Sheshonq

I've already provided the evidence, in the form of the above citations.

ynquirer:
Do you have evidence to support your hasty allegation that Imperial Aramaic persisting unto the 2nd century is ex post rationalization?

Can you explain how Imperial Aramaic in northwest Arabia, Judaea, Palmyra, Babylonia, and Parthia somehow rests upon Daniel? Or would somehow connect to Daniel in any way? What possible relationship or dependency exists between northwest Arabia and the Aramaic in Daniel, for example?

arnoldo

Going back to an earlier point of the importance of keeping the chapters Daniel separate in order to have the correct interpretation. I'm sure if someone “cut and paste” different parts of the Constitution you could “spin” it to mean whatever you wanted it. With that in mind let's examine Daniel 8 and the interpretation given.

The interpretation is given with the SAME chapter, it IS NOT related to Daniel 7:7 ( the ten kings, antiochus “half truth”). Let's see the explanation given in the same chapter Daniel 8:21

With respect to the temple does "King" destroy it? No. Chapter 8:13-14 gives us the answer.

Here we note that the sacrifice is stopped at the temple, but it is not destroyed or the city for that matter, and this temples is eventually restored and cleansed.

In contrast Daniel chapter 9 gives an explanation of a SEPERATE event which will lead to the destruction of the CITY and TEMPLE.

After Nebby destroyed the temple it was rebuilt and then destroyed again by the Romans, Even a minimalist has to agree with this historical fact! Also note here he have an Anointed One who is cut off (no it's not the High Priest that Antiochus killed) and that the people of the ruler WHO WILL COME (future tense) destroys the temple and the city.

We fast forward to 1948 when the State of Israel comes back. Now let us examine what the people of the ruler WHO WILL COME does with respect to Israel

It is clear the temple was destroyed in 70 AD but after that it is rebuilt ( this could never be possible unless the State of Israel was restored to it's land) in which sacrifices are ceased and another abomination is set up. It's very easy to understand Daniel when you let it interpret itself instead of spinning it.

spin

We have Greece perceived this way:

1. single entity (Alexander)
2. four entities (diadochi)
3. two entities (Seleucid and Ptolemy)
4. the persecutor

This is at its fullest expression in Dan 11. In Dan 8 we lack #3. It is simply not considered, though it doesn't imply that it didn't happen. Dan 7 deals with Dan the kings from Alexander to Antiochus IV and his persecution without referring to the diadochi, though it doesn't imply that they didn't happen. Dan 9 simply deals with Antiochus IV in the context of a time framework, a proclamation, an anointed prince, Jeshua ben Yehozedeq, another anointed one, Onias III, a prince, Antiochus IV, stoppage of daily sacrifice and persecution.

1 Maccabees, a text written in the 2nd c. BCE, verse 3:45, says, "Jerusalem was uninhabited like a wilderness; not one of her children went in or out. The sanctuary was trampled down..." In 2:7 Mattathias says, "Why was I born to see this, the ruin of my people, the ruin of the holy city...?" That was the view of people regarding the time of Antiochus IV.

The claim of separate event doesn't make it so. History gives us one person in the last 2700 years who was described specifically as having stopped the daily sacrifice and set up abominations in the temple and that is Antiochus IV. The prince who stopped sacrifice and set up abominations in Dan 9:27 is obviously Antiochus IV, who also removed the anointed one, Onias III, 9:26.

Saying it wasn't so is not an argument. We have a clear historical context based on events and timing. Onias III was cut off in 172/1 BCE. 3 1/2 years later, 167 BCE, Antiochus started his persecution (and stopped sacrifice, set up abominations), and in fact the temple was rededicated 3 1/2 years later.

This silly attempt to fiddle with verb tenses only rubs the egg into your face.

Is there the glimmer of an argument somewhere in this rubbish??

How long do you need your hand being held on this, arnoldo?


spin

makerowner

I'm going to ignore all the rest of the bullshit in your post and focus on this section for now. I assume that you're implying that this 'anointed one' was Jesus. But I've showed you at least twice now that the dates don't add up. From the Wiki article on the Second Temple: "Construction of a new temple was begun in 535; after a hiatus, work resumed ca. 521, with completion occurring in 516 and dedication in 515." Now let's look at the weeks:

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

So the first anointed one comes seven weeks (=49 years) after Cyrus gives permission to rebuild the temple, right? So that brings us to 486 BC. You'll admit that this isn't Jesus right?

26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.

OK so sixty-two weeks (=434 years) later we have another anointed one who is 'cut off'. What's 434 years after 486 BC? 52 BC. You'll admit that this isn't Jesus right?

arnoldo

Since you have a much greater understanding of the book of daniel than I can you answer the following question? You claim that the book of daniel was written between year "A" and year "B" because after year B certain "prophecies" fail. Can you please list the specific prophecies(listing chapter,verse) which, according to your understanding, fail? Thanxs, in advance

makerowner

This section of ch. 11 in particular fails:
[42] He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
[43] He shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall follow in his train.
[44] But tidings from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate and utterly destroy many.
[45] And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him.
There may be more, but I don't know for sure.

aChristian

Wow. You guys are still going at it!

The anti-Christ will fulfill this prophecy and it could happen very soon. If it happens soon, unless you repent, you will be worshipping him. You will fall for the powerful delusion.(II Thes. 2:11,12)

By the way, you still holding the position that Daniel 5:31 can't possibly be translated 'receive' even though the BDB lexicon and several translations do so?

P.S. Is nowhere in Hawaii or England? They are not continents.

makerowner

You're not discouraged by the fact that people have expected this to happen "soon" for about 2000 years?
Not to mention that this description, along with others throughout Daniel, matches Antiochus's reign very well until 164, when it suddenly goes off the rails?

I have no intention of worshipping anything, especially not a human.

Someone's fallen for a delusion alright. :Cheeky:

aChristian

He didn't write it. An acquaintance of his swiped it from the print shop. It was written in old English probably to give it an aura of Biblical history and the parts he added were probably written that way to fool people.

aChristian

If you really are interested, I'll explain it to you.

Your current intentions won't prevent you from being tricked and worshipping him. If it wasn't for Jesus, I would be tricked.