prince or acting regent while daddy was in Tayma erecting shrines to Sin. A hand disembodied has yet to be demonstrated except by an illusionist scientifically. Pretend stage magic is not proof of anything.
Conclusion - Daniel errors.
7-Daniel & the Lions den
Gramps & Miner - no position has been mentioned.
PJTS - I have seen circus performers play with lions. Though this doesn't always work out favorable.
What say you?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
This is jcgadfly (aka Jeff Craft)
You haven't given me a scholastic alternate interpretation for Daniel 7. You claim that these prophecies can be interpreted multiple ways, but you fail to be able to give even one example. In case you have forgotten, when one makes a claim in a thread they are expected to be capable of backing it up. You can not. I claim there is only one interpretation that fits this prophecy. You say there are many. Show me just one.
You want proof that God is not just a construct of man. I have given it. A 3rd century BC author would not have been able to predict the rise of The Roman Empire, and that it would not be conquered by another single power, but broken up and never reunited, and that 10 kingdom would arise from the Roman Empire that would endure until God sets up His kingdom.
A third century author would most likely predict that the kingdom following the "Macedonian" kingdom or "Greece", would be followed by another great power like all the ones before. But that was not the case.
I have made the challenge for one of you brilliant individuals to come up with just one alternative but you can not. You have failed. I have been proved right that there is only one interpretation to this. And it is not of man, but can only be of a God that can see into the future.
If you can come up with just one power that can possibly fit the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 other than the Roman Empire than you can back your empty claim for other interpretations. My challenge stands.
I am so terribly disappointed. I was hoping for a challenge. And I get nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Careful, this is an area I have spent a lot of time researching.
What I actually said above -
So you think it was only the secular authorities who did these actions?
Let's start with the 1st Crusade- It was called by Pope Urban II. Soon thereafter Jews were killed by crusaders en route to the Holy land especially in Germany. Though these killers were individuals they had taken up the cross and per se were acting under the Church. Others in the Roman Empire (Byzantine part) are killed by crusaders on the way to save god's land. On the pope's part he claimed "God wills it" in regard to saving the holy land. He as the prince of the Church is the responsible party for all mayhem that ensued thereafter.
See Trier, Mainz, Cologne, Belgrade, Peter the prelate (a priest) Peter the Hermit, Zemun Hungary, etc.
Not to mention Ma'arrat al Numan where the Crusader army became cannibals, killing Muslims, Jews, and Greek Christians and consuming their dead corpses.
Who to blame for this? Pope Urban II that authorized the endeavor.
The crusade against the Cathars - aka Albigensian Crusade 1209-1229 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
How many deaths do you require to blame the Church - "The first phase of the crusade included some of the most brutal massacres. On July 22, 1209, the city of Béziers was sacked and thousands were slaughtered. When asked whether to kill both Catholic Christians and heretics, the legate Arnaud Amaury supposedly replied: "Kill them all; God will recognize his own." Whether or not he uttered those infamous words, Amaury reported succinctly to Innocent III that "neither age, nor sex, nor status had been spared, and nearly twenty thousand people perished." from - http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/cathars
May 13, 1239 in Mont-Wimer in Champagne. The assembled fans were the bishops of Orleans, Troyes, Meaux, Verdun, and Langres as well as all of the citizens of the towns nearby. The host of the marshmallow roast was the Inquisitor General of France Robert le Bougne. In this mass murder of Cathars 183 innocent people are burned at the stake. Their crime is only that they are Cathars and refuse to become practicing Roman Catholics.
Or - ....multiple heresies persecuted out of existence from the 4th to 16th centuries The Arian controversy or Arianism was one such belief declared heretical.
Do you want statistics on it as well?
See also Conrad of Marburg aka "The Hammer of Heretics" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_of_Marburg
See Robert le Bourgne - http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/hunters/bougre.html
Then there is of course the execution of Giovanni Bruno aka Giordano Bruno burned on February 17, 1600 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Bruno has been considered a martyr to freethinkers and skeptics.
