Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-04-2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak strange things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done. 37 Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all. 38 But in his place shall he honor the god of strongholds; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and costly things. 39 And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price.
and so on, including the mention of his receiving help from a foreign god (Olympian Zeus, see 2 Macc 6:2).

Wrong, remember that Antiochus IV (died 163 B.C) was referred to as "the king of the north" Daniel 11:36 refers to "the king" which is Herod the Great.

Umm, since when was Herod the Great a conqueror of anything other than his own kingdom? And when did he ever "deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god"? Who was the foreign god?? Which fortresses? The good Herod might have been a horrid piece of excrement, but he was a believer in the Hebrew god and he did nothing without the consent of the Romans.

Herod is simply a lame choice on arnoldo's part. Real lame.

spin

Sheshonq · 02-04-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong, remember that Antiochus IV (died 163 B.C) was referred to as "the king of the north"

No, that is the interpretation you want to put on the text. You haven't lifted so much as a finger yet to prove that is the most likely reading - nor have you dealt with spin's analysis, other than to handwave and bluster.

Quote:

Daniel 11:36 refers to "the king" which is Herod the Great.

No, just another wishful interpretation on your part - not to be confused with fact.

arnoldo · 02-04-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You have basically proven Daniel's prophecy to be accurate.

Bullshit. spin's detailed analysis did exactly the opposite.

You are unable to address or refute it, so you wave your hands rapidly and say "it supports my claim."

Dishonesty must be a core requirement for bible literalists.

Doesn't the detailed analysis prove that Daniel Chpt. 11 describes events accurately, thus it must be "written after the fact"?

Sheshonq · 02-04-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Bullshit. spin's detailed analysis did exactly the opposite.

You are unable to address or refute it, so you wave your hands rapidly and say "it supports my claim."

Dishonesty must be a core requirement for bible literalists.

Doesn't the detailed analysis prove that Daniel Chpt. 11 describes events accurately, thus it must be "written after the fact"?

1. "written after the fact" is the opposite of "prophecy" -- which was your claim, after all.

2. The detailed analysis shows how Dan Ch11 fails to accurately describe events anyhow - which you would know, except you skipped reading the detailed analysis.

The bottom line is that you don't have the patience or intellectual attention span to study this material in depth. So you substitute preaching and dishonesty.

Equinox · 02-04-2008, 02:21 PM

makerowner wrote:

Quote:

arnoldo, deal with chapter 11. Stop trying to derail the thread. spin's post here goes in to detail about the historical events behind each verse. Please indicate for each verse whether you agree or disagree with spin's explanation, and if you disagree, explain why and provide sources. Thank you.

OK, I can't resist a bad pun. Is Arnoldo's inability to deal with
chaper 11 intellectual bankruptcy?

arnoldo · 02-04-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong, note Daniel Chpt 7.
1. Lion = babylon
2. Bear = Medo/Persia
3. Leopard (4 wings/4 heads)= Greece
4. Fourth Beat = Rome, the little horn is prophetic

A man who has sold his soul.

This is what I said in post #46 of this thread:

The four beasts of chapter 7, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Media), the panther (Persians), the unnamed beast -- the elephant to us -- (Greece), is the same progression in the statue of Dan 2, which has the Greek empire dividing into two legs, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The feet made of iron and clay indicate the varying power that the two empires were able to wield.

The usual christian game is to pretend that the Medes and the Persians were really one empire, despite the fact that the Persians conquered the Medes. The Jews of course saw Media as separate from the Persians, Isaiah 13:17-19 prophecying that the Medes would destroy Babylon.

But let's look at what Darius I says about himself at the beginning of the Behistun inscription:

I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of countries, son of Hystaspes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian.

Yes, no mention of Media here, just Persia. But wait, let's look further. Another inscription by Darius from Persepolis (DPd):

(1-5.) I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of many countries, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian.
(5-18.) Darius the King says: By the favor of Ahuramazda these are the countries which I got into my possession along with this Persian folk, which felt fear of me (and) bore me tribute: Elam, Media, Babylonia, Arabia, Assyria, Egypt, Armenia, Cappadocia, Sardis, Ionians who are of the mainland and (those) who are by the sea, and countries which are across the sea; Sagartia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Bactria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Sind, Gandara, Seythians, Maka.
(18-24.) Darius the King says: If you shall think thus, "May I not feel fear of (any) other," protect this Persian people; if the Persian people shall be protected, thereafter for the longest while happiness unbroken -- this will by Ahura come down upon this royal house.

Pride of place to the Persians.

Naturally the Medes are an important part of the Persian empire. The mother of Cyrus II was a Mede. Media is close to the top of the list of tributary countries in the above inscription. The Persians had armies from Media.

