Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jim Larmore · 04-06-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

No. You are the one claiming that Satan exists, so only you have to explain how you know that he's not deceiving you.

I will never say I know hes not deceiving me at every chance he gets , what my contention is that satan's infleunce in the Holy Word of God is not apparent based on what I said about their fruits and the way they lived their lives.

Quote:

To make it more clear: You have to demonstrate that your worldview actually works.

No I don't, you and every person alive on this planet sees it every day its all around us , its in what we watch on T.V. the movies we watch, the greed, crime and averace is apparent.

Quote:

I don't even think he exists, so I'm not accepting the existence of supernatural beings in any way.

What makes you think he doesn't exist? What emperical evidence do you have of his non-existence?

Quote:

" We were talking about Satan - to conclude from his (supposed) existence to the existence of any good supernatural being is a huge non-sequitur.

Well like I've said in the past I'd rather be a non-sequitur than a ad hoc any day

. Seriously though its not a non-sequitur in that if satan exists and is the origin of evil then the anti-thesis of this is the Holy God the origin of good. What illogical about that?

Quote:

And to conclude that this good supernatural being influenced the writing of the bible is an even huger non-sequitur.
Learn basic logic, Jim. It's really fun.

How so? Why wouldn't the origin of good be about inspiring the works of the anthology we call the Bible? I have learned logic and it applies here.

Quote:

You still don't follow your "logic" to its logical end:
If Satan indeed exists and is deceiving people, he could as well have deceived the writers of those verses. Or he could deceive you right now to read something different / to interpret it differently than what is actually written.
Face it: Positing a Satan who deceives people makes any enquiry about the world moot.

You know Jesus had an occasion to talk basically about this same kind of thing when He was here on earth. The Pharisee's were claiming He had casted out some demons with the power of satan. Lets look at it in the Bible at what He says,( I don't want to type all of this just read it ) Luke 11:14-26 points out that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Satan is not about being or doing good things unless it is to deceive. I believe in the last days that satan will appear as an angel of light and do many miraculous things that appears to be good. Only the very elect will not be deceived. We need to be about know what the Bible says concerning these things. Christ will not touch the earth before His 2nd advent.

Quote:

I already said what I think: That it can be explained by psychology (mental disorders etc.). And some are certainly hoaxes.

Your probably right about that on "some" but not all. Don't be that foolish Sven. Not all of them.

Quote:

Newsflash: "Not thinking" is not an argument.

So you think you have the market cornered on logical thought? Don't be so self deluded to believe you have it all figured out so well. Invalidating a no body like me is one thing but the truth will become apparent for everyone soon.

Quote:

It isn't "unassisted". There's something like chemistry, which works by specific rules.

So tell me Sven, how can you say its not "unassisted" when every thing I've read so far about it says it happens all by itself, without direction from an intelligent source? Theres absolutely nothing in the literature that says this process is anything but an elaborate spontaneous generation scenario. Biomolecules that lead to ribozymes and RNA/DNA don't just pop up out of an organic soup of any description. If they did then they wouldn't have to supply them to start with to make some of these experiments go. We'd be seeing it happen all over the place right now in isolated areas of a nurturing situation like hydrothermic vents etc. BTW, remember a few amino acids don't make a cell, that'd be like saying a few bricks is a sky scraper.
You bet there are rules thats what keeps it from happening all by itself. Don't forget entropy and energy curve.

Quote:

Do you also see nucleosynthesis going hand in hand with chemistry?

Sure I do but I don't see this happening fortuitously out in nature from inorganic dead matter either.

Quote:

That's only one way of doing research. There's also much work done on how those compounds are actually formed. But let's take this to the other forum, we already got far off-topic.
You also ignore that science is often a process of extrapolating from the known to the unknown.
And remember, you are the one claiming that abiogenesis is impossible in principle. Where's your argument for this apart from your incredulity?

I agree its way off topic and needs to be somewhere else. My arguement lies in the fact that its not in harmony with the laws of chemistry and physics. If it was then they'd already have made it a reality. Go study some of the work they've done on this and you'll see how miserable the failure rate is.

Quote:

And what produced God? Ever heard about "special pleading"?
Learn basic logic, Jim. It's really fun.

Ever study quantum mechanics? Go read up on the copenhagen principle.

Quote:

Oh, we're back at insults. How nice.

Isn't it though.

Jim Larmore · 04-06-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Jim,

You didn't answer my questions.

Let me make my question clearer: are these four visions different aspects of one and the same set of events?

