agator

I believe this is refering to the end times, more specifically, the tribulation. He, being the anti messiah, will make a covenant with many, for a period of 7 years. This is the length of the tribulation. The sacrifices haven't started in the temple, so they must do so before they can cease. In other words, this is in the future.

From Future's History: Daniel 9 is what drives the liberals nuts. It pinpoints the starting date of the “seventy weeks� period, and it specifies a length of time that is to pass before Messiah, “the Prince,� is to appear. The prediction is so precise and verifiable, it requires a miraculous knowledge of future events. Critics of the Book of Daniel have tried for years to establish a date of its writing hundreds of years after his death. Its plethora of specific and detailed prophecies about the times of the gentiles—prophecies that were fulfilled to the letter—prove that Yahweh’s knowledge transcends time, and/or that His ability to manipulate world events transcends the power of mortal man. And that makes their unbelief look foolish (which it is). So they usually suggest a date after the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.). Unfortunately for them, the Talmud supports authorship by the historical sixth-century Daniel. And then there’s the little matter of the Septuagint: the book was translated into Greek in Alexandria around 275 B.C. It’s hard to translate something that hasn’t been written yet.
But even if the book had been written in the second century B.C., it wouldn’t help the case of the anti-prophecy critics in the case of the passage at hand, Daniel 9. The initial fulfillment occurred well into the first century A.D. Check out Ken Power's online book to fully understand this. It is well beyond the scope of this thread.

andrewcriddle

Hi Spin

Do you mean that the DSS come from a sectarian Jewish religious group other than the Essenes ?

If so I don't think the evidence is strong enough on either side to be worth discussing here.

Or do you mean that the DSS do not come from a sectarian Jewish religious group at all (ie they were written by religious Jews fully within the mainstream of Second Temple belief and practice.)

If so I think this is unlikely. The general nature of works such as the 'Community Rule' and the 'Damascus Document' appears sectarian, and the calendar apparently used by the DSS's writers would have caused divergences with the calendar used at Jerusalem sufficient to prevent full participation in Temple worship.

(Note: I haven't referred above to the connection or otherwise between the DSS and the ruins at Qumran. Although IMHO they are connected I believe that the sectarian nature of the core DSS would be highly probable whether or not such a connection exists.)

Andrew Criddle

(Note to moderators: maybe this should be split into another thread)

Toto

agator - this online book? Future History on Yada Yahweh ? Why is it beyond the scope of this thread?

Toto

If you want to discuss the Essenes and the DSS, please start with a clean thread.

andrewcriddle

Have done. Sorry.

Andrew Criddle

agator

I guess I meant that it would be easier to just go there and read it yourself instead of going into all the branches this would cover- Anti Christ, false prophet, end of days, tribulation, rapture, millennial temple, gog from magog, etc.

It is on that website because the author of Yada Yahweh( know Yahweh), Craig Winn, and Ken Power have a history together and list each others' books on their web sites. Ken's book is primarily a book of yet to be fulfilled prophesies. Craig's book is similar but much more in-depth as he amplifies the Hebrew and Greek text as to know exactly what the scriptures were actually saying. After reviewing, I don't see how anyone can understand what our creator intended us to know from the feeble translations we are accustomed to. Its laborous but will worth the time.

spin

Eek, Gog of Magog, or in Akkadian, Gugu of Mat-gugi (of "the land of Gugu"), or in Greek, Gyges of Lydia, is long dead. He died long before Ezekiel's prophecy at the hands of the Cimmerians (Gomer). Ezekiel is drawing on an old tradition: Meshech and Tubal, ie Mushki and Tabal, had also gone by Ezekiel's time, as had Gomer and Beth-Togarmah. The Ezekiel prophecy is completely anachronistic. Revelation 20 is right out, cribbing the names from Ezekiel.