But Darius invokes Ahura Mazda to protect the Persians, his people.

Although in the minds of certain christian fanatics there was a "Medo/Persian" empire, the Persians did not agree.

There is no confusion. Daniel describes the Medes and the Persians as one entity in Daniel 8:3 "as a ram with two horns, one was higher (persian) than the other (medes)" Next Daniel describes the Greecian empire as a goat with a great horn (alexander the great) which broke into 4 smaller horns (4 generals) and after sprang a little horns (Ant. IV)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We are left with the four beast in Daniel 7 as:

Lion = Babylon
Bear = Media
Panther = Persia
Elephant = Greek (Seleucid) kingdom

The fourth, unnamed, beast is exceedingly strong, has great teeth (tusks) and tramples all before it. This is an image of an elephant seen by those who had never seen the beast before and only now in the last few years been confronted with it in battle, for the Seleucids used the elephant against the Jews (1 Macc 3:34, 2 Macc 11:4).

Ridiculous, anyone knows that the goat has been a symbol of greece and is even on their ancient coins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, I did like arnoldo's reference:

3. Leopard (4 wings/4 heads)= Greece

hoping that the four wings and heads would have some support for the Greek identification of the third beast, but of course Dan 11 shows how important the four were

You are getting confused, Daniel 11 plainly list the order of kings in summary 1. Three persian kings. 2. Xerxes 3. A mighty King "Alexander the Great"

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

, dealing with it in half a verse before moving on to the two, the king of the north and the king of the south. This division in two is important for the image of the statue in Dan 2, representing the two legs as the Seleucids and the Ptolemies.

Sorry,metals were highly symbolic in the ancient world
Gold= Babylon
Silver= medo/persia (the united to form ONE KINGDOM as you explained
Brass= Greece
Iron=Rome, the two legs are how Rome was divided into East and West.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In short Daniel seems little interested in the short-lived era of the diadochi. The writers are much more interested in the time of Antiochus IV.

If you ignore Daniel 8 which describes a Ram with one great horn (persia0 and one shorter horn (mede) conquering everyone and then a mighty Ram with one horn (alexander the great) destroying the ram with subsequently 4 little horns ,etc,etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Is this a plea to have the symbiont removed? Is there somewhere within where the human resists?

The little horn in Dan 8 is admitted here to be Antiochus IV, but not the little horn in Dan 7 according to our inerrantist. Let's look at Dan 8:9-12:

9 Out of one of them came forth another, a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. 11 Even against the prince of the host it acted arrogantly; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. 12 And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper.

The little horn attacked Jerusalem

and like the fourth beast in Dan 7:6 trampled down everything. It acts and speaks with arrogance (7:8, 8:11). It overthrew the sanctuary, aggressed against the prince of the host (the prince of the covenant who was removed in 11:22 and the anointed one who was cut off in 9:26, these figures are all the anointed high priest Onias III, who was removed from office by Antiochus IV), and stopped the daily sacrifice (8:11, see also 9:27 and 11:31).

That's what foreshadowing is called. Antiochus IV is not the "little horn" described in Daniel 8:9. Why? Because this fourth beast has ten horns and in the midst of these a "little horn" arose. On the other hand Greece arose from Alexander the Great and his empire was divided into 4 regions, not 10.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be obvious that we are dealing with the persecution of the Jews during the reign of Antiochus IV. Dan 7 doesn't talk about the stoppage of the sacrifice, but it does provide us with other clues:

23 "Thus he said: 'The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it. 24 'As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings. 25 'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will attempt to change the times and the law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

As I pointed out here the ten horns were

Quote:

Alexander
Seleucus I
Antiochus I
Antiochus II
Seleucus II
Antiochus III
Seleucus III
* Seleucus IV
* Antiochus -
* Heliodorus

These last three are important in understanding the story of the little horn (Antiochus IV): Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus III and set up his son Antiochus under his own control, but soon decided to do away with the young Antiochus. This is when the younger son of Antiochus III came along and removed Heliodorus. Antiochus IV was not destined to be king, but he came along when three horns made room for this little horn, Dan 7:8.

This is what is meant in 7:24 when it says he "shall put down three kings."

Wrong. Daniel 7:23 states the fourth beast will devour the whole earth and break it in pieces. By the 1 BC Rome was beginning to ascend to power and topple the remnant of the Grecian Empire. Event the Jews were able to defeat the "greek armies" in Israel. Thanks for the history lessson, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Antiochus instituted the monthly celebration of his birthday (2 Macc 6:7) naturally using the Greek calendar rather than the Jewish one. He also forbad the celebration of the sabbath (2 Macc 6:11). This indicates Antiochus attempting to change the times. 2 Macc 6:5 tells us that he covered the altar with abominable offerings that were forbidden by the law, indicating what the writer of Daniel refers to as his attempt to change the law.