Need more, this is one of more favorite areas if you want to come play Gramps.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
You haven't gotten past the statue - why jump to another vision?
But all right - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_7 (no Romans here either)
A 3rd cent. BC author wouldn't have thought of Rome - must be why he didn't.
Your challenge is gone under scholastic scrutiny.
Don't be disappointed, little one.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'm so glad you took the bait. I do not disagree that the church in it's apostate form did a lot of horrible things in the name of God.
I just wanted to accomplish a couple of things. First, I wanted to find out if you were able to back any of your claims since you have FAILED SO MISERABLY in regards to the claim that there are many interpretations for Daniel 7.
I also wanted for YOU to make the case above so that your position on this will be crystal clear in future discussions.
Thank You Sincerely
Gramps
Now if I can only get you to crawl out from under the rock and give me just one alternative to the Roman Empire for the fourth beast in Daniel 7. I guess that's too much to ask.
1- Yes you have been constant in your fervent beliefs.
2-I'll get to Daniel 7 eventually, but y'all make it difficult what with all y'all's avoidance of the credibility of the writer of Daniel. Tell me y'all buy into all of the Sci-Fi and why y'all do.
3-Your claim in regards to the kingdoms that are still around again leaves out many countries and I'll go back and grab it and show you a few problem and ask a few questions as to why some countries are bothered to be on the list and why others are not.
1- England is composed of Celts, Anglo-Saxons & Normans
2-France is composed of Franks, Celts, Latins, and some Alamans
3- Switzerland is comprised of Burgandians, Celts, Franks, various Germanic tribes - Why do you bother with this one?
4- Spain is not only comprised of Visigoths but also Moors, and Basques
5-Germany is not only of the Alamannis but also Franks, Saxons and other tribes
6-Portugal is comprised of not just Suevi but earlier by Celts, later by some Visigoths and of course the Moors - Please explain how this one has any importance?
7-Italy is a diversity not just Lombards obviously Latins, Ostrogoths, Greeks especially in the coastal city states.
8-I'm not even sure why you have the Heruli on the list at all. Can you explain?
9-Vandals were clearly not killed to the last person, and most integrated with the Berbers in Northern Algeria, though their kingdom did end. Many others were incorporated into the Byzantine Army. So what's the point of this one?
10-The Ostrogoths after their defeat in Italy mainly resettled in Austria. You don't list Austria but you mention the Ostrogoths, why?
So then the question is where are all of these countries:
1-Greece
2-Turkey (Ottoman Empire)
3-Austria
4-Hungary
5-Poland
6-The Scandinavian countries
7-Egypt
8-Saudi Arabia - surely the god would know about "black gold"
9-Russia - one of the largest & sometimes powerful countries
So, why have defunct tribes that assimilated into other territories and ignore places like Russia and Saudi Arabia? Doesn't work with you prophetic interpretation?
4- I haven't opened the door as of yet on the pope dictators yet. And I most definitely haven't said anything in regard to the EU
There is not a need to type in large letters unless you have lost your spectacles.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Perhaps you should wonder if it was you that chomped on the lure I dangled out there sparkling so brightly.
I'll get to Daniel 7 after you attempt to explain why Daniel is credible with the issues I mentioned in Post # 482. It wasn't just for your sidekick
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
no it's a case of politeness
under that rock is no position from which to be speaking of "avoidance"!
you mean you don't know?!
having miserably failed to mount a rational rebuttal of any argument put up, you may find "avoidance" a particularly unfruitful approach. The reference to scripture was not a "claim" on my part but an observation of objective fact. If you can put up an example which refutes the statement, do so by all means.
I repeat the quote from Christian answers.net which you ignored:
What the foundation deposit tablet, along with other subsequently found texts, revealed was that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and coregent with his father. While Nabonidus was away campaigning, which he loved to do, Belshazzar was left to run the country from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of “third highest ruler in the kingdom” if he would decipher the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:16). This was the highest available office in the kingdom, since Nabonidus was number one and his son Belshazzar was number two. Instead of being in error, the Bible precisely reflected the political situation that existed in ancient Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians.
what's your problem?