spin

agator

Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel; he had been deported to Babylon in the wake of Jehoiachin’s rebellion in 597 B.C. and received his prophetic commission there some years later. The war he describes in chapters 38 and 39 of his book could not have been historical when he wrote about it, for it speaks of the Jews’ return to the land—and they had just been exiled for the first time. But one will search in vain throughout subsequent history for a war that remotely fits the description of the participants and the outcome of this war, especially since it is prophesied to open the eyes of the Jews to the truth about their God. Since he speaks of Isreal dwelling in "safety", and "unwalled villages", he is either errant or it is future. Isreal has never lived like this- certainly not since the days of Solomon. His prophesy doesn't mention one place that isn't modern day Muslim, and I don't kknow anyone who will be surprised when they attack the Jews in Israel..... again. This is to let them know that Yahweh is their God, and they better recognize it quick.
“So the house of Israel shall know that I am Yahweh their God from that day forward.� (Ezekiel 39:22)

Islamic writtings also speak of this event as future ( as if that matters )

Celsus

Jim, that doesn't support your argument at all. In fact, it only provides an argument why the MT division might not have any say on Daniel, which is pure conjecture. Nor is Josephus' view on the matter much use because you were talking about a 2nd century BCE date (and hence must have been around for much longer before that). You do realise that Josephus wrote about 3 centuries after your purported date, right?

Again, you aren't answering any of the questions
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There is another tradition of "Daniel" found in Ezekiel 14 who is grouped as a primordial character alongside Noah and Job, being "saved" but not including his sons or daughters. That raises the first doubt as to which "prophet" Jesus was refering to. Secondly, that doesn't support your 2nd century BCE date. Unless you're following Alvar Ellegård.
Jim my man, I'm trying my best to be respectful, but you really have no idea what I've been saying. The Genesis Apocryphon is not the Biblical book of Genesis. It's got stories of Abraham that are similar to but distinct from that of Genesis. Enoch is a separate book, as is Noah, both found also at Qumran, among these "sacred writings" of yours. There are many much more besides, including pseudo-Danielic fragments. If you think the Essenes or whoever was responsible for the deposition of materials there considered the books at Qumran canonical, then that means there is a much bigger Bible than the one you bring to church with you each week. This demonstrates the problem of assuming something found at Qumran was canonical, a point you haven't addressed in the slightest.

Joel

Sven

No. You are the one claiming that Satan exists, so only you have to explain how you know that he's not deceiving you. To make it more clear: You have to demonstrate that your worldview actually works.

I don't even think he exists, so I'm not accepting the existence of supernatural beings in any way.

"good"? We were talking about Satan - to conclude from his (supposed) existence to the existence of any good supernatural being is a huge non-sequitur. And to conclude that this good supernatural being influenced the writing of the bible is an even huger non-sequitur.
Learn basic logic, Jim. It's really fun.

Of course it doesn't make him not non-existent. I'm only pointing out that your evidence is not evidence, because it can be explained in a simpler way.

You still don't follow your "logic" to its logical end:
If Satan indeed exists and is deceiving people, he could as well have deceived the writers of those verses. Or he could deceive you right now to read something different / to interpret it differently than what is actually written.
Face it: Positing a Satan who deceives people makes any enquiry about the world moot.

I already said what I think: That it can be explained by psychology (mental disorders etc.). And some are certainly hoaxes.

See above. Satan could have corrupted the scriptures and/or your interpretation of the bible. This does not work.

[snip]

Newsflash: "Not thinking" is not an argument.

It isn't "unassisted". There's something like chemistry, which works by specific rules.

Do you also see nucleosynthesis going hand in hand with chemistry?

[snip drivel about micro/macro]

That's only one way of doing research. There's also much work done on how those compounds are actually formed. But let's take this to the other forum, we already got far off-topic.
You also ignore that science is often a process of extrapolating from the known to the unknown.
And remember, you are the one claiming that abiogenesis is impossible in principle. Where's your argument for this apart from your incredulity?

And what produced God? Ever heard about "special pleading"?
Learn basic logic, Jim. It's really fun.

Oh, we're back at insults. How nice.