Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter since God failed to keep his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar.

Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Wouldn't that have helped to strengthened the faith of Jews and Christians, and cause some skeptics to become Christians?

It is suspicious that Old Testament prophecies generally deal with the very people who appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Chosen for what, may I ask? Why would God favor Jews and turn his back on the rest of the people in the world?

spin

You seem incapable of reading what I wrote. Your sources are inadequate because they don't deal with the fact that Heliodorus usurped the throne first in the name of Seleucis IV's son and then in his own name before before Antiochus (IV) removed him. You also omit the first Greek king, Alexander. Hence you are simply ignoring what you have to deal with.

Perhaps you should find a more authoritative text to deal with the Seleucid empire than EB. Try Bevin's "House of Seleucus", v2 p.126, which tells of Heliodorus's usurpation of the throne. Or if you like, Swain, "Antiochus Epiphanes and Egypt", the journal of "Classical Philology", vol 39, 2, p76, "Seleucus' chief minister was Heliodorus, who presently murdered his master (176) and ruled as regent for the young heir until he was driven out by Antiochus IV." Diodorus XXX 7, 2 refers to the murder of the son of Seleucus (IV).

This requires the inclusion of both Heliodorus and the young heir later murdered, so we have the three horns that were swept away by the little horn, ie when Antiochus IV usurped the throne. (Of course, the rightful heir of the throne was still in Rome, the future Demetrius I.)

Obviously we are dealing with the Jerusalemite view and obviously in their regard he did.

Next step, now that you've started looking at sources, is to get ones that are authoritative.

The Romans interfered after Antiochus IV's second entry into Egypt. They were too busy dealing with Perseus to act on the first conquest. You'll note that 11:25 he made his first campaign against Egypt,and again in 11:29. The latter is when Popillius Laenas showed up. The two Egyptian kings in 11:27 were rival brothers, Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes.

The reason this vision in Daniel seems to have been written involved supporting the morale of the Jewish fighters against Antiochus. The text dates itself to circa 165 BCE before the death of Antiochus IV, as all its history ends before the death of this king. Verses 11:40ff are pure prediction and hence inaccurate.

Dan 8:8-9

"... in its [Alexander's] place there came up four notable ones [ie horns] toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them [the four notable horns] came forth a little horn..."

You misunderstand the text. We move from the big horn to the four notable ones (which were toward the four winds) on to the little horn.

I wish you would stop mixing and matching the visions. We were dealing here with the vision in ch 8, not that in ch 9. You shouldn't import your errors from one vision to another. At the time of writing there was no later Seleucid ruler than Antiochus IV. He was at the time the last ruler. 1 Maccabees shows that Antiochus IV was perceived by the writers as having destroyed the city and the temple. The visions of Daniel were written before Judas Maccaaeus rededicated the temple.

Onias III was removed in 175 and killed circa 172, and Antiochus went to Jerusalem later.

Misreading the text again. 8:10f tells you that Antiochus threw down some of the host of heaven and acted arrogantly against the prince of the host. The prince of the host is not the prince of princes (8:25b). Antiochus destroys many (see Antiochus's persecution of the Jews in 2 Macc 6) Jews rises against the prince of princes when he polluted the temple, the home of god.

This confuses the prince of princes [$R $RYM] with sugarhitman's christianizing interpretation of the anointed one (9:26) which is conflated with anointed prince [M$YX NGYD].

Just as unsubstantiated as it was first espoused.

As Daniel is dealing with the Syrian wars in ch 11 close to the end of the period Rome came to be the strongest power in the Mediterranean.

Rome didn't come into the glorious land until 63 BCE.

Obviously sugarhitman, you still haven't read 1 Macc 3:45. This is not difficult to find access to. It's in my NRSV bible.

[QUOTE=sugarhitman;5059860]...even if he keeps mentioning maccabees (which he has yet to qoute).
When one cites a source clearly, it allows one to find it for oneself. If you need access to 1 Maccabees try here.

Simply farcical. You blur all the visions together and naturally have little chance of understanding them. Then you come out with such incredible rubbish as this. You could say he was Japanese with as much credibility.

Obviously looking from 2007 "the end times" means something very different to what it meant to someone living over two millennia ago. If as it seems Daniel was written in circa 165 shortly before the death of Antiochus IV then it wouldn't be strange that, living in a state of total war against the local superpower, the Jews felt like they were close to the end of time?


spin

sugarhitman

Due to my having some problems with this quote thing my responses are marked with a star sign.



