bfniii

maybe you missed the part where i stated "according to the critical view" which i then go on to qualify in my next statements. i understand that the word has multiple meanings, but the critical view does not take that stance. you go on to elaborate your personal opinion in the next statement which i will address.



your response does nothing to refute point #1. also, you are mixing meanings which implies that you take it to have a double meaning. the physical acts had spiritual consequences. if so, this relies totally on selectivity. you would have to say that, while the spiritual meaning can be applied to both the city and the temple, the physical meaning is only applicable to the temple and not to the city. perhaps you mean that the spiritual effect in verse 26 is related to the physical cause in verse 27. if so, why state "city and temple"? it might make more sense if daniel had only stated the temple. furthermore, taking the destruction of the city and temple in a spiritual sense seems out of context if evils deeds perpetrated by antiochus are the subject. verses 24-27 seem to be illustrating physical events, not spiritual ones. therefore, switching gears to take the destruction of the city and temple in a spiritual way would be inconsistent with the passage. none of the other deeds are accompanied by their spiritual consequences.



i have provided a de facto explanation via my responses; the author wouldn't use such language because the cleansing of the temple and the restoration of the daily sacrifices does not equate to the eternal consequences he enumerates.



i don't recall stating my own speculations in this thread. i have from the beginning tried to dispel misconception regarding the book. i use the appropriate qualifiers to illustrate that there is more than one christian interpretation of the book. each has strengths and weaknesses. i have addressed any non-christian misconceptions about the book when they are brought up.



if you are referring to the position that daniel wrote this after the fact, why would he attach eternal consequences to the abomination? none of the other language from 24-27 is eternal in nature. why would he write something after the fact and get it wrong? certainly he would have known that cleansing the temple and restoring the sacrifices, both finite actions, are all that would be needed to rectify the situation. in other words, you haven't shown why daniel would use such language.



what is clear is that you:
1. don't want to address the problems i have cited. you merely repeat "it's not a problem" without actually making a case.
2. have failed to show that non-christian skepticism of the book has any merit whatsoever
3. can't understand that i am not presenting these problems. i am merely repeating them
4. plugging your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "nah nah nah nah" doesn't mean that you have solved these issues. they've been around for some time now and your "jack-dancing" doesn't make them disappear.



oh but these are standard criticisms, right? you should be able to handle this. you did cite the article. why cite it if you can't defend it? because that would break the precedent of actually supporting your views instead of just proclaiming they are correct.



not that you have shown that is actually the case.



why can't the daniel mentioned by ezekiel be the daniel that authored the book?



which doesn't mean that it doesn't contain prophecy or that daniel wasn't a prophet.



because they consider daniel to be a prophet? that would seem to be a pretty obvious reason.



you think i made that up? you think i'm the only person who agrees with that? i noticed that you didn't bother to try to show how my response is incorrect. you just expect everyone to take you at your word. ok, how are daniel and kings talking about the same event?



how is daniel not referring to the medo-persian alliance, greece and rome?



ah, no support for your statement. just typical unsubstantiated responses and ad hominems. it's good to know that some things never change.



oh i can think of several reasons. daniel employs such devices in other cases so there is precedent. other prophets employ such devices. there are other references to Jesus in the OT such as the suffering servant. there's three. perhaps you could show us why you think there is no reason to make that assumption. in other words, how is your interpretation the only viable one?



not to them. i just said that. they added the embolismic month as needed, not on a fixed schedule.



source?



good response. very scholarly. very convincing.



i just refuted that idea. what is your response? merely repeat your statement. maybe you should take up another hobby.



since your premise has been refuted (those are spiritual promises, they have nothing to do with physical suffering), this conclusion is profoundly incorrect. putting an end to sin does not mean there won't be suffering. everlasting righteousness does not preclude physical suffering.

i stated succinct reasons why 9:24 was not fulfilled. all you have done is to "hand-wave" them away. i have also addressed the idea of that part being written after the fact.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:

I note that you are still "context-snipping". I will provide the context for each of your responses in my own replies. In some cases, this will make it obvious that you are again evading the actual issues under discussion.
So, the (imaginary) "problem" is that the text says "destroyed", but the city wasn't "destroyed".

However, the text does NOT unequivocally say "destroyed". The word has multiple meanings.

So, the claim of a "problem" has been refuted. I win this round.

