Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-09-2008, 05:46 PM

[QUOTE=spin;5145189]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

... [further ravings omitted] ...

Funny, I don't recall ranting

Anyway, you claim that prophecy after Daniel 11:40 "failed" however that is not necessarily the case. Note the following:

Quote:

Source Cite: Daniel Chapter 11 - Prophecy Fulfilled
by Dale DePriest, quoting and reformating to a large degree the words of Philip Mauro

Quote:

40. And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Quote:

THE TIME OF THE END

In order to avoid confusion it is needful to observe that "the time of the end" may mean one period in one place, and a very different period in another. The meaning is controlled, and is also revealed, by the context. But this is quite frequently overlooked; and we have observed that even careful writers on prophecy have a disposition to take the words "the time of the end" as meaning the end of the gospel dispensation, even when the passage in which they occur does not relate to the present dispensation at all.

Particularly should it be noted that in the Book of Daniel there are two distinct sets of prophecies. The first set, found in chapters II, VII and VIII, relate to the great Gentile world powers, and the prophecies of chapters II and VII carry us on to the end of the times of the Gentiles (chapter VIII gives details of the Greek empire, thus filling in the outline given in the vision of chapter VII). But the second series (chapters IX-XII inclusive) have to do with the history of Daniel’s own people and his holy city. Hence the expression "time of the end," where it occurs in these later prophecies, means the last stage of the national existence of Daniel’s people, that is to say, the era of the Herods.

The period of Jewish history occupied by Herod and his dynasty was therefore "the time of the end" in the sense required by the context; so we have a strong confirmation of the view we have been presenting in the fact that, just at this point in the prophecy, there is given us an outline of those great events (which occurred during the reign of Herod) whereby political supremacy in the world was given to the Caesars, and all was made ready for the coming of the Redeemer. This outline is found in Daniel 11:40-43, and brings us to the subjugation of Egypt (the last of the great independent monarchies to fall under the spreading power of Rome) with the Libyans and Ethiopians. The records of history correspond so exactly to the predictions of this prophecy (as we shall presently point out) that there can be no question at all as to its fulfillment.

In reading this chapter it is to be remembered that the prophecy is not primarily concerned with Syria, Egypt, Rome or any other alien power, but that it refers to them only insofar as they come in contact with, and affect the destinies of, the Jews.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS

Hence these verses Daniel 11:40-43 have a parenthetical character.

As to the manner in which that war began, we have a very clear account in Plutarch’s "Life of Mark Antony," by which it appears that the fulfillment of the prophecy was marvellously exact, not only as regards the manner in which the war began, but also in respect to the sides on which the different parties were at first engaged in it, in regard also to the outcome, to the peculiar arms, "chariots and horsemen and many ships"—by means of which the victories of Augustus were achieved, and finally, in regard also to the rapidity of his conquest, which was effected within the space of a single year.

PLUTARCH’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIAN WAR

The first move in the Actian war was made by Antony (at the urgency of Cleopatra), in which he was assisted by Herod. Says Plutarch:
“Antony, being informed of these things” (that is of certain disputes between Augustus and others in the Senate at Rome) “immediately sent Canidus to the seacoast with sixteen legions. In the meantime he went to Ephesus attended by Cleopatra. There he assembled his fleet, which consisted of 800 ships of burden, whereof Cleopatra furnished 200 besides 20,000 talents, and provisions for the army.”
Antony advanced to Athens, with constantly increasing forces, Augustus being wholly unprepared to meet him; for says the historian:
“When Caesar was informed of the celerity and magnificence of Antony’s preparations, he was afraid of being forced into war that summer. This would have been most inconvenient for him, for he was in want of almost everything. . . . . The auxiliary kings who fought under his (Antony’s) banner were Bocchus of Africa," etc. a list being given—"Those who did not attend in person, but sent supplies were Polemo of Pontus, Malchus of Arabia, Herod of Judea, and Amyntas of Lycaonia and Galatia.”
Thus a king of the south was the first to make a push in this war, and he pushed with Herod. As showing the accuracy of the prophecy it should be noted that, as Plutarch records, the Senate of Rome declared war with Cleopatra alone, ignoring Antony, so that it was strictly between a king of the north, and a king of the south.

Mr. Farquharson points out that the predictions of the prophet were strictly fulfilled also in respect to the character of the forces engaged in the war. For, notwithstanding that each side assembled large numbers of infantry, and notwithstanding that such are the arms usually relied upon to decide a war, yet in this case the infantry were not engaged at all, the issue being decided (as the prophecy indicates) by chariots and horsemen, and many ships.

A strange feature of the affair is that, although Antony’s footmen outnumbered those of Augustus, and although his generals urged him to bring the matter to an issue in a land battle, nevertheless (to quote again from Plutarch)—
“Such a slave was he to the will of a woman that, to gratify her, though much superior on land, he put his whole confidence in the navy; notwithstanding that the ships had not half their complement of men.”
This brought on the great naval fight of Actium, which ended in a complete victory for Augustus; and thus did a king of the north come upon a king of the south, with the effect of a whirlwind, with many ships. A more literal and exact fulfillment of prophecy could not be found.