I quote Bible Encyclopedia [Christian Answers.net]
whose observation? This is a problem arising from your lack of belief . The only way we can help is to pray for you and continue to provide rational evidence.
this only indicates the depth of your irrationality.
your case appears to be that Biblical prophecy cannot be authentic because God wasn't incorporating the whole world in the story simultaneously. This is absurd by any measure......... now how many nations have been reborn after 2000yrs?
The Bible claims that God created the universe.........you find the claim that Nebuchadnezzer's central heating presented no problem for him, somehow remarkable!
you appear to be arguing with yourself.
you are free to draw whatsoever false conclusions you desire but the Aramaic term may mean "grandson" or "descendant" or even "successor".
this is just so much hot air...........all you are saying is that you don't believe the manifestations of God.........breaking news!!!
The fact that you continue not to believe them in the face of historical verification of prophecy only illustrates your own irrationality.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Below are set out the passages of Daniel which are relevant to the fourth kingdom.
The time frame is critical to identifying the fourth kingdom and this is set out in chapter 9.
DANIEL 2
in the time of the Roman empire, which rock was cut out without human hands?
Jesus claimed kingship of a kingdom not, at that time nor yet, an earthly one. The prophecy is that it will become an earthly one. eg see Ezekiel, Zechariah, Revelation etc regarding the Millennium. See Daniel 7.
DANIEL 7
26 " 'But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'
DANIEL 11:36 - 45.
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, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. [e]
40 "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. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. 42 He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. 43 He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. 44 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. 45 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.
DANIEL 9 : 24-25
There are to be a total of seventy periods of seven years [490 yrs] in which the following are to be accomplished:
1] to end transgression [of the law]
2] to put an end to sin
3] to provide atonement
4] to introduce righteousness
5] to seal up ie. to preserve and set aside vision and prophecy [of a general nature].
6] to anoint the most holy.
From the decree authorising the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed one is to be 69 'sevens'.........483yrs. This brings us to the time of Jesus' ministry.
the 'sixty-two sevens' relates to the period beween the restoration and the 'Anointed One'. Then the latter will be killed.
The 'people' who destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary, the temple, were those of Titus in AD 70. We have the completion of 69 'sevens' and the diaspora.
We have the 70th 7yr period remaining and this remaining prophecy:
and here we have the appearance of the remaining 'seven'. "He" [someone to be be identified], makes a covenant, a treaty with "many" in the middle of the seven year period he puts an end to sacrifice and offering. The "many" are clearly Jews since the 70 weeks are, "for your people" So the 70th week cannot take place unless the nation of Israel is restored. The nation was restored in 1947/48. The implication is that "he" will renege on the 7yr treaty. Currently, we are yet again in treaty negotiations.
Thus by the Bible's own timescale the relevant empire after the 69 weeks is Rome. The last seven year period has yet to come.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Finally at last you are at least giving me something. Thank You! I don't like to have to get so unpleasant but it is that important. Now we can get back to discussing the prophecies.
As for the credibility of Daniel, it looks like freeminer is doing a good job with the history part. He has also pointed out, once again, as both of us have before, the credibility lies in the fulfillment of prophecy.
Yes, many countries that were part of the Roman Empire, or arouse out of it were left out of this prophecy. The text seems to be referring to 10 kingdoms that arouse from this Empire for some particular reason. It would be logical in moving forward to keep this in mind and discover the reason for this.
I mentioned the Heruli because they were a Gothic tribe that became a kingdom, and were destroyed. This fits into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The reason I chose those particular kingdoms will be apparent further along. The point I am making now is that the Roman Empire and no other fits this prophecy as the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7.
The Vandals existed in some form as a kingdom 335 to 534 AD. After that they completely disappeared as a distinct ethnic unit. The prophecy did not make any statement about not a single person surviving.