Antiochus will have power over the Jews for three and a half years (a time, times, and half a time, 7:25, 12:7; half a week of years, 9:27; approximately 1150 days or 2300 mornings and evenings, 8:14), ie from 167 to 164 BCE.

So the prophecy was fulfilled, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Each of the four visions deal with the persecution of the Jews. In all four of them the villain is Antiochus IV.

And all four "visions" were written after the fact, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He is the arrogant little horn in 7:8 and 8:9-11.

They share the same spirit but they are not the same person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He actively interferes with the Jewish religion in all the visions.

Antiochus IV unites all these visions (showing that they deal with the same material from different literary perspectives) and explains all the salient images. The inerrantist approach is to separate the visions and confuse their significance because of the religious necessity of forcing them to fit early christian interpretations of them. Without such a need and armed with sufficient historical knowledge, it's not difficult to overcome christian bias and see that Daniel isn't such a hard book to understand.
spin

[/QUOTE]

It's not hard to understand that the book of daniel was written well before the 2nd century BC either.

Sheshonq · 02-04-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

s and the Persians as one entity in Daniel 8:3 "as a ram with two horns, one was higher (persian) than the other (medes)"

Thus proving that Daniel was confused. There was no "Medo Persian" empire. It was the Persian empire.

Quote:

Next Daniel describes the Greecian empire as a goat with a great horn (alexander the great) which broke into 4 smaller horns (4 generals) and after sprang a little horns (Ant. IV)

No, that is your interpretation of it. So far you've been unable to prove this interpretation nor have you been able to address spin's analysis.

Quote:

Ridiculous, anyone knows that the goat has been a symbol of greece and is even on their ancient coins.

Making shit up again?

1. The goat is not the symbol of Greece. if you think it is, then by all means prove it. If it's true that "anyone knows", then finding proof should be easy. But we all know that ain't gonna happen, because you consider yourself exempt from having to prove your wild claims.

2. The Greeks also put dolphins, cups, human beings, warriors, medusa heads, etc. on their coins. By your busted logic, all these other things must be a symbol of Greece, too - right?

And just earlier you were claiming that nobody believes Daniel was written in a three-year timespan. I would have thought you realized the dangers of made-up claims by now?? Yet you're doing it again?? I smell another embarrassment coming for arnoldo! :rolling:

Quote:

You are getting confused, Daniel 11 plainly list the order of kings in summary

Nothing "plain" about it - especially since you haven't addressed spin's analysis.

Quote:

It's not hard to understand that the book of daniel was written well before the 2nd century BC either.

Except that it wasn't. The internal and external evidence clearly points to a date in the 160s BCE.

arnoldo · 02-04-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Once Daniel gets past 164 BCE, though, the predictions all fail. Daniel predicted that Antiochus would be killed in Palestine by a Ptolemaic king from the south and then the end of the world would come. Antiochus died not in Palestine, but in Persia, not by a king from the south but by an illness. .

Of course the correct answer is that Antiochus was foreshadowing the emergence of another character described in the book of revelation and described by daniel as a beast with ten horns.

Sheshonq · 02-04-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Once Daniel gets past 164 BCE, though, the predictions all fail. Daniel predicted that Antiochus would be killed in Palestine by a Ptolemaic king from the south and then the end of the world would come. Antiochus died not in Palestine, but in Persia, not by a king from the south but by an illness. .

Of course the correct answer is that Antiochus was foreshadowing the emergence of another character described in the book of revelation and described by daniel as a beast with ten horns.

The problem with that "correct answer" are as follows:

1. You have utterly failed to show that this is reference to Antiochus in the first place - and until you do that, you cannot claim anything about "Antiochus foreshadowing" - dont' get the cart before the horse;

2. You have yet to show that "foreshadowing" is a valid principle of interpretation anyhow - as opposed to being a fundamentalist trick to evade admitting another failed prophecy.

arnoldo · 02-04-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Of course the correct answer is that Antiochus was foreshadowing the emergence of another character described in the book of revelation and described by daniel as a beast with ten horns.

The problem with that "correct answer" are as follows:

1. You have utterly failed to show that this is reference to Antiochus in the first place - and until you do that, you cannot claim anything about "Antiochus foreshadowing" - dont' get the cart before the horse;

2. You have yet to show that "foreshadowing" is a valid principle of interpretation anyhow - as opposed to being a fundamentalist trick to evade admitting another failed prophecy.

You have also utterly failed to state how someone could accurately write events from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 to the death of Antiochus IV in 164 BC (in just three short years between 167 to 164) and then have this text magically appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In any event you do agree that Daniel 11 is 100% accurate,right?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.