Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 01-28-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

3.Ch.9. Restoration of Israel, coming Messiah,death of the Messiah, destruction of the temple and Israel by the Romans, rise of the Beast.

As has been pointed out many times, all of this was "fulfilled" in the time of Antiochus, not by "the Romans".

Are you saying that, in sugarhitmanworld, there are only ten countries in the European Union?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

If the temple still stood and the city remained then it was not Destroyed. What the Romans did was far worse then what Antiochus did. The Temple was completely destroyed by the Romans, the fact that it is not there now is a testimony to its complete destruction as Jesus predicted not a stone remaining upon a stone. The Romans are the little horn as well as the 4th kingdom. There is a big difference between Destroyed and Damaged. :wave:

Are you one of those "KJV-only" types who apparently believe that the Bible was written in English?

Here's a hint: the words "destroyed" and "damaged" do not appear anywhere in the Bible.

Try using a concordance to find out which words were actually used, and what those words mean.

"The people of the prince who is to come shall DESTROY the city and the sanctuary (Temple)."

So tell us Jack, the Temple and the city did Antiochus DESTROY them? Was the Temple left standing or was it demolished. No? Then indeed Antiochus is not the little horn. The little horn is the prince of those people who after the Messiah was cut off (this also was a hint as well), destroyed the Temple and the city...the Romans. :wave:

arnoldo · 01-28-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Agreed. I want to stay on topic on Daniel. I will stop responding to off topic comments. In reference to Daniel:
More documentation that Daniel is canon and prophecy is meant to edify believers from I Maccabees Chap. II 31-52

Yes, Daniel was written in two contexts. Dan 1-6 doesn't know anything about the persecution under Antiochus IV. That's why the statue doesn't feature the ascendency of the Seleucids and the marriage of Berenice (Ptolemid) to Antiochus II is the only clear historical reference in the dream. (Chronologically, this section is linear: first Nebuchadnezzar, then Belshazzar and finally "Darius the Mede".)

spin

So in the Book Of i Maccabees Chpt ii:31-52 Mattahias's referral to The Book of Daniel where Daniel was "being delivered from the mouth of lions." is what inspired him to rebel and not the reference to the persecution under Antiochus IV written in the Book of Daniel?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-28-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Are you one of those "KJV-only" types who apparently believe that the Bible was written in English?

Here's a hint: the words "destroyed" and "damaged" do not appear anywhere in the Bible.

Try using a concordance to find out which words were actually used, and what those words mean.

"The people of the prince who is to come shall DESTROY the city and the sanctuary (Temple)."

So tell us Jack, the Temple and the city did Antiochus DESTROY them? Was the Temple left standing or was it demolished. No? Then indeed Antiochus is not the little horn. The little horn is the prince of those people who after the Messiah was cut off (this also was a hint as well), destroyed the Temple and the city...the Romans. :wave:

Again: the Bible WASN'T WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!

Why can't you understand that?

Why did you put the word DESTROY in capitals, when that English word does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

The word is "shachath":

Quote:

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay

a) (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be injured, be ruined, be rotted

b) (Piel)

1) to spoil, ruin

2) to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)

c) (Hiphil)

1) to spoil, ruin, destroy

2) to pervert, corrupt (morally)

3) destroyer (participle)

d) (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

Notice the type of "destruction" this refers to? Moral corruption, spoiling, perversion, decay, rotting etc?

The Hebrews used this word to refer to desecration too.

And that is exactly what Antiochus did! He ritually desecrated the temple (and trashed the city too), and placed an altar of himself as Zeus there (the Abomination of Desolation).

arnoldo · 01-28-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"The people of the prince who is to come shall DESTROY the city and the sanctuary (Temple)."

So tell us Jack, the Temple and the city did Antiochus DESTROY them? Was the Temple left standing or was it demolished. No? Then indeed Antiochus is not the little horn. The little horn is the prince of those people who after the Messiah was cut off (this also was a hint as well), destroyed the Temple and the city...the Romans. :wave:

Again: the Bible WASN'T WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!

Why can't you understand that?

Why did you put the word DESTROY in capitals, when that English word does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

The word is "shachath":

Quote:

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay

a) (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be injured, be ruined, be rotted

b) (Piel)

1) to spoil, ruin

2) to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)

c) (Hiphil)

1) to spoil, ruin, destroy

2) to pervert, corrupt (morally)

3) destroyer (participle)

d) (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

Notice the type of "destruction" this refers to? Moral corruption, spoiling, perversion, decay, rotting etc?

The Hebrews used this word to refer to desecration too.

