Sheshonq

Not quite accurate in all accounts, however.

That's three years to write a few pages of text. I'm not sure why you think that is somehow a hard task to finish in three years. Anyone who knew the history could write it in less than a week. Less than a day, if they were focused on finishing the task.

There is no problem here. The DSS timeline overlaps the writing of this text.

Of course not; what a stupid question. spin already outlined the mistakes in Dan 11, as well as Diogenes.

NOW:
1. when are you going to demonstrate that this is a prophetic reference to Antiochus?

2. when are you going to prove that foreshadowing is a valid technique, as opposed to being another desperate fundamentalist trick to avoid admitting a failed prophecy?

Sheshonq

By the way, arnoldo:

Got that evidence for Herod the Great being mentioned in Daniel's prophecy yet? I.e., post # 401, above?

Or was that just another claim you made as an emergency band-aid, hoping to patch another hole in your argument?

arnoldo

As usual you use half-truths to try to win an argument. I already explained that the book of daniel describes history from the time of Nebby, Alexander the Great, Antiochus and the Roman Empire.

Sheshonq

Do I?
Then show me where anything I said was less than truthful or accurate. Hint: you can't.

No, you *claimed* all that.
And then we proceeded to shoot down those claims, using history and archaeology.
You have yet to respond, other than to repeat your claims.

Result? Prophecy fails! :rolling:

arnoldo

I think the argument from Daniel 11 is that it is 100% accurate thus the "prophecy" was written after the fact.

Sheshonq

Then you haven't been paying attention. spin and Diogenes both listed mistakes in Daniel. Clearly, then, nobody here is arguing that Dan 11 is 100% accurate.

spin

By attempting to make Daniel a historical source for the 6th c. BCE you simply bring it into conflict with reality. The Persians make it clear that the concept of a Medo/Persian is false. Daniel was never interested in the 6th century.

I have no problem with one horn of the ram being Medes and the other being Persians. They were both Iranian peoples, just as the Parthians were. However, the fact that they were on the one beast doesn't make it one empire. That is simply fantasy.


Seleucus II.


Antiochus IV.


Antiochus IV.

Need I go on? More egg all over your face.

The repetition doesn't make it any less wrong.

Commitment to your religious necessities doesn't help you be correct. I showed that the Persians did not consider themselves Medo/Persians. This is an error that inerrantist christians make. The Greeks fought wars with the Persians. Would anyone dream to call them Medo/Persian wars? Of course not. This Medo/Persian stuff is the food of ignorance.

Yes, two separate empires. Note that the Median horn came first. That's how it happened.

Why don't you read the text instead of speaking rubbish?

Dan 7:24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise...

Alexander was the first of those horns. The diadochi are not talked about in Dan 7. The writer merely follows the Seleucid line.

Alexander
Seleucus I
Antiochus I
Antiochus II
Seleucus II
Antiochus III
Seleucus III
* Seleucus IV
* Antiochus -
* Heliodorus

It is here that the little horn uproots three previous horns. Antiochus IV came to the throne after Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus IV and installed his son on the throne, then decided to rule himself. Antiochus IV removed them, so three kings fell so that he could become king.

Now explain the evidence better.

From whose perspective? If you are using the Jewish perspective Then the attempt by the Seleucids to crush Judea would have been seen as an attempt to devour the whole earth. Not a problem.

Rome cancelled the Seleucid empire in 64 BCE, making Syria a Roman province. This is of course irrelevant. Daniel was dealing with the Seleucids 100 years earlier.

What prophecy? Can you demonstrate when it was written? Your lame attempts at dealing with the errors in the Daniel story have shown that you can't.

You've seen that the writers of Daniel weren't interested in the period the text is set in. That's why you have no rational way of dealing with "Darius the Mede". That's why you accept the lame excuse when Belshazzar refers to Nebuchadnezzar as his father that he wasn't being literal. You have no response as to the error that Belshazzar was a king. Obviously the text wasn't written during the time it was set.



Daniel focuses on the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV. It is only due to a religious commitment you can't accept that Dan 7 also fits into the same context.


spin

spin

Daniel 11's accuracy ends when it starts to predict the future from 11:40 onwards. Of course there is no attack on Antiochus by the king of the south south; Antiochus IV doesn't make a further attempt on Egypt. The Romans stopped him in 11:30. He doesn't pitch his tent between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. It all goes wrong from 11:40. up to that point Dan 11 is quite accurate. This is how the book of Daniel is dated. The accuracy ends before the death of Antiochus IV. The only possible date to explain the evidence then is 165/4 BCE.

Do you agree that the Persian inscriptional evidence doesn't support the "Medo/Persian" farce?


spin

spin

Who are the ten kings that are the ten horns, arnoldo?

Who is the little horn that uproots three of those kings??


spin

makerowner

I think the usual fundie mangling of this is that the little horn is the Antichrist, and the ten kings are parts of a "new Roman Empire"=united Europe (which for some reason only has ten countries).