...Though I note that you are now trying to pretend that "the critical view does not take this stance" (that the verse might not be referring to "destruction"). You are apparently trying to misrepresent my position, maybe because of your bizarre assertion that there are only THREE views on Daniel, and everyone has to belong to one of these three camps, with beliefs defined by yourself.
Point #1 is already refuted. And I have already pointed out that there's plenty of metaphor and imagery in Daniel. But it's highly amusing to see you attempt to claim that Daniel should have used "only one meaning" (...why?), while you simultaneously flip between "literal" and "metaphorical" and between "physical" and "spiritual" on the Tyre thread.
Still no explanation of WHY he would not. Remember: according to the critical view, the author is merely PRETENDING to be a "prophet", and is writing to inspire the Maccabeans. He is telling them that they will "put the world to rights": that everything will be OK after this: the fairytale "happy ever after" ending.
Why are you now pretending that my position is that the book was written "after the fact" of the Maccabean rebellion?

The "critical view" is that the book was written DURING this period!
1. I have pointed out that it is NOT a problem, and you have repeatedly failed to explain why (in the "critical view") the author COULD NOT have used the language that was used.

2. Obviously it "has merit", because it is the version that the evidence supports (as mainstream CHRISTIAN scholars agree).

3. Yes, other people have made the same erroneous claim. However, that is no excuse.

4. There never was an "issue" here to solve: merely a persistent lack of critical-thinking capabilities among apologists.
You have it backwards. We KNOW there was an ancient "Daniel" in the Ugaritic texts. And NOWHERE does Ezekiel even HINT that his "Daniel" is a contemporary, and Ezekiel's "Daniel" is SPECIFICALLY placed between Noah and Job. There is no reason to assume that this IS the author of the book, and the context IMPLIES otherwise.

Nothing the author says here is a "misconception", so why did you use that word? And Ezekiel's Daniel cannot be identified as the author, so why have you falsely claimed that there is "not a problem" with such an identification?
So, here it is: the "perfectly valid reasons" WHY they consider Daniel to be a prophet are...

...because they consider Daniel to be a prophet.

A splendid demonstration of the vacuity of apologetic "thought".
Hey, you're the one who dogmatically asserted that they ARE referring to two different events (the author of the article merely raised a possibility). So, explain how you know that.
There is no reason to assume that he WAS referring to "the Medo-Persian alliance, Greece and Rome". Remember, YOU were the one making the dogmatic assertions there: especially "wrong. greece."!

Which brings me to:
...Ahem:
In case you STILL don't get it: how do you justify your assertion that the author's view is "wrong"?
This is well-known. There are several cases in Matthew, and later examples include the claims of "prophecy fulfilment" regarding the restoration of Israel in 1948. However, what matters HERE is YOUR entirely unsupported claim that the author was "employing double meaning".
So, the only example you actually provide is the "suffering servant" already debunked elsewhere. And this wasn't written by the author of Daniel anyhow. But I also suspect that you're confusing metaphor (an accepted literary technique) with dual-fulfilment (an unsupported apologetic belief).
It's a fixed quantity to everyone, bfniii: regardless of whether they're too dumb to realize it. You wanna go with the "Bible authors were dumber than a box of rocks" argument?
It's fitting, because dispensationalism itself is not "scholarly".
The hypocrisy of your position is obvious. You still have no support for your claim that the author couldn't use such language in the "critical view" (despite your inability to specify what's wrong with the explanation I have provided for you), but you have no problem imagining that the author didn't actually mean what he said (when it suits you to do so). Putting an end to sin means that there will be NO SIN. Everlasting righteousness means that there will NEVER BE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
...And these claims remain false (and the bizarre "after the fact" misrepresentation has been addressed above).