And that is exactly what Antichus did! He ritually desecrated the temple (and trashed the city too), and placed an altar of himself as Zeus there (the Abomination of Desolation).

But Yeshua did state "no two stones" in reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple. This happened and is historical fact. BTW, Yeshua also referenced Daniel in this same passage.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-28-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

But Yeshua did state "no two stones" in reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple. This happened and is historical fact. BTW, Yeshua also referenced Daniel in this same passage.

Yes, this is another example of the Christian misuse/misinterpretation of Daniel (in this case, by the gospel authors: maybe by Jesus himself, if he's being quoted accurately).

How is this relevant to the topic, which is the Book of Daniel?

You are apparently attempting an "argument from authority" using an authority I do not accept.

arnoldo · 01-28-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

But Yeshua did state "no two stones" in reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple. This happened and is historical fact. BTW, Yeshua also referenced Daniel in this same passage.

Yes, this is another example of the Christian misuse/misinterpretation of Daniel (in this case, by the gospel authors: maybe by Jesus himself, if he's being quoted accurately).

How is this relevant to the topic, which is the Book of Daniel?

You are apparently attempting an "argument from authority" using an authority I do not accept.

It is totally relevant to the topic of the Book of Daniel. Since this authority is Yeshua he apparently accepted the Book of Daniel as canon which was only written 100 years before Yeshua was born,right?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-28-2008, 07:35 AM

The authors of the gospels accepted/created a lot of crazy stuff. Such as "Matthew" blatantly ripping OT verses out of context to create bogus "prophecies" for Jesus to fulfil. But none of this says anything useful about the authorship of Daniel, or the intentions of that author.

arnoldo · 01-28-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The authors of the gospels accepted/created a lot of crazy stuff. Such as "Matthew" blatantly ripping OT verses out of context to create bogus "prophecies" for Jesus to fulfil. But none of this says anything useful about the authorship of Daniel, or the intentions of that author.

In any event is your "theory" that the book of daniel was originally written between 164 BC and 100 AD?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-28-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The authors of the gospels accepted/created a lot of crazy stuff. Such as "Matthew" blatantly ripping OT verses out of context to create bogus "prophecies" for Jesus to fulfil. But none of this says anything useful about the authorship of Daniel, or the intentions of that author.

In any event is your "theory" that the book of daniel was originally written between 164 BC and 100 AD?

No. Between 168 BC and 164 BC (possibly incorporating some older stuff, as Spin has already mentioned).

That's why it fails to accurately "predict" the fate of Antiochus.

sugarhitman · 01-28-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"The people of the prince who is to come shall DESTROY the city and the sanctuary (Temple)."

So tell us Jack, the Temple and the city did Antiochus DESTROY them? Was the Temple left standing or was it demolished. No? Then indeed Antiochus is not the little horn. The little horn is the prince of those people who after the Messiah was cut off (this also was a hint as well), destroyed the Temple and the city...the Romans. :wave:

Again: the Bible WASN'T WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!

Why can't you understand that?

Why did you put the word DESTROY in capitals, when that English word does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

The word is "shachath":

Quote:

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay

a) (Niphal) to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be injured, be ruined, be rotted

b) (Piel)

1) to spoil, ruin

2) to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)

c) (Hiphil)

1) to spoil, ruin, destroy

2) to pervert, corrupt (morally)

3) destroyer (participle)

d) (Hophal) spoiled, ruined (participle)

Notice the type of "destruction" this refers to? Moral corruption, spoiling, perversion, decay, rotting etc?

The Hebrews used this word to refer to desecration too.

And that is exactly what Antiochus did! He ritually desecrated the temple (and trashed the city too), and placed an altar of himself as Zeus there (the Abomination of Desolation).

The primary meanings of this word is To destroy or ruin (yeah the KJV got it right). Anyways look at the context. It says the PEOPLE of the prince who shall come shall destroy the temple and the city. In the actual destruction of these two things the prince is not even involved. When the Romans destroyed the Temple and city the prince was non-existent (because he comes in the end times and when he comes he will be unsuscessful in this attempt but the Romans or Europeans were not when they sacked Jerusalem under Titus). Antiochus was not only personally involved during his attempts, but he failed....and his people before him the Greeks according to Josephus did not even come against Jerusalem. Antiochus is not the little horn, because he was not a prince of the Romans.:wave:

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

01-28-2008, 07:35 AM	#237
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	The authors of the gospels accepted/created a lot of crazy stuff. Such as "Matthew" blatantly ripping OT verses out of context to create bogus "prophecies" for Jesus to fulfil. But none of this says anything useful about the authorship of Daniel, or the intentions of that author.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.