Perhaps you should find a more authoritative text to deal with the Seleucid empire than EB. Try Bevin's "House of Seleucus", v2 p.126, which tells of Heliodorus's usurpation of the throne. Or if you like, Swain, "Antiochus Epiphanes and Egypt", the journal of "Classical Philology", vol 39, 2, p76, "Seleucus' chief minister was Heliodorus, who presently murdered his master (176) and ruled as regent for the young heir until he was driven out by Antiochus IV." Diodorus XXX 7, 2 refers to the murder of the son of Seleucus (IV).




*Well this doesnt help you at all because now the total number of kings goes up to what 18? 20? And ofcourse the little horn of ch.7 is the same as the one in ch.8. It is an 11th king that arise after the 10. And the 10 rule at the same time not before or after each other as you suggest. This king arises at the end of time of the kingdom. Antiochus did not.*






[This requires the inclusion of both Heliodorus and the young heir later murdered, so we have the three horns that were swept away by the little horn, ie when Antiochus IV usurped the throne. (Of course, the rightful heir of the throne was still in Rome, the future Demetrius I.)[/QUOTE]







*The little horn comes during the reign of ten kings of the 4th empire who rules together. It subdues three of the ten. Antiochus the 8th king does not fulfill this prophecy.









Obviously we are dealing with the Jerusalemite view and obviously in their regard he did.








*"Then the king shall do according to his OWN WILL....he shall enter the countries and overwhelm them and pass through...many countries shall be overthrown....Egypt shall not escape....he stretch out his hand against the countries....He shall not regard the God of his fathers...nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.(Antiochus did regard Zeus)." This power will have power to destroy many countries...Antiochus did not have that power. This may be the Jerusalemite veiw... but not Daniel's.











Next step, now that you've started looking at sources, is to get ones that are authoritative.










*Yes all my sources are weak compared to your expert sources.










The Romans interfered after Antiochus IV's second entry into Egypt. They were too busy dealing with Perseus to act on the first conquest. You'll note that 11:25 he made his first campaign against Egypt,and again in 11:29. The latter is when Popillius Laenas showed up. The two Egyptian kings in 11:27 were rival brothers, Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes.















*But later this horn power actually rules Egypt by controlling its economy." He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt." Antiochus never had this control.

















The reason this vision in Daniel seems to have been written involved supporting the morale of the Jewish fighters against Antiochus. The text dates itself to circa 165 BCE before the death of Antiochus IV, as all its history ends before the death of this king. Verses 11:40ff are pure prediction and hence inaccurate.
















*Oh now its written before the events instead of after? And why would the Jews need a later writing to encourage them when in previous chapters of Daneil this power is already predicted as being defeated? So which is it is the Book of Daneil written before or after the events? And if so which parts? What are your sources concerning this view?

"... in its [Alexander's] place there came up four notable ones [ie horns] toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them [the four notable horns] came forth a little horn..."

ffhh














*or from out of one of the four winds as horns do not come out from another horn.










You misunderstand the text. We move from the big horn to the four notable ones (which were toward the four winds) on to the little horn.











I wish you would stop mixing and matching the visions. We were dealing here with the vision in ch 8, not that in ch 9. You shouldn't import your errors from one vision to another. At the time of writing there was no later Seleucid ruler than Antiochus IV. He was at the time the last ruler. 1 Maccabees shows that Antiochus IV was perceived by the writers as having destroyed the city and the temple. The visions of Daniel were written before Judas Maccaaeus rededicated the temple.










*So now this part is written during Antiochus rule? Its funny how critics decide which part was written when it does not fit their veiws. And did Antiochus DESTROY the city and the temple and dont just talk about what somebody percieves, did it happen or not? Was the city and temple reduced to rubble? Was it made desolate? Did you not know that all of Daniels visions corrospond to each other? As does that of the other prophets about this 'king of the north"















Onias III was removed in 175 and killed circa 172, and Antiochus went to Jerusalem later.