BTW: bfniii, you have not yet admitted your "Greek musical instruments" blunder.

bfniii

jack, i haven't lost the context in any of my responses to you. feel free to continue using that as an excuse to elongate this thread and others.



i haven't evaded anything. each time you present this false charge, i show you how i didn't lose the context. yet you continue using it. are you out of responses?



i have stated explicitly how it is not imaginary. i'm sorry you disagree.



i have addressed that. it does state "destroy". the question is whether it means physically or spiritually or both.



i'm not pretending. as i said, i addressed this issue. however, i do notice that you are trying to distract me/readers so you don't have to respond to my points.



not only have i accurately represented the critical position, i have also addressed your misconceptions as well.



i don't recall saying "only". i recall saying that there are three major views.



i told you i will address any non-christian points as well.



you didn't even attempt to address it, much less refute it.



that's what my last posts were about. did you not read them? do you still not understand that this is not about "me saying" but about the overall issue of daniel? different people interpret what daniel said in different ways.



i don't recall doing that. i recall stating (you even quote me) that it would be more in context and consistent with the critical position that if antiochus is the subject of the verses, then it would not make sense to flip. it would make more sense to maintain that "destroy" is meant in a physical sense just like the other items from 24-27 are. you however, are trying to claim that "destroy" is meant in a spiritual sense, thus exonerating you from the fact that antiochus didn't destroy the city. perhaps you could make your case for this interpretation instead of obfuscation and avoiding my detailed responses.



wow. i don't know what to say to the fact that you can't grasp how i have, in detail, outlined why daniel would not use the language that he used regarding the outcome of the abomination. it's not rocket science. he wouldn't have used the language because it doesn't match the event in question.



it doesn't matter if he is pretending or not jack. that explanation makes as little sense as any other because he is writing after the fact and got it wrong. no one would do that. you can use those phrases if you like, but they still don't show how the actual words he used matched the event in question.

apparently you just don't get it which is ok. we can agree to disagree and drop it.



i am not pretending. i am addressing any and all points that are brought up. it doesn't matter if it written before, during or after. the outcome does not match the event in question in any way, shape or form. it is a problem unless you interpret the passage to be eschatological or spiritually fulfilled by Jesus' ministry.



yes i see you type the words, but they are vacuous. you have provided no support for your statement other than "because you say so".



let's make sure we're clear about this. i have failed to explain why to you. other people get it. i didn't make it up. it's been around. you just haven't caught up yet.



ok. show us a list of christian scholars who agree that non-christian skepticism is more parsimonious than the christian skeptical position. while you are at it, show how these particular scholars are somehow "mainstream" as opposed to other christian scholars.

btw, it is not the only version that the evidence supports. that's the point of the thread



this isn't a refutation. it's a restatement.



this response exemplifies the point #4 that i just made.



this is the jack pattern. whenever there is an issue that is debated or debatable, you take a position that suits your worldview (which is not a problem) and triumphantly claim it to be correct (which is ridiculous). i feel that you are aware that there are responses to the chronological difficulty you cite. instead of just proclaiming the issue resolved, why don't you have the guts to address them and how your view refutes them?



because i went to the trouble to show, at length, how they are misconceptions. perhaps you missed it.



because the reason cited, the spelling, is not a problem. that's why. it's not false.



what's funny is that you don't or can't refute it.



because i've studied the issue



there is a reason to know that he was referring to them in that order; because that is how things unfolded. if he makes the statement and it describes historical events that we know, why try to shoehorn it into events that didn't happen?



addressed above



i just got through saying that it is a common device of prophets. it's not unsupported. as you pointed out, it is well known.



debunked. funny. you even cite the thread where you perpetuate misconceptions. interesting.



i was using an analogy



no, i'm talking about metaphor or symbolic imagery. as i said, it is a common prophetic device. regarding daniel's messiah, you stated that in ancient times, the messiah was anyone who could perform the priestly functions. that is not always true. there was a particular messiah that they were looking forward to. one of the interpretations of daniel maintains that daniel was referring to Jesus.

interestingly enough, there do seem to be some cases of dual-fulfillment in ezekiel and daniel.



you don't have a source. that's all you had to say. beautiful example of your method.



another ad hominem, useless response



i do mean that the author intended what he said.



the dispensational view maintains that this part of daniel is eschatological. at that time, Jesus will be the implement to fulfill this prophecy. the traditional view maintains that Jesus' ministry on earth ushered in a spiritual fulfillment of verse 24.

Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii is conveniently avoiding replying to my post #52, and with good reason. He knows when he has been beaten. I quoted and article by Bernard Katz where Katz showed that Josh McDowell's OWN SOURCES discredited him regarding some of his comments about the book of Daniel. Typical of the Bible, the book of Daniel is a mess, and it is incredible that anyone defends it. Of course, even if Daniel did write all of the book of Daniel, and even if his predictions are accurate, that doesn't make any difference to me and millions of other people because the nature of God of questionable.