Code:

Chapter 7       Chapter 8         Chapter 9        Chapters 11-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          Alexander's           --           Alexander's
                kingdom                            kingdom
                divided into                       divided to four
                four horns                         winds, from one
                from one of                        of which (north)
                which came                         eventually came
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Little horn     Little horn       the prince       a contemptible
                                                   one

--------------------------------------------------------------------

king            king              (= king)         king

--------------------------------------------------------------------

room had to                                        not destined
be made for         --                --           to reign
his reign

--------------------------------------------------------------------

arrogant        arrogant              --           no respect to 
                                                   any gods

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          skilled in            --           seduce with 
                intrigue                           intrigue

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --              --            make strong      seduce those
                                  covenant with    who violate
                                  the many         covenant

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          against the       anointed one     prince of
                prince of the     cut off          covenant swept
                host                               away

--------------------------------------------------------------------

a time, two     2300 evenings     three and a      three and a
times and a     and mornings      half years       half years, oops
half a time     =1150 days                         1290 days, oops
                                                   1335 days

--------------------------------------------------------------------

change the      stop regular      stop sacrifice   stop sacrifice
seasons and     sacrifice, holy   pollute temple   pollute temple
the laws        place abandoned                        

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          transgression     idol of          set up idol of
                of desolation     desolation       desolation

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There are others, but they'd need a little more explanation.

I'll be responding to your post when I can. I'm part way through.

spin

Like I said I don't think so. I'll look at this a little more and get back with you. The book is essentially about innumerating the four major powers of the earth and then expanding on that theme. Its possible what you have laid out here is fairly accurate , I"m going to have to study it a little more. I do know the selucid antiochus is not the main figure in the 70 week or 69 week prophecy. I'll debate anyone on that all day long.

unknown4 · 04-06-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

I thought this issue had been put to rest a long time ago.

- The "70 weeks" prophetic interpretation didn't exist until later KJV editions went into circulation. And for good reason: it depends on an incorrect translation of the original text. The Hebrew has 62 weeks then something happens, then 7 more weeks and something happens, not the "62 weeks, and then 7 weeks, and then something happens" necessary for the prophesy. Interestingly, this is one of the places where the original 1611 KJV (as far as we can reconstruct it) actually got it right, and subsequent (ie currently used) editions bollocks it up.

- The year length, at least in the original version of the interpretation, required a 360 day year, which does not exist anywhere in Tanakh or elsewhere in Jewish tradition, nor did it exist in Christian tradition until it became necessary for thie "70 weeks" interpretation. Egyptians used it (I believe), but resorting to a strictly pagan calendar for a Jewish prophesy introduces all manner of other difficulties.

I've read that the original KJV translated the passage dividing the 7 weeks from the 62 weeks. However, to say that the "70 weeks" interpretation didn't exist until later KJV editions went into circulation, that I am not sure about. According to this link, http://www.ida.net/users/rdk/ces/Les...aniels_70.html, "church fathers" saw Daniel 9:24-27 as referring to Jesus.

And, yes, 7 weeks until an annointed one, and 62 weeks, etc.. "After 62 weeks" (which interestingly seems vague enough to mean that the 7 weeks could have been part of the 62 weeks, that some of the "70 weeks" of the prophecy could have been concurrent with each other. After all, if the author meant after 69 weeks, why didn't he say "and after the 69 weeks" instead of "after the 62 weeks?") an annointed one will be cut off, etc.. that's a Jewish interpretation, with their own "annointed ones" and start/end dates.

I just find it interesting how I've read from 459 BCE to 444 BCE, various dates, solar years, "prophetic years", "lunar years", to get this to fit to Jesus, when the NT isn't even exact in what year he died, or was born for that matter to my knowledge. And, something which seems odd to me, I've read that Eusebius put Jesus' death at 22 CE. That sounds like to me that he didn't trust the gospel accounts concerning the idea that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, or it really is difficult to pinpoint these dates.

Wallener · 04-06-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unknown4

... to say that the "70 weeks" interpretation didn't exist until later KJV editions went into circulation, that I am not sure about.

That's a good point, and a poor choice of phrasing on my part. After all, "mashiach" appears all over the Jewish texts, but only in the Daniel passages did the KJV Krew choose "Messiah" (with capitals, no less) over "annointed" for the english version. Hard to argue such arbitrariness wasn't intentional. Apologies for the over-reach.

unknown4 · 04-06-2005, 09:22 PM

Oh yea, one more thing. Does anyone know if there are "variant readings" of Daniel 9:24-27, I mean, besides the basic Masoretic vs Christian reading concerning the punctuation between 7 and 62 weeks.