The Ostrogoth's kingdom existed from about 493 to 553 AD. With some "rallies" after that. After their final defeat in about 562 AD the Ostrogoth name "wholly" died out. The survivors did go back and resettle in Austria, but their kingdom was no more.
The prophecy refers to a major power following "Greece" that would not be conquered by or followed by another single major power. Once again I use the term "Greece" because it is the term used in the text. Out of this kingdom would arise 10 kingdoms specifically mentioned. Three of these kingdoms would be destroyed. The other 7 would endure until the coming of the kingdom of God. The territory of that kingdom (the Roman Empire) would not "ever" be united under one kingdom again.
It has been over 2300 years since that prophecy was given. This prophecy still stands. The Roman Empire, and it alone fits this description. Man could not have known this would happen. Only God could know that. Therefore the bible is not the construct of man. It is indeed divine.
It is more than obvious what you are attempting by referring to freeminer as my sidekick. You are trying to present him as somehow inferior to me and thus provoke him to break out of his admirable courteous stance in allowing me to present my views first. Freeminer is as we both know probably more capable than I in many areas of discussion.
Freeminer is no more a sidekick of mine than Gadfly is an illegitimate son of yours, so we can dispense with this as it only serves to make you look bad.
I see.
Which rock is that?
Really now, we have unlikely events that are not possible to occur but can in fantasy and Sci-Fi and it is mindless blather.
So Daniel's writing is mindless blather then is that what you claim?
Under any other circimstance, if someone claimed:
1-They could tell you the dream you can't remember.
2-Interpret it.
3-Told a story about 3 guys walking through a blast furnace and not getting injured.
4-Told a story about a hand writing on a wall with no body attached.
5-told a story about a guy that spent a night with a bunch of hungary lions and that don't eat him.
You'd buy it as real and not fantasy or BS?
So you have no reasoned argument then.
No, I don't know if you are tempted.
The Bible then proves itself, how convenient.
I didn't ignore it, I noted you claim it was true.
Is English not your first language?
You do agree that Nabonidus is not in Daniel.
Still he was not "King" Belshazzar as he did not perform the New Years ceronmony for Marduk or Bel a point you ignore. He still was but the Crown Prince and not the king.
My problem is the Darius claim in Daniel out of sequence with Cyrus. Gramps made the claim it was a general/governor though evidence is lacking and interpretations are made.
The observed experiments in dream science have been unable to duplicate this claim. See dream science.
It is a problem from your acceptance of fantasy.
Preaching is not helpful to your cause.
It is irrational in your opinion to think one person cannot tell you your dreams which even you can't remember.
What twisted ideas you have!
You are arguing with yourself here. All that was said was your position.
The Bible claims , , , and to prove it a man can walk into a furnace in another Bible claim, therefore proving the 1st claim.
I see you didn't volunteeer to try this out yourself.
Oh! I didn't realize you thought Daniel errored saying Nebuchadnezzar was afflicted with madness and it really meant Nabonidus.
No relationship has been shown to exist between Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar - George Roux - Ancient Iraq.
Big surprise, you buy into magic and fantasy.
Your acceptance of fantasy is 'hot air'.
I did, see above, you claim magic and fantasy are real.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I never really started as I was awaiting verification that y'all bought into the magic and Sci-fi.
History does not prove fantasy and magic, though I note you agree with his opinions.
To say the least.
I'm all ears.
Please don't forget to show why you bothered with them and not others, further along.
You have been put on record you think the 4th kingdom is Rome.
And you will also explain why you think this group has any merit too, right?
I know, that's what I said, don't trust me? Don't forget to include the reasons for including this one too.
At what point do you define the territory of the Roman Empire? Pick a year or decade.
The 10 kingdoms you picked earlier then are based or them being current today.
An error has occured in your choice of Germany.
The territory of Germany was not in the Roman Empire. See - http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/empire/extent/rome-modern-day-nations.html
And see - http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t27.html
Then god has made some errors.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.