Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
You obviously don't read the other posts before you post . Bernard talked about the times of Daniel in his posts. The quoted web-site I gave also mentioned that Daniel was a part of the minor prophets that was placed in translation by the Alexandrian 70 septuigent translators before this time.

Jim, you are misrepresenting me big time. I never wrote that. Actually, over & over, I demonstrated the opposite, even from the websites you presented to me.
So I am asking you to read my posts, not skim through it, and ignore what you do not like.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Bernard,
On the last web-site I gave you to look at you tried to invalidate it but you never prooved it was a fake or inaccurate. You made statements referring back to your web-site sources which imply otherwise, which my source gave contridictory evidence to.

I'm gone for the weekend guys, hope you all stay safe.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
Bernard,
On the last web-site I gave you to look at you tried to invalidate it but you never prooved it was a fake or inaccurate. You made statements referring back to your web-site sources which imply otherwise, which my source gave contridictory evidence to.

Since when a website is evidence?
The last site you show me never say that 'Daniel' was incorporated in the LXX before the 1st century BC.
What is there to invalidate?

Here is from your website:

Tradition tells us that there were seventy or seventy-two (6 from each tribe) of these translators, and it is the number 70 that gives us the nickname "Septuagint" (abbreviated LXX, Roman numeral 70). The story of the translation became legend, and legend has it that the translators prepared their versions separate from one another. Then, when they compared, they found their translations word-for-word identical. This story is a certain fabrication (dating to the second century BCE), and in reality the exact number of translators is unknown. It is also possible that the original corps of translators rendered only the Torah into Greek; **the remainder of the Hebrew Bible may have been translated later**. Still, the LXX gave Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews a Bible to study and would later become the standard Biblical text for Christians (until the language of Latin became more dominant).

Where is the evidence in your favor?
"my source gave contradictory evidence to"
Where is it? Show it to us.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

I think the operative word here is MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED LATER, there is nothing in the above statement which says it WAS TRANSLATED LATER, also in the statement which you didn't include in your last post it did show Daniel ( expanded ) was part of the LXX that was translated by the "original" alexandrian translators which to me shows "EVIDENCE" that it MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSLATION.

Your making rash statements to invalidate the accuracy of Daniel by insinuating it was put into writing after the fact of its prophectic statements. You haven't showed me any more evidence than I have shown you.

Jim Larmore

Bernard ,
I wanted to give you the reason why I believe the 4th kingdom is Rome and the little horn is the papacy.

The 4th kingdom was different than any other Daniel had saw he was familiar with a lion , a bear , and a lepord but this beast was awesome and nothing like he had ever seen. Dan 7:23 "The fourth beast, , , which shall be diversew from all kingdoms and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in peices." No other country on earth had ruled like Rome , Rome ruled with an "Iron" hand, it was terrible and strong, Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross.Rome was symbolized here by iron and it was justified. Rome ruled from 168 B.C.E to 476A.D. Dan. 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise and another shall rise after them, and he shall be diverse from the 1st ( Rome ) and he shall subdue three kings.
These 10 kings are the same as the ten toes on the great idol Nebuchshadnezzar saw in his dream. When Rome fell apart it divided into 10 kingdoms . The three kingdoms which was subdued by the 1st diverse kingdom, were the same three horns plucked up by the little horn in Dan7:8. According to history the Armies under the Bishop of Rome ( papacy ) destroyed three kingdoms and they are actually extinct to this day they are the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, and the Heruli.

The ten kingdoms of early "Europe" are the Visogoths ( spain ) , the Franks ( France ) , the Suevi ( Portugal ) , the Alamanni ( Germany) , the Burgundians ( Switzerland) , the Anglo-Saxons (England) , the Lombards (Italy) and of course the ones who are extinct the Vandals, the ostrogoths and the Heruli.

The ten Identifying points for the little horn power.
1. Dan7:8 This power would come up from " among them" or western europe like the other ten kingdoms. The papacy came up from among the peoples there at the time Rome fell.
2. Dan 7:8 It would be a "little" kingdom, not big like the others .If you look at the size of the vatican you'd have to agree its the smallest "kingdom" to ever exist, it covers maybe 80 acres or so.
3. It would have a man at is head, Dan7:8 "eyes of a man and a mouth speaking great things. This kingdom was able to do things no other kingdom had ever done before.
4.It would up root three kingdoms Dan7:8 this is historical in every encyclopedia.
5.It would come after 476 A.D. because the 10 kingdoms were not there until Rome fell apart around that time. The Bishop of Rome (papacy) was given power by Emperor Justinian in 538 A.D.
again this is history.
6. It would be "diverse", no other government has been like the papacy, it is not only a legal but a religious power, all other kingdoms monarchs, etc but were not religious in nature like the vatican.
7. It would speak great words and blasphemy, Rev 13:5 says almost the exact same thing when it describes the beast who would "mark" the whole world. John 10:31-33 says blasphemy is when a man claims to be God. Mark 2:5-7 says a blasphemy is when a man claims the power to forgive sins.The papacy and the "universal" churche's priesthood claims to have this power, only God can forgive sins not any man, ( except Jesus who was God incarnate)
8. It would wear out the saints of the most high. Dan7:25, no other religious power on earth has been responsible for the massacres of the Roman papacy. Its conservatively estimated that over 30 million people were totured and killed during the dark ages by the papacy , America is here now because of papal persecutution of christians.
9 It would think to change " times " and laws. Under the power of the Roman influence the ten commandments have been changed. They thru out the 2nd and changed the 4th from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day fo the week.
10 It would rule for a "Time, times , and a dividing of times". this is prophetic statement in Dan7:25, in Rev.12:14 and 12:6 it says the same thing in a different way but it amounts to 1260 days or 1260 prophetic years. Taking a day as a year Ezek 4:6 and Numbers 14:34, now if we begin in 538A.D. and go 1260 years we come to 1798, This year during the french revolution general Napolean's army overthrough the papal power and the pope was cast into exile where he died.