If there are, that could "cloud" things even further.

I still find it interesting that "Daniel" says "after the 62 weeks" instead of "after the 69 weeks". If he really saw the 7 weeks as not being part of the 62 weeks, why didn't he say "after the 69 weeks"?

spin · 04-07-2005, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unknown4

I still find it interesting that "Daniel" says "after the 62 weeks" instead of "after the 69 weeks". If he really saw the 7 weeks as not being part of the 62 weeks, why didn't he say "after the 69 weeks"?

It's umm, additive. You know 7 plus 62 is, uh, 69 and one more week, well, let's see... oh, I get it, 70 in total. So that's why it talks of 70 weeks having been decreed!

7 weeks before Jerusalem is rebuilt
62 weeks while Jerusalem remains rebuilt
1 week for hell to break loose.

spin

unknown4 · 04-07-2005, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's umm, additive. You know 7 plus 62 is, uh, 69 and one more week, well, let's see... oh, I get it, 70 in total. So that's why it talks of 70 weeks having been decreed!

7 weeks before Jerusalem is rebuilt
62 weeks while Jerusalem remains rebuilt
1 week for hell to break loose.

spin

I know that is one way of looking at it. I'm just saying the fact that he used 62 instead of 69 could lead one to believe that perhaps the "70 weeks" weren't necessarily consecutive, but rather some being concurrent with each other. I've read "speculation" concerning that before. If he would have used 69 instead of 62, such "speculation" couldn't exist I suppose.

Also, thinking of the 7 weeks as part of the 62 weeks would help bring the dating more in line with Cyrus/Joshua the high priest or whoever the first annointed allegedly is, to the time of Antiochus, wouldn't it? There's like a 60 year plus discrepancy otherwise, isn't there? Of course, it can be claimed that Daniel wasn't being totally literal with his 70 weeks prophecy, or that he was unaware of the exact time periods involved.

Sven · 04-07-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

I will never say I know hes not deceiving me at every chance he gets , what my contention is that satan's infleunce in the Holy Word of God is not apparent based on what I said about their fruits and the way they lived their lives.

You still don't get it. One last try, then I'll stop this.
Satan could deceive the writers of the bible, your interpretation of it, your interpretation of reality, etc., so that you only think that his influence is not apparent in the bible.

Quote:

No I don't, you and every person alive on this planet sees it every day its all around us , its in what we watch on T.V. the movies we watch, the greed, crime and averace is apparent.

:huh: What's the relevance of the existence of evil to the consistency of your worldview - that is, how you determine if you are deceived or not?

Quote:

What makes you think he doesn't exist? What emperical evidence do you have of his non-existence?

I don't need any. What empirical evidence do you have for the non-existence of invisible elves flapping around your head?
There's empirical evidence for their existence: every breeze you notice is caused by them.
When you understand why you reject this as evidence for their existence, you'll understand why we reject your "evidence" for Satan.

Quote:

Seriously though its not a non-sequitur in that if satan exists and is the origin of evil then the anti-thesis of this is the Holy God the origin of good. What illogical about that?

Since when does the existence of A follow from the existence of not-A?
That's illogical about that.
Apart from this, you still would have no idea if A is the god of the bible (whichever you choose from the different gods depicted therein).

Quote:

How so? Why wouldn't the origin of good be about inspiring the works of the anthology we call the Bible? I have learned logic and it applies here.

Asking questions is not making an argument.
Explain the logic which leads from "there is an omnibenevolent being" to "this being inspired the bible".

Quote:

You know Jesus had an occasion to talk basically about this same kind of thing when He was here on earth. The Pharisee's were claiming He had casted out some demons with the power of satan. Lets look at it in the Bible at what He says,( I don't want to type all of this just read it ) Luke 11:14-26 points out that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Satan is not about being or doing good things unless it is to deceive. I believe in the last days that satan will appear as an angel of light and do many miraculous things that appears to be good. Only the very elect will not be deceived. We need to be about know what the Bible says concerning these things. Christ will not touch the earth before His 2nd advent.

This blather can be summed up this way: You actually have no possibility to determine if you are deceived by Satan or if we are. Thanks for making my point.

Quote:

Your probably right about that on "some" but not all. Don't be that foolish Sven. Not all of them.