Jack the Bodiless

On the contrary, I have shown several examples of your evasiveness on this thread alone.

BTW: bfniii, you have not yet admitted your "Greek musical instruments" blunder.
You are spinning aimlessly again. I pointed out that "destroy" is only one of muliple meanings, you embraced this (and pretended it was you who provided it), but now you're saying that the text actually says "destroy" (unequivocally).

It doesn't. But even if it DID:

I have also pointed out on SEVERAL occasions that there is metaphor in Daniel: and "desecration" is a metaphorical destruction. So you have no case at all here. There is no problem at all.
Addressed and refuted (several times over).
...So you've forgotten how to use a concordance?

And you're pretending that post #63 does not exist?

Must I assume that words such as "obfuscation" and "avoiding" have different meanings in your language than they do in English? Or...
...maybe you're just not being nice.
And I have addressed your misconception, in detail, many times. Indeed, you even had to interrupt me in mid-paragraph there to snip off YET ANOTHER refutation:
Here you are again FALSELY claiming that (according to the critical view) Daniel was written AFTER the Maccabean period! Even though I've just corrected you!
Oh, I get it alright. Some fundie you trust has asserted that there is a "problem": therefore there must be a problem, and all explanations must be ignored.
...So this is what you call "dropping it"?
No, other people DON'T get it, and THEY haven't caught up yet. That's why they still think it's a problem.
What are you wittering about now? Mainstream Christian scholars have the SAME skepticism regarding Daniel as non-Christians do!
...In which the contradictions between Daniel and the historical evidence have been described in some detail. Whereas there is NO evidence which actually confirms that the Book of Daniel was written prior to the Maccabean period (and your attempt to claim otherwise led to your "Greek musical instruments" debacle).
The refutation has already been provided.
Yes, it illustrates the obtuseness of (a handful of) Christian apologists that's been a problem (for them) "for some time now".
On the contrary. This is the bfniii pattern: whenever there is an issue that is debated or debatable, you take a position that suits your worldview (which is a problem) and triumphantly claim that other views are "misconceptions" (which is ridiculous).

YOU accused this author of "delving into the usual misconceptions". YOU asserted that Ezekiel's Daniel could be "identified" (as the hero of the Book of Daniel, presumably).
Maybe because you entirely forgot to post it?

Let's be clear about what you're claiming here: that you can show, at length, that Ezekiel's Daniel WAS NOT the Ugaritic hero.

Go for it!
Good grief, why would I want to refute it? It's a truly SPLENDID example, and you've just made it even better! It's now a HILARIOUS demonstration of the vacuity of apologetic "thought". :rolling:
Your inability to actually provide an explanation is noted.
Because Daniel says they DID happen. Babylon, Media (Darius the Mede), Persia, Greece. But he was wrong about Media, it was a failed prophecy of Jeremiah. Daniel never mentions Rome. So why try to shoehorn in an event that Daniel was unaware of?

Answer: because apopogists want to believe that Daniel WAS aware of it.
I'm glad you agree that ripping OT verses out of context and applying them to NT events is a well-supported and well-known device of "prophets".
I have no problems citing the thread where I (and others) destroyed your misconceptions. It's interesting that you find this interesting.
The word simply means "anointed". But there were several special "Messianic" figures in the OT. Of course I'm aware that "one of the interpretations of daniel maintains that daniel was referring to Jesus": I am also aware that there is no evidence that Daniel was aware of the coming of Jesus (specifically).
I don't have a source for basic astronomy that every schoolkid should know? Or I don't have a source for claiming that they were NOT dumber than a box of rocks?

It appears that you DO wish to go for the argument that the Bible was written by idiots. OK, I won't contest that.
So, the world ended after 70 weeks (of years). Nobody seems to have noticed.
This gets worse! So the events which must happen at the end of the "70 weeks" didn't happen then, didn't happen in Jesus' time, and STILL haven't happened!

Complete failure!

Awmte

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Because. The perfect counterpoint.

Jack the Bodiless

By the way: why did you not respond to post #70, bfniii?

Do you agree with my correction of your misconception? Your response to post #72 indicates otherwise.

bfniii

i have already told johnny that i'm not interested in josh mcdowell and i certainly shouldn't be asked to defend his arguments.



beaten? by what?



maybe you should re-read this thread



if God's nature is questionable, then we're not talking about the same God.