Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 03-01-2005, 02:17 PM

Sure, fudge the data and hope they overlook it. Nevermind you contradict yourself, gotta sell the Christian lie. Now, can we excuse the ignorant perception of Daniel and accurately focus on it?

someotherguy · 03-01-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

The truth is there for the truth seeker to see. What I posted concerning the messianic prophecy is solid so is the little horn symbology. History verifys this and history cannot be refuted.

It's been my experience that people who make comments like this don't generally plan on providing evidence for "the truth."

Jim Larmore · 03-01-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Well, you're dead in the water right there. Daniel was written during the Maaccabean revolt of 2nd century BCE.

It also says nothing about Jesus.

Prove it

Chris Weimer · 03-01-2005, 02:20 PM

Please, please people, prove things one at a time. Jim, you go first, then Diogenes will prove his.

RGD · 03-01-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim

The first Bishop of Rome was crowned by Emperor Justinian in 538 A.D. .Shortly after this coronation he dispatched his papal armies and slaughtered the three tribes of the Vandals, the Ostrogoths and the Heruli ( i.e. the three horns plucked up by the roots ) . This little horn power ruled until General Berthier of Napolean's armie de-throned him and abolished the papacy in 1798 right on time for the prophecy's fulfillment, i.e. 538 plus 1260 years = 1798.

More factually incorrect history. The first Bishop of Rome would be Peter, an episcopous, as confirmed by Acts 20. And no, he didn't "send his armies" to slaughter these tribes; Narses (who succeeded Belisarius) and was sent by the Emperor Justinian as part of his reconquest of Italy wiped out the Ostrogoths sometime around 550. In fact, the Heruli fought on the side of Narses.

And unfortunately for you, the papacy is still a going concern....

Another prophecy bites the dust.

See, Jim? In order to make this work, you have to use real history. Not made up nonsense.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-01-2005, 02:26 PM

Heck, it would be a step forward if Jim would simply justify his translation of "weeks" into "years" and his flip-flopping on the number of days in a "year"...

RGD · 03-01-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Maybe you should write or call the people who publish things like the encyclopedia Britannica or History of Western Europe and let them know how clumsy they are

.

Perhaps you should actually read up on these histories before you make snide remarks.

Quote:

He was the only one who was crowned prince of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions and started the papal legacy we know of today.

No, child. Peter started the legacy we know today.

Quote:

This Bishop of Rome came to power in 538 A.D. and is the one that tapestries and wall art is painted all over Rome for. Heck if you want to get technical about the apostle Peter was considered the first Pope, but I don't believe he ascribed to that distinction or would have ever wanted it.

The title Bishop of Rome goes back at least as far as Cyprian's letters to Pope Stephen. And quite frankly, there's statuary and paintings all over Rome showing popes.

Quote:

Another issue is this pope started the enforcement of compliance to the holy church's dictates upon pain of death world wide as it was known back then. This era started what we know as the dark ages where literally millions of people were burned at the stake or killed in many tortuous ways for being a heretic.

Utter fiction. You want to back that up?

Jim Larmore · 03-01-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Why should we do anything so weird?

Because it fits history and day for a year is rock solid with Biblical scholars world wide, Maybe not here but that fact will never ring any bells outside of the circles of iidb.

Quote:

If we simply read what the author wrote, we get somewhat more than a year later. You reject this because you don't like the result.

You must read differently than I do.

Quote:

If you're going to change the units, you might as well follow the Bible's "a thousand years is as a day" guideline and turn those 483 days into 483,000 years...

What works is the day for a year the reference in the Bible you speak of in 11 Peter is not speaking of prophecy but the way God views time. God is outside of time this is what its trying to say.

[quote]
The Anglo-Saxons weren't in England when the Romans left. They came from places like, well, Saxony. I'm sure others can point out problems in your "ten kingdoms" scenario too.[quote]

I didn't say they were, what I did was put a parenthesis around England next to anglo-saxons. All this does was indicate the anglo-saxons became the english eventually. Whats the big deal here?

Quote:

Good grief. Surely you're not serious...

I'm dead serious and I don't think you can prove me wrong. Your welcome to try.

Quote:

It gets worse! Ezekiel 4:6 "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." This is plainly a period of penance: one day of penance for each year of iniquity. The same applies to Numbers 14:34. Talk about "out of context"...

This is Biblical proof that a day for a year was used in the Bible. I never claimed it was in context for the specific prophecy I was discussing. I used this to show how it was used by God in His working with the Children of Isreal. Like I said this concept is rock solid. If you've never heard of it then this tells me how much you've studied Biblical prophecy. All major Biblical scholars outside of the ranks of the critics are fully aware of day for a year in prophecy.

RGD · 03-01-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Because it fits history and day for a year is rock solid with Biblical scholars world wide, Maybe not here but that fact will never ring any bells outside of the circles of iidb.

Name these scholars. Be precise.

Quote:

What works is the day for a year the reference in the Bible you speak of in 11 Peter is not speaking of prophecy but the way God view time. God is outside of time this is what its trying to say.

As has been pointed out, even the biblical quotes you adduce don't support your point - they support the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody

The Anglo-Saxons weren't in England when the Romans left. They came from places like, well, Saxony. I'm sure others can point out problems in your "ten kingdoms" scenario too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim

I didn't say they were what I did was put a parenthesis around England next to anglo-saxons. All this does was indicate the anglo-saxons became the english eventually.

I'm dead serious and I don't think you can prove me wrong. Your welcome to try.

Sure. You said that the Empire broke up into ten kingdoms. Well, one of those was the Byzantines; and the Anglo-saxon's weren't a kingdom even at that time.

You are proved incorrect by your own post.

Quote:

This is Biblical proof that a day for a year was used in the Bible. I never claimed it was in context for the apecific prophecy I was discussing. I used this to show how it was used by God in His working with the Children of Isreal. Like I said this concept is rock solid. If you've never heard of it then this tells me how much you've studied Biblical prophecy. All major Biblical scholars outside of the ranks of the critics are fully aware of day for a year in prophecy.

Who? Be precise.

Jim Larmore · 03-01-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Try working two jobs and going to school full time. Bah, and you've yet to post anything substantial that history could "verify."

Obviously you don't read history then. Or maybe I have the only copy in the world of European History that says the pope was dethroned by General Berthier in 1798. Or maybe the sixteen websites I've researched that are not authored by Bible critics are all full of baloney, right? I'm sure you will agree with that last statement

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2005, 02:17 PM	#41
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Sure, fudge the data and hope they overlook it. Nevermind you contradict yourself, gotta sell the Christian lie. Now, can we excuse the ignorant perception of Daniel and accurately focus on it?

03-01-2005, 02:20 PM	#44
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Please, please people, prove things one at a time. Jim, you go first, then Diogenes will prove his.

03-01-2005, 02:26 PM	#46
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Heck, it would be a step forward if Jim would simply justify his translation of "weeks" into "years" and his flip-flopping on the number of days in a "year"...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.