Lastly in Rev13:2. it says the "beast" ( the same as the little horn power) was like unto a leopard, and his feet was as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion, and the dragon gave him his power and great authority. All the things of the former kings became a part of this little horn power. If you really study catholisim it has carried over with it a form of sun worship and other paganistic forms of religion that , Babylon, Greese and Persia had. I'm not saying they worship the sun per se' but the tradition is there with the sun shining behind the saints head in the paintings and the vatican has one of the largest sun dials in the world. The burning heart is pagan, ancient priest in Bablylon and Greese when they had the winter equinox they would sacrifice a human rip out his heart and burn it on an alter on the 25th of Dec. from this day on you can notice a longer day thus they appeased the sun god to return.

Also the beast is identified by a number 666. If you take the inscription on the pope's miter it says Vacarius Feliu Dei. if you add this inscription up into its Roman numerals it adds up to 666.

Steven Carr

Hi Jim,
Found those sceptics who in 1960 said Pontius Pilate did not exist?????

As an Anglo-Saxon , I am rather astonished you think Rome fell into 10 kingdoms (BTW, the Holy Roman Empire continued in the East)

England was not one kingdom for a while. And what happened to the Scottish kingdom, or the many kingdoms in Germany? Bayern was an independent kingdom for a long,long time.

Really, your post is an example of hwo to write something that atheists will just shake their head in bafflement at, that somebody can talk in such a way in the 21st century.

Jim Larmore

Hi back Steve hope your having a great monday

The encyclopedias comfirm historically what I'm writing here. I'm not saying England was one kingdom exactly when Rome fell but the Anglo- Saxons were a part of the entities which helped form early europe. Actually Rome didn't fall per se' it sort of fell apart under the recurring attacks of the nothern barbaric tribes. The organization of what became europe fell into ten "basic" kingdoms, this is historic.

If what I'm saying embaffles atheists then they must refute history as not being something we should study in the 21st century.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
I think the operative word here is MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED LATER, there is nothing in the above statement which says it WAS TRANSLATED LATER,

The author said before he was thinking about only the Torah being initially translated in the LXX. I repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever about the other biblical texts being translated then.

were translated then also in the statement which you didn't include in your last post it did show Daniel ( expanded ) was part of the LXX that was translated by the "original" alexandrian translators

I do not know from where you read that. There is nothing in the website which says that. The first LXX's which we know about, came to us dated 1st to 4th century AD, show different series of texts, including some written in the 2nd & 1st cent. BC, as obviously the Maccabees books

which to me shows "EVIDENCE" that it MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSLATION.

That shows you are a desperate man who wants to see evidence where there is none.

Your making rash statements to invalidate the accuracy of Daniel by insinuating it was put into writing after the fact of its prophectic statements. You haven't showed me any more evidence than I have shown you.

I am not insinuating, I am saying it.
And what are your comments about:
The O.T. apocryphal book 'Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach', written in Hebrew around 200-180BC, comments on the (Jewish) "famous men" in chapters 44-51: Joseph (the counterpart of Daniel at the Pharaoh's court) is named and three of the four major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) are mentioned, but NOT the fourth one (and the most phenomenal!), Daniel.

How do you explain that Daniel, who would be fabulous/famous in more ways than one, is not in the list of famous men in the book of Sirach?
How could a Jew who was an administrator in Babylon at the highest level, under differents kings,
AND
manage to escape the lions' pit
AND
not only could interpret the kings' dreams, but also guess what the dream was
AND
and prophecised the rules of Persian kings, then Alexander the Great, then the Hellenist kingdoms, with all kind of wars & conflicts & treaties, with an unsurpassed accuracy (compared to other prophetic books)
be ignored by Jesus of Sirach, who by the way, knew about texts who had been translated from Hebrew to Greek?

Best regards, Bernard

PS: do not expect any comments from me on your speculations about the prophecies of Daniel. That would be a waste of my time.

Jim Larmore

I'm sorry you feel that way Bernard, I have made a good argument to show the little horn's identification and I must say I'm not the only one who feels this is true. Take my post apart and proove me wrong here. Like you have said, I dare you!!

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
I read on that web-site that Daniel (expanded) was part of the texts translated by the alexandrian translators.

Bernard: Provide us a quote from the website saying that.

And then, "Daniel (expanded) was part of the texts translated by the alexandrian translators".
Bernard: The question is when. Where does that say Daniel was translated before 170BC?

Jim wrote:
I don't know Bernard but I don't believe this shows conclusive evidence that Daniel wasn't part of the O.T. books in question here.

You do not know BUT you don't believe this is evidence against you.

Can you explain yourself on this. Or are you claiming ignorance to support your theory?
Your position seems to be: I do not want to know about it because that allows me to dream up anything I like.

Best regards, Bernard