*"And after the sixty two weeks Messiah shall be cut off but not for Himself. And the people of the prince WHO IS TO COME shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." The prince arise after Jerusalem and the temple is destroyed. He shall rise against the Prince of princes but he shall be broken without human means. Meaning he would not be successful against the Prince of princes. So how can Onias III be the Prince of princes when he was murdered by Antoichus when the horn power is to be defeated in its attempts against the Messiah the Prince? Are you saying that Onias is the Messiah? And who is this King who is to rule the world for eternity? Who slays the 4th beast kingdom? Who smashes the ten toes? I will tell you who He is and who Daniel also mentions as being the "Prince of the host" Messiah the Prince "Prince of princes" This is the Messiah of the Jews who has already come...Jesus Christ and not Onias III.














Misreading the text again. 8:10f tells you that Antiochus threw down some of the host of heaven and acted arrogantly against the prince of the host. The prince of the host is not the prince of princes (8:25b). Antiochus destroys many (see Antiochus's persecution of the Jews in 2 Macc 6) Jews rises against the prince of princes when he polluted the temple, the home of god.













*So answer me this who is the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven who defeats the 4th beast and little horn and then rules the earth. Could He be the Prince of the host? The connection of the little horn to the One like The Son of Man is very obvious in ch.7 so why would Daniel deviate from the connection of these two, to connecting the little horn with a earthly priest? It is clear the little horn and the Jewish Messiah is connected throughout the book of Daniel. And all Chapters of Daniel relates to each other through corrosponding visions. And now youre saying that Antiochus is the Prince of princes? Wow! How indeed the little horn stands against itself!















This confuses the prince of princes [$R $RYM] with sugarhitman's christianizing interpretation of the anointed one (9:26) which is conflated with anointed prince [M$YX NGYD].












*The annoited Prince is called in Hebrew Mashiach Nagid. Nagid is the same word used when God chose David to be king. It means God's Annoited King or Prince....Messiah the Prince...who is the Prince of princes a title seen written on Jesus by John in Revelations.











[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Just as unsubstantiated as it was first espoused.






*Only by you















As Daniel is dealing with the Syrian wars in ch 11 close to the end of the period Rome came to be the strongest power in the Mediterranean.



Rome didn't come into the glorious land until 63 BCE.










*But yet it stopped the conquest of Egypt and Jerusalem by Syria









Obviously sugarhitman, you still haven't read 1 Macc 3:45. This is not difficult to find access to. It's in my NRSV bible.




*This is the Catholic bible right? My bible does not have Maccabees.

spin

sugarhitman, your post is currently completely unreadable.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: In your opinion, how many lies would it take to discredit the Bible? If all that it takes is one lie to discredit the Bible, then God's failure to deliver Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar like he promised to has successfully discredited the Bible. Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

How do you explain that?

Logically, inspiring and preserving texts indicates that whoever inspired and perserved them wants people to have access to them. As it was, hundreds of millions of people have died without knowing anything about the God of the Bible. Regarding people who did know about the God of the Bible, it is quite suspicious that God played favorites based upon geography, meaning that people who lived closer to Palestine first learned about the God of the Bible. If God did not have anything to do with the spread of the Gospel message, it is a given that the first people who heard about it would have been people who lived closer to Palestine. No loving God would play favorites based upon geography.

On the contrary, when Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre, some Jews would have given up Judaism. No Jew who lived during Ezekiel's time witnessed the final destruction of all of Tyre. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander, that would have strenghthened the faith of Jews who were Alexander's comtemporaries, and Jews of the future, not to mention Christians of the future. Your "building confidence" argument is obviously not valid.

spin

sugarhitman, when you cite biblical verses you must out of respect cite exactly where they come from.
It is still extremely difficult to read the post and make any sense of it. But I'll try to put it in some semblance of order as I see it.

You are not reading the text you are injecting your assumptions. If the text was written in 165 Antiochus was the last king of the Seleucids at the time. You're forgetting that the rest of the kings were future kings, at the non-existent.

The ten kings were of the same kingdom, therefore not contemporary with each other. There were ten Greek kings before Antiochus IV. His ascension to the throne involved the removal of three kings.

southern Syria, Lebanon, Judea, Palestine (the coastal cities) all on his way to the king of the south.

Just listed.

Antiochus entered and took Egypt (except for the town of Alexandria itself), placing one of the Ptolemy kings (Philometor) on the throne of half of Egypt, as a puppet king.

Yup.

He called himself Antiochus Theos Epiphanes, ("god revealed"), [placing himself above all in the eyes of the writers of Daniel].

As I've explained above it certainly is.

This attempt at irony ironically captures the reality of the situation.

Read your history. You'll learn that you are wrong.