But that is not all. For Plutarch records that, after the disaster at Actium, Antony’s infantry deserted him, so that the infantry were not engaged during the entire war.

“But," says Farquharson, "when Antony arrived in Egypt, and endeavoured to defend it, to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet that the king of the north would come with chariots and horsemen, as well as with many ships—there were actions with cavalry." For Plutarch says, "When Caesar arrived he encamped near the hippodrome (at Alexandria); whereupon Antony made a brisk sally, routed the cavalry, drove them back into their trenches, and returned to the city with the complacency of a conqueror." It was the conduct of their fleets and cavalry that sealed the fate of Antony and Cleopatra, and left them without resource in their last retreat.”

Daniel Chapter 11 - Prophecy Fulfilled

aChristian · 02-09-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You completely ignored my quote of Nehemiah which contradicts everything you are saying.

You've just been caught out indulging in a selective reading of your Nehemiah source. You've been shown to be ignoring Isaiah. And that shows you to have ignored what you're supposed to be responding to.

spin

I haven't been 'caught' doing anything that you claim. I answered the Isaiah quote with as much detail as was necessary and then I brought you back to the clear and obvious reading of Nehemiah that you continue to avoid. Try re-reading Nehemiah, it contradicts all your claims.

By the way, you still have failed to substantiate your claim that Daniel 5:31 could not be translated 'receive' like so many translators translate it.

spin · 02-09-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Funny, I don't recall ranting

I didn't say "ranting". I said "raving". There's a sufficient difference for you to take note of it. They are not synonyms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Anyway, you claim that prophecy after Daniel 11:40 "failed" however that is not necessarily the case.

When we have closely fit the history in Dan 11:3-39, you'd like to propose, due to yet another "Daniel is not failed prophecy" web spew you've googled up, a total break in the historical narrative of well over 100 years? I guess you don't mind such incoherence. You seem to want the narrative of Daniel to hop around like a Mexican jumping bean.

spin

spin · 02-09-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've just been caught out indulging in a selective reading of your Nehemiah source. You've been shown to be ignoring Isaiah. And that shows you to have ignored what you're supposed to be responding to.

I haven't been 'caught' doing anything that you claim.

Bare bums like yours look ugly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

I answered the Isaiah quote with as much detail as was necessary and then I brought you back to the clear and obvious reading of Nehemiah that you continue to avoid.

All you did was try to downplay what Isaiah says. Bare bum again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Try re-reading Nehemiah, it contradicts all your claims.

Besides the wall, what else did Nehemiah build?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

By the way, you still have failed to substantiate your claim that Daniel 5:31 could not be translated 'receive' like so many translators translate it.

Where did I say it could not be translated as "received"? You're tilting at creations of your own imagination.

While we are dealing with your ridiculous distortions of Daniel, while you'd like Artaxerxes I to have issued a proclamation to rebuild in order to force-fit the 70 weeks vision to your religious commitments, you've got the wrong Artaxerxes. Ezra 4:21 shows that Artaxerxes I stops any building. It is Artaxerxes II in Ezra 7 who allows building to continue.

spin

ynquirer · 02-09-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Your own citation here (p.19) and this mine here (p.34) will do.

In point of fact, neither one will do. I asked for a definite statement that Imperial Aramaic in late time (200s BCE and earlier) Judea was limited to Daniel, and nothing else -- which is the claim you're trying to make.

Neither of these citations says that.

Try again.

Granted. Not in the exact, capricious wording you want the statements to have.

Look. Instead of your playing the referee - for which role you obviously lack the required expertise - let’s play a more balanced, specific game.

If I say, for instance, that two words are unique to the Aramaic of Daniel as compared with any other Aramaic ever, both being high titles (‘counselor’, ‘companion’), and four more words occur only in the Aramaic of Daniel and early (i.e. sixth-fourth century) documents (‘satrap’, ‘judge’, ‘magistrate’, ‘certified’), three of these also being high titles and one part of official style, and that there is no evidence that any of these six legal terms survived the Persian period, my point as regard the linguistic isolation of Daniel in second-century Judea will be quite clear. See the source here, p.42.

Score a hit, prove my proposition to be false - if you can.

Sheshonq · 02-09-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

In point of fact, neither one will do. I asked for a definite statement that Imperial Aramaic in late time (200s BCE and earlier) Judea was limited to Daniel, and nothing else -- which is the claim you're trying to make.

Neither of these citations says that.

Try again.

Granted. Not in the exact, capricious wording you want the statements to have.

Capricious wording? Excuse me? Those are not my words, and it's not my statement.

It is, in fact, your claim that I'm throwing back at you.