OK, I'm foolish when you ignore my main point (That it can be explained by psychology (mental disorders etc.))? Already the second time?

Quote:

Newsflash: "Not thinking" is not an argument.

So you think you have the market cornered on logical thought?

No. But I at least know that asking silly questions like this also is not an argument.

Quote:

Don't be so self deluded to believe you have it all figured out so well.

Since I'm a scientist, I'm quite aware that there are many, many more things I don't know than that I know. The only ones I've met so far who think they have the Absolute Truth (TM) are people like you. So I give the "self deluded" right back at you.

Quote:

Invalidating a no body like me is one thing but the truth will become apparent for everyone soon.

"soon"? Strange, I think I've heard that people claimed something like this over the past 2000 years. Looks like a strange definition of "soon" to me.

Quote:

So tell me Sven, how can you say its not "unassisted" when every thing I've read so far about it says it happens all by itself, without direction from an intelligent source?

I told you, and you quoted it directly above:
"There's something like chemistry, which works by specific rules."
Hint: Specific rules are the opposite of "unassisted". Maybe you could educate yourself about self-assembly processes in chemistry.

Quote:

Theres absolutely nothing in the literature that says this process is anything but an elaborate spontaneous generation scenario.

Based on rules of chemistry.

Quote:

Biomolecules that lead to ribozymes and RNA/DNA don't just pop up out of an organic soup of any description.

Most biomolecules which make up life are known to be created by nature.
The difficult part is only their assembly to the first self-replicator. From there on, a sort of "chemical evolution" can proceed.

Quote:

We'd be seeing it happen all over the place right now in isolated areas of a nurturing situation like hydrothermic vents etc.

It took several hundred of million years for this assembly - so why should we expect to see this happen in the lab?
Congrats for shooting down another strawman.

Quote:

BTW, remember a few amino acids don't make a cell, that'd be like saying a few bricks is a sky scraper.

Thanks for this BTW - but I've no idea why you thought it was necessary. I'm quite aware of the complexity of a cell (I just finished a collection of articles about this topic), as are biochemists. That's why no one suggests that the process went like this: amino acids -> cell.

Quote:

You bet there are rules thats what keeps it from happening all by itself. Don't forget entropy and energy curve.

:huh: Ever heard about the fact that there are lots of places which are very far from thermodynamic equilibrium?

Quote:

Sure I do

Let me ask again: Do you think nucleosynthesis is a part of chemistry / has to be explained before chemistry has any validity?

Quote:

but I don't see this happening fortuitously out in nature from inorganic dead matter either.

:huh: Nucleosynthesis does not happen? :huh:
Then I really wonder how our sun produces energy.

Quote:

Go study some of the work they've done on this and you'll see how miserable the failure rate is.

Oh you mean like the miserable failure rates of physicists searching for a grand unified theory?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

And what produced God? Ever heard about "special pleading"? Learn basic logic, Jim. It's really fun.

Quote:

Ever study quantum mechanics? Go read up on the copenhagen principle.

Umm, Jim, if I might remind you: I'm a publishing scientist in quantum mechanics. And there's no such thing as the "copenhagen principle".
Either you meant the "copenhagen interpretation" or the "uncertainty principle" - but I fail to see the relevance of both of those to the question what produced god.

Jim Larmore · 04-07-2005, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Ok, imagine I have reading comprehension difficulties, and that I am completely stupid to boot. Quote me the lines in your cut-and-paste that support a 2nd century BCE attestation to Daniel. Oh? I see.

One of the biggest arguements for a late date Daniel is the languages appear to resemble earlier texts. This large quote disputes the Aramaic part:

Quote:

Archer goes on to explain that eastern Aramaic there was the uniform tendency to put the verb late in the clause, exactly what Daniel does. It is more free in word or and structure than the western Aramaic. In his commentary on Daniel he writes that the Maccabeean date hypotheses was given long before the discover of the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran Cave 1. Before this publication there was no Aramaic document known from the third or second century B.C. So, theoretically it was easy to date Daniel in the second century B.C. However, with the publication of the Genesis Apocryphon (which is a midrash for Genesis), it became apparent that Daniel was composed in a type of centuries-earlier Aramaic. (The Genesis Apocryphon is supposed to have been written in the third century B.C; .the manuscript dates from the first century B.C.). Linguistic analysis shows that the morphology, vocabulary, and syntax in the Apocryphon shows a considerably later stage of Aramaic language than the Aramaic chapters of Daniel. Further [Arch.DEx, 23]:

