arnoldo

So is your theory that those Jews would look at historical events, such as Tyre being destroyed, forge a prophecy about it, and then show it to their fellow Jews and pretend that they wrote the prophecy before the event happened? That really doesn't make much sense. Would you be impressed if for example the day after 9/11 someone handed you a manuscript of the prediction of 9-11. I don't think so. Anyway since that Jewish manuscripts contain errors, according to your point of view, wouldn't that cause the Jews to totally disbelieve the prophecy. From the Tyre example I suppose your arguing that's where it was added “the many nations part” in order to cover up the mistake. Why wouldn't they have simply just put in the name of Alexander to give absolute proof the prophecy is correct? Do you have evidence of various revised prophecies of Ezekiel? If so can you list your sources?

makerowner

Well, almost nothing. Rome is mentioned in ch. 10 as the 'Kittim' whose ships stop Antiochus from invading Egypt.

Solitary Man

To be technical, in English that'd be the Roman Republic. It wasn't really an empire, headed by an imperator, until Augustus. It was no more an empire than America is to-day.

Solitary Man

It helps to know that the Jews themselves do not consider Daniel to be a prophet. It is included with the Ketuvim, not the Neviim.

Roger Pearse

Before this bible-knocking gets entirely out of hand, I ought to point out that the early Christians were not committed to the proposition that the Old Testament should be understood literally rather than as a story told by God, at least in portions. Most of them held the view that some of it was inspired folk-tale, rather than hellenistic history. Origen, indeed, thought that the literal meaning was *not* inspired for some of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Simply wrong.

If we turn to ch.11 we find a series of conflicts between the kings of the north and the kings of the south immediately after the time of Alexander, the warrior king of 11:3 and the diadochi in 11:4. The king of the north is clearly Seleucid and the king of the south is Ptolemy and chapter 11 describes the Syrian_Wars. A close examination of the text in conjunction with this history provides an identical match, showing

• the ascendancy of the southern Ptolemy kings in the third century,
• the problem of northern Antiochus II's wife, Berenice, 11:6ff,
• the ascendency of Antiochus III with his successful campaigns against the south, 11:14-19,
• the reign of Seleucus IV with the famous visit of his official Heliodorus to jerusalem (2 Macc 3), 11:20,
• the usurpation of the throne by Antiochus IV in 175 BCE, 11:21,
• the removal of Onias_III, the prince of the covenant, in the same year, 11:22,
• Antiocus IV's agreement with the supporters of Jason, 11:23,
• a detailed account of Antiochus IV's first and second campaigns against the south including mention of the two Ptolemy kings, 11:24-29, culminating in
• the arrival of the Romans (the ships of the Kittim) to force him to leave, 11:30 (see also the Old Greek LXX which specifically mentions the Romans),
• Antiochus's attack on Jerusalem, 11:31, and
• his occupation of the temple and the fortress (Acra) with the stopping of sacrifice and the pollution of the temple, 11:32,
• and the complete suppression of the Jewish religion (see 2 Macc 6:1ff), 11:34-35,
• and so on, including the mention of his receiving help from a foreign god (Olympian Zeus, see 2 Macc 6:2).

The fulcrum is the stopping of temple sacrifices, 11:31, 9:27 and 8:11 -- this last is done by the little horn, who we also see is the culmination of the fourth beast in chapter 7, who attacked the Jews and attempted to change the seasons and the laws.

The four beasts of chapter 7, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Media), the panther (Persians), the unnamed beast -- the elephant to us -- (Greece), is the same progression in the statue of Dan 2, which has the Greek empire dividing into two legs, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The feet made of iron and clay indicate the varying power that the two empires were able to wield.

The usual christian game is to pretend that the Medes and the Persians were really one empire, despite the fact that the Persians conquered the Medes. The Jews of course saw Media as separate from the Persians, Isaiah 13:17-19 prophecying that the Medes would destroy Babylon.