No such a thing has been found in Judea to attest second-century written Aramaic similar to Daniel's. There are several Aramaics as used by the Jews in the mid-2nd cent. or shortly afterward, such like Hasmonaean, Targumic and Qumranic, but they are not similar to Daniel's; they may not be called 'Imperial' in any reasonable meaning of the word. Daniel remains an island in the linguistic sea of Judea during the Hellenistic period.

And:

[blah] is ex post rationalization from the presumption that Daniel was written in or about 164 B.C.

So don't try to make me out to be the one asking you to meet an overly stringent standard of evidence. Had you been more careful about how you chose to phrase your claim, maybe you wouldn't be in this bind.

Quote:

Look. Instead of your playing the referee - for which role you obviously lack the required expertise

Ha. As we've just seen, you lack neither the background nor the attention to detail to manage your own claims. And when you were confronted with a problem caused by how you phrased your claim, you lacked the intellectual or emotional maturity to simply admit that fact - instead you tried to shift the blame to your opponent.

And now you want to impugn my background and tell me that I'm not qualified, after your first-class demonstration of backpedaling and handwaving?

Quote:

- let’s play a more balanced, specific game.

*snip*

Score a hit, prove my proposition to be false - if you can.

Sorry. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is duly noted - and rejected. If you claim these words are unique or special in some manner, then demonstrate that. Your claim, your burden of proof.

After all, if there's a paucity of Aramaic source texts from this period out there, then it shouldn't be hard for you to show your claim.

aChristian · 02-09-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[While we are dealing with your ridiculous distortions of Daniel, while you'd like Artaxerxes I to have issued a proclamation to rebuild in order to force-fit the 70 weeks vision to your religious commitments, you've got the wrong Artaxerxes. Ezra 4:21 shows that Artaxerxes I stops any building. It is Artaxerxes II in Ezra 7 who allows building to continue.

spin

Your confused about Artaxeres also.

spin · 02-09-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[While we are dealing with your ridiculous distortions of Daniel, while you'd like Artaxerxes I to have issued a proclamation to rebuild in order to force-fit the 70 weeks vision to your religious commitments, you've got the wrong Artaxerxes. Ezra 4:21 shows that Artaxerxes I stops any building. It is Artaxerxes II in Ezra 7 who allows building to continue.

Your confused about Artaxeres also.

Wish fulfillment naturally. You've made two simple mistakes and one complex mistake in the one sentence. Sure reflects where you're at.

spin

ynquirer · 02-10-2008, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

In point of fact, neither one will do. I asked for a definite statement that Imperial Aramaic in late time (200s BCE and earlier) Judea was limited to Daniel, and nothing else -- which is the claim you're trying to make.

Neither of these citations says that.

Try again.

Granted. Not in the exact, capricious wording you want the statements to have.

Capricious wording? Excuse me? Those are not my words, and it's not my statement.

It is, in fact, your claim that I'm throwing back at you.

No such a thing has been found in Judea to attest second-century written Aramaic similar to Daniel's. There are several Aramaics as used by the Jews in the mid-2nd cent. or shortly afterward, such like Hasmonaean, Targumic and Qumranic, but they are not similar to Daniel's; they may not be called 'Imperial' in any reasonable meaning of the word. Daniel remains an island in the linguistic sea of Judea during the Hellenistic period.

And:

[blah] is ex post rationalization from the presumption that Daniel was written in or about 164 B.C.

So don't try to make me out to be the one asking you to meet an overly stringent standard of evidence. Had you been more careful about how you chose to phrase your claim, maybe you wouldn't be in this bind.

Ha. As we've just seen, you lack neither the background nor the attention to detail to manage your own claims. And when you were confronted with a problem caused by how you phrased your claim, you lacked the intellectual or emotional maturity to simply admit that fact - instead you tried to shift the blame to your opponent.

And now you want to impugn my background and tell me that I'm not qualified, after your first-class demonstration of backpedaling and handwaving?

Bla, bla, bla. Be specific at least once.

Is it true or not that Daniel uses several words denoting official posts and dealings of the Persian Empire, which have so far not been found in Aramaic documents dated post 330 BC?

Quote:

- let’s play a more balanced, specific game.

*snip*

Score a hit, prove my proposition to be false - if you can.

Sorry. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is duly noted - and rejected. If you claim these words are unique or special in some manner, then demonstrate that. Your claim, your burden of proof.

After all, if there's a paucity of Aramaic source texts from this period out there, then it shouldn't be hard for you to show your claim.

You certainly know nothing of scientific procedures. The burden of the proof naturally falls with whoever suspects a proposition to be false, not with the one who affirms it to be true since, as every educated person knows, a testable proposition may be proven false but cannot possibly be proven true.

makerowner · 02-10-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

You certainly know nothing of scientific procedures. The burden of the proof naturally falls with whoever suspects a proposition to be false, not with the one who affirms it to be true since, as every educated person knows, a testable proposition may be proven false but cannot possibly be proven true.

Well, no; the burden falls on whoever is making the positive claim. If I claim that there's a dragon in my garage, the burden isn't on you to disprove it, it's on me to prove it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.