As for the characteristic word order, the Apocryphon tends to follow the normal sequence of Northwest Semitic --- verb first, followed by subject, then object---in the characteristic structure of the clause. Beyond question this was the normal practice of Western Aramaic used in Palestine during the Maccabeean period. But the Aramaic of Daniel shows a marked tendency for the verb to be referred till a later position in the clause, often even after the noun object---somewhat like the word order of Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian) as used in Babylonian from the time of Sargon, twenty-fourth cent. B.C.) onward. On the basis of the word order alone, it is safe to conclude that Daniel could not have been composed in Palestine (as the Maccabeean hypothesis
It has been conceded by many scholars that the Aramaic of Daniel is much closer to the Elephantine Papyri (which date 5th and 4th centuries B.C.) and is similar to the Aramaic of Nabatean and Palmyrene Inscriptions. Meadowcroft, for example, particularly acknowledges the force of Archer's argument. (A sign of its force is also found in the fact that one of the latest trends is to admit that the Aramaic is early, but that it could have been around in that archaic form as late as the Maccabeean hypothesis requires! [Meadw.ADGD, 278n; or another Skeptic, who resorts to suggestings a "knowledgeable forger"! - fish sticks, anyone?) Conclusion: Daniel was written in Imperial Aramaic, NOT a later Western Aramaic. Even Driver eventually withdrew his conclusions on this point and admitted that the Aramaic belonged to an earlier period (too bad the skeptics don't quote THAT in their rebuttals!).

Heres some Archeological evidence of the authenticity of the book:

Quote:

12) Daniel's friends: FOUND! Miller [MillS.Dan, 108] reports that the names of Daniel's three friends seem to have been discovered in a contemporary listing of 50 Babylonian officials. The clearest reference is to Hananiah (Babylonian name: Shadrach), who is listed as Hananu, "chief of the royal merchants." Nearly equally clear is a reference to Abednego (Hebrew name: Azariah), who is listed as Ardi-Nabu, "secretary of the crown prince." The most tentative identification is with Mescach (Hebrew name: Mishel), who may be identified as Mushallim-Marduk, "overseer of the slave girls."

A full report is found in Shea [Shea.D3, 46ff]. "Hananu" is the same as "Hananiah" other than that it does not contain the Yahwistic element, as we would expect Babylonian scribes to do. Shea adds that "Hanani" is a by-form of "Hananiah" in other Biblical and extra-biblical texts. "Abednego" to Ardi-Nabu is a corruption in the opposite direction of "Abed-Nebo/Abed-Nabu," servant of Nabu; it is a Babylonian name with the divine element corrupted, as we would expect from a Jewish writer! "Abed" in Hebrew and Aramaic means "servant" and corrsponds to the Babylonoian "ardu." Finally we expect the removal also of "Marduk" from Meschach's name; "Meschach" is derived from "Mushallim" by regarding the "-ach" as a shortening of Marduk, and realizing that "musallim" is a participial form of Mishel.

Quote:

Erm, how do you know what Ezekiel did or didn't know? The assertion game is a complete waste of time, so let's have some references, please. A neutral reading of Ezekiel puts his "Daniel" as a primordial figure alongside Noah and Job. Note that the Ezekielian "exile" of the Jews was pretty darned worthless, since Ezekiel manages to travel to Babylon and back without any problems. Most expositors don't buy your conjecture at all.

Conservative ones do

, Ok let me see lets try this one:

Quote:

Hysteria V: That Ain't Dan!
Although it is not required for proof, we often call upon the testimony of Ezekiel, who refers to Job, Noah, and Daniel, as an indication that Daniel was a real person who could have written his book. It is countered that this was not the OT Daniel that Zeke refers to, but rather a pagan wise man of mythology. [see Town.Dan, 5; Lacq.Dan, 3; DilHart.BDan, 7; Porte.Dan, 17] Burrows is cited by Katz:

