Bible Prophecy - Page 29

411314 · 07-24-2008, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Here's another example of exact prophecy:
One prophet of God (unnamed, but probably Shemiah) said that a future king of Judah, named Josiah, would take the bones of all the occultic priests (priests of the "high places") of Israel's King Jeroboam and burn them on Jeroboam's altar (I Kings 13:2 and II Kings 23:15-18). This event occurred approximately 300 years after it was foretold.

You yourself used wikipedia as a source for something you said after this about Cyrus. Wikipedia says the Books of Kings were written in the 6th century BC, while Josiah's rein was in the 7th century BC.

Abel · 07-24-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Probably the best and most elegant proof of the late date of Daniel is to be found in "Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel Helms. Helms points out hat Daniel 11 gives an excellent account of the life of the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV, also called Antiochus epiphanes. This must either be a prophecy written before the fact or history written after. As Helms points out, we know it was the latter because of the final verse of Daniel 11 (Dan. 11:45):

"And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea
and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to
his end, with none to help him."

Whenever you come across the phrase "the sea" in the Old Testament it means the Mediterranean Sea. The glorious holy mountain was Mt. Zion, i.e. the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. So Dan. 11:45 says that Antiochus Epiphanes will die between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea or somewhere west of Jerusalem.

In point of fact Antiochus Epiphanes died well to the east of Jerusalem, fighting against the Parthians in Mesopotamia. in 164 BCE. His desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, which is mentioned in Daniel 11, took place in 167 BCE. The author of the Book of Daniel got that right, but got his death all wrong. Therefore, Daniel was not a divinely inspired prophecy (unless, of course, God occasionally blows it).

Helms points out that the incorrect data on the death of Antiochus indicates that Daniel was written before 164 BCE and that the correct history of the desecration of the temple shows it was written after 167 BCE. So we can pinpoint the time Daniel was written to sometime in the three years between 167 and 164 BCE.

The original Daniel or Dan-el was a legendary sage from the Bronze Age, who is mentioned in cunieform tablets from the city of Ugarit, dating from ca. 1400 BCE. He was revered for his wisdom and piety. The character created in the biblical Book of Daniel is based on the ancient Canaanite sage. The Book of Daniel is an example of a common form of apocalyptic writing collectively referred to as the Pseudepigrapha ("falsely inscribed") These were so-called prophetic works attributed to earlier patriarchs as a way to give them legitimacy. Among the works of the Pseudepigrapha are: The Testament of Abraham, The Book of Jubilees, The Testament of the Twelve [tribal] Patriarchs and, most important, the Book of Enoch. While the books of the Pseudepigrapha were influential in their day (Enoch was even part of the Christian canon until at least CE 330), the only one to make it into the Hebrew Scriptures was the Book of Daniel.

Of course, it takes a bit of academic sleuthing to find out the true date of the book of Daniel (as you can probably tell from the capsule history given above), and if one uncritically accepts that Daniel was a real person who was the contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus the Great of Persia, then I'm sure its "prophecies" are convincing as hell. Of course, such a person really has no business in debating this stuff in the first place.

Oh, and while you might think that not having a personal agenda would interfere with Ehrman's instructions on textual criticism, I would strongly disagree. He doesn't teach people what to think - he teaches them how. You should look into what classes he actually instructs in before you make such comments. Suffice it to say that it is my strong opinion that you're not someone anyone should be taking advice on in regards to learning how to read the bible in a scholarly manner in the first place.

Very poor theology in your response Monkey. To start with Dan.11:45 is not a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes. It is Dan.11:21-35 where a fulfilled prophecy concerning Antiochus Epiphanes is found. Also note it is here, where he referred to as a "vile person".

However, the focus shifts at verse 36. Here a "king" is brought to light. This king is the future Anti-Christ. Most all good study Bibles will identify this change at verse 36. As will real Bible scholars: Scofield, Henry, Poole, McGee, Weirsbe, and numerous others.

Here's your proof. Look at Dan.11:45 again. "And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."
It's not "sea" but "seas", plural.
The holy mountain is not Mt. Zion. When referring to Mt. Zion, it is always called God's holy mountain, or His holy mountain. The word "holy" simply means "seperate".

What difference does this make? Dan.11:45 is a prophecy of the battle of Armageddon. "Armageddon" meaning "mount of Megiddo" This area lies in the valley of Jezreel. If you look at a map of Israel you will see this area lies between the "seas" of Galilee and the Med.

More proof? Look at the very next verse following Da.11:45. That would be Dan.12:1. It is a direct reference to end of the Great Tribulation still to come. Remember, when Scripture was written there were