The Romans are obviously not the legs of the statue in Dan 2. The Seleucid and Ptolemy kingdoms explain the data correctly and the struggle between them, the kings of the north and south, is outlined in Dan 11. 2:43 deals with the marriage of Berenice with Antiochus II, which was an attempt to unite the two kingdoms, an attempt which failed.

(The major primary sources are Polybius's history and 2 Maccabees. More information about the struggle between the Seleucids and Ptolemies can be found in any history of the Hellenistic period.)


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Why haven't you quoted anything from Daniel yet? Quoting Hippolytus is not quoting Daniel.

Johnny Skeptic

Forgery is one possibility, but so are innocent but inaccurate revelations. I assume that you know that many religious books contain innocent but inaccurate revelations.

If it would not make any sense for Bible writers to forge prophecies, then it would not make any sense for other religious writers to forge prophecies either. Why don't you trust prophecies that are in other religious books.

What evidence do you have that any Jews had access to the Tyre prophecy except for whoever wrote it until after the events? Do you have any evidence that the prophecy was not first made available after the fact with the hope that Jews would believe that it had been written before the fact?

Another possibility is that a Jewish Bible writer who lived after Ezekiel died had some innocent but inaccurate revelations that revealed to him that God inspired Ezekiel to write the Tyre prophecy.

But what if Ezekiel wrote the Tyre prophecy after he saw Nebuchadnezzar invade Tyre, but did not include at that time the "many nations" part of the prophecy, and added the "many nations" part after he saw Nebuchadnezzar give up and go home, and did not give anyone access to the prophecy until that time?

But if a prophecy is revised to correct errors before it is released, there would not be anything for anyone to disbelieve. It all depends upon when a prophecy is released.

Because too many Jews would have already known that the Alexander was not included in previous versions of the prophecies.

But since you are the claimant, it is not any more encumbent upon me to disprove the Bible than it is enbumbent upon you to disprove deism.

There is no way that a God who wanted people to believe that he could predict the future would always refuse to make indisputable prophecies.

You claimed that prophecies were a sign for believers. If that is true, why are you mentioning prophecies to skeptics? If God does not use prophecies as a sign for unbelievers, he should since fulfilled prophecies would be convincing evidence for skeptics.

I would never accept a God who unfairly withheld evidence from some people that he provided to other people. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

The preceding Scriptures show that for some people, Jesus' words alone were not enough without tangible, firsthand evidence that God was willing to provide.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples when about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. It is quite odd that with all of the miracles that Jesus had performed, and with his post-Resurrection appearances, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that there was a need for even more confirmations? Obviously, a faith only argument does not work. If anything, believers would need FEWER confirmations than unbelievers would. "O ye of little faith" contradicts the many miracles that Jesus and the disciples supposedly performed. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

The Bible says that God is merciful, but God endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole. No moral man would be able to accept a God like that.

There is no way that a loving God is going to save a man and then turn right around and seriously injure or kill him. In addition, there is no way that a loving God would cause animals to kill each other, and people.

Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed.

It is important to note that no being is good simply because he has enough power to create a universe. Might does not make right.

Jack the Bodiless

...Fascinating!

Arnoldo: your source is claiming here that Daniel was a "prophecy" of the events of the Maccabean Rebellion!

That means it WASN'T a prophecy of Jesus!

To make this argument, your source would have to agree with the skepical position regarding the interpretation of Daniel, then hope to show that the book existed prior to 167 BC.

Is this now your position?

If not: you might be interested to learn that this interpretation of Daniel fits Maccabees (specifically 1 Maccabees 1:54) where the desecrating idol of Antiochus is referred to as an "Abomination of Desolation" (see Daniel 9:27). Also, Josephus identified the "little horn" as Antiochus (Antiquities 10:11).

Daniel was intended to be read as a "prophecy" of the Maccabean Rebellion, and it was accepted as such.

arnoldo

True, Nebby had a dream of future world empires, Daniel merely gave the interpretation. Daniel didn't necessarily interpret the dream and state this means the "Roman Empire" rather he used figurative language to describe it.