When will you learn what the scholarly position regarding Daniel is? You can read any scholarly commentary on the text, but no, you choose ignore it.

When Daniel's crypto-history goes wrong is just prior to the death of Antiochus IV. That is how the text is dated, apparently having been finished shortly before Antiochus's death, ie 165 BCE.

That's what it is all about. This guy is going down, so keep up the good work. Don't worry about the odds. God is on our side, so we will win.

See above.

Ordinary historical sources, Polybius, Diodorus, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Appian's Syriake.

The text is clear. Four horns rose up in place of the big one and from one of those came the little horn. Alexander, the diadochi, the Seleucid Antiochus IV.

The only attempt at prophecy in the whole crypto-history is from 11:40.

It's all based on history versus not history.

If you refuse to deal with the evidence, then you aren't being reasonable. Read 1 Maccabees and see what the Jerusalemites said.

There seem to be varying degrees of reduction to rubble. 1 Maccabees a text written in the 2nd c. BCE says, "Jerusalem was uninhabited like a wilderness..."

Have you read a word of what I've been saying to you? Of course, each of the visions is related to the others.

Note that this is 62 weeks after the anointed prince mentioned in 9:25. I know that this anointed prince was Yeshua ben Yehozedeq and that the anointed one in 9:26, 62 weeks later is Onias III. According to you, who is the anointed prince of 9:25??

Cite your sources. This is 9:26.

Again, you are confused over your own text. If the people of the prince destroy the city and the temple and they are of the prince who is to come, then obviously the prince who is to come will come when his forces destroy the temple and city.

Dude, you have severe reading problems. I said that Onias III was the prince of hosts (8:11), not prince of princes (8:25b). These are two separate references. The prince of the host was treated arrogantly -- and this doesn't happen to god --, 8:11. At the same time sacrifice was stopped and the host was given over to the little horn, 8:12. The host is earthly. The prince of princes is god.

Yet again you are confusing two visions. You can't just flit from one vision to another and expect continuity. Although they are related they are presented differently and need to first be considered separately.

I have said many times that Onias III was the anointed one in 9:26. He is also the prince of the convenant in 11:22 and the prince of the host in 8:11.

Citation?

The court in 7:26 takes away his power.

This is not one of Daniel's visions. I gather it is a reference to a dream of Nebuchadnezzar. Try to stay on track.

Daniel is a Jewish work. It deals with Jewish issues. That's why you are so confused about the text. You have been indoctrinated to misread the text as foretelling christian events. That's why you have confused the prince of the host and the prince of princes.

1. Who exactly is the little horn who acts arrogantly against the prince of the host, 8:11?
2. Who exactly is the little horn which causes the three horns to get uprooted and who are the three horns?

You are not reading your text. There is no-one referred to as "the son of man". There is "one like a son of man", but that's something you cannot see because you use a bad translation which wrongfully translates the Aramaic. Look here at the NASV, JPS and Young's Literal Translation for the best translation of the original text.

No. As the one like a son of man is paralleled by the one like a lion, the one like a bear, etc., we must assume that we are dealing with the princes of Babylon, Media, etc., and the prince of Israel, ie Michael.

Confusion reigns supreme in this stuff. If you really want I'll try to straighten it out, but there are numerous erroneous assumptions.

Sort of. The Hebrew had no vowels, so the transliteration I've supplied is more accurate.

Rubbish. It simply is a term meaning prince and not the same term as prince [$R] in "prince of princes".

More christianizing confusion. Revelation was written centuries after the time of Daniel, so it is irrelevant to an understanding of it.

It didn't stop the conquest of either. It turned Antiochus out in his second trip into Egypt. Read Daniel.

No, it's the standard NRSV, which has a separate section containing the "apocryphal" books.

When one cites a source clearly, it allows one to find it for oneself. If you need access to 1 Maccabees try here.

Remembering that their structures and images are different and that they contain different information.

You haven't come anywhere near being able to say this with any sense.

Oh, the confusion that you display.

Now that was an effort trying to straighten out the various messes you've made.


spin

dongiovanni1976x

Do you completely disregard Maccabees of all historical value for this reason?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Why did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive.

Doug Shaver

No. Men have spoken, and they have said that their words came from God.

Johnny Skeptic

Whatever Nebuchadnezzar did or did not do, what evidence do you have that what he did what predicted before the events?

Why would God want to predict the future?