Now, however, we have from Ras Shamrah (tablets which are giving us `an enormous mass of new knowledge regarding the religion and mythology of northern Syria in the age of the Hebrew patriarchs') a poem concerning a divine hero who name is exactly what we find in Ezekiel. He sits at the gate, judges the cause of the widow, and establishes the right of the orphan... In any case one can hardly doubt that the Dan'el referred to in Ezekiel is the same as the Dan'el of the text from Ras Shamrah.
Actually, one can very much doubt this. The idea that Ezekiel would appeal to a PAGAN hero who was closely associated to Baal and Annath [Will.JFK, 75; MillS.Dan, 41] and did not believe in the God of Israel, as a way of encouraging Israelites, is an absurdity. It is also objected that Daniel would hardly have been as famous as Noah or Job at the time Ezekiel was writing, but this too is nonsense. Daniel would have been the highest-placed and most recognized of the Jews of the Exile; he would have been taken to Babylon around 605 BC, and Zeke started his ministry in 593 - plenty of time to get a good rep! Finally, the linguistic data is against the identification with the Ugaritic Dan. [MillS.Dan, 42]

Quote:

Which says nothing about the book of Daniel (are you sure you understand my points?). Does it include the additions to Daniel? Does it include other traditions like Ezekiel's, where Daniel can't save his own children?

There are no credible additions to Daniel out there. If you are speaking of the apocrypha then you are speaking of uninspired writings that were never included in the jewish canons and are not to be considered here either. Lets stay with the accepted canon shall we?

Yes ( ) No ( x )

If yes, are apocryphal/pseudepigraphical books like Noah, Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon also sacred?

Yes ( ) No (x )

Quote:

From the first question, if no, how does that support your initial claim that having them used by "Assenes" have anything to do with whether it was canonical or not? Secondly... eh, why bother.

Because like the LXX there were some books that were translated and included that were not in the jewish canon of inspired writings. The Essenes were no different than many other translators . They translated the writings for future edification and historical value but not for use as inspired writings. Like I said the 72 scholars who translated the LXX did the same thing. What is speculated to have happened is that when these writings were found they included them with the canon before doing a true evaluation first. Written documents were rare back then and all of them were safe guarded as very important. Its fairly easly to distinguish the apocrypha from the truely inspired writings of God. I beleive inclusion of any of the apocrypha into sacred writings is a ploy by the enemy to confuse and invalidate the real and the authentic.

Quote:

Here's your original claim again, before the goalposts decided to wander round the park:
Since this is your argument, will I hear you say amen when I quote some of the Genesis Apocryphon back to you?

I wouldn't hold my breath

Jim Larmore · 04-07-2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Jim,

You didn't answer my questions.

Let me make my question clearer: are these four visions different aspects of one and the same set of events?

Code:

Chapter 7       Chapter 8         Chapter 9        Chapters 11-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          Alexander's           --           Alexander's
                kingdom                            kingdom
                divided into                       divided to four
                four horns                         winds, from one
                from one of                        of which (north)
                which came                         eventually came
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Little horn     Little horn       the prince       a contemptible
                                                   one

--------------------------------------------------------------------

king            king              (= king)         king

--------------------------------------------------------------------

room had to                                        not destined
be made for         --                --           to reign
his reign

--------------------------------------------------------------------

arrogant        arrogant              --           no respect to 
                                                   any gods

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          skilled in            --           seduce with 
                intrigue                           intrigue

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --              --            make strong      seduce those
                                  covenant with    who violate
                                  the many         covenant

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          against the       anointed one     prince of
                prince of the     cut off          covenant swept
                host                               away

--------------------------------------------------------------------

a time, two     2300 evenings     three and a      three and a
times and a     and mornings      half years       half years, oops
half a time     =1150 days                         1290 days, oops
                                                   1335 days

--------------------------------------------------------------------

change the      stop regular      stop sacrifice   stop sacrifice
seasons and     sacrifice, holy   pollute temple   pollute temple
the laws        place abandoned                        

--------------------------------------------------------------------

    --          transgression     idol of          set up idol of
                of desolation     desolation       desolation

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There are others, but they'd need a little more explanation.

I'll be responding to your post when I can. I'm part way through.

spin

If you mean that the 4 major powers of the world were repeated and expanded upon in the chapter 7 , 8 and 9 then yes I agree. Your interpretation of chap 11-12 are not as accurate as I believe most of these chapters apply to the apokalypse time and not ancient Medo-Persian/Rome succession issue.

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

04-06-2005, 09:22 PM	#125
unknown4 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 80	Oh yea, one more thing. Does anyone know if there are "variant readings" of Daniel 9:24-27, I mean, besides the basic Masoretic vs Christian reading concerning the punctuation between 7 and 62 weeks. If there are, that could "cloud" things even further. I still find it interesting that "Daniel" says "after the 62 weeks" instead of "after the 69 weeks". If he really saw the 7 weeks as not being part of the 62 weeks, why didn't he say "after the 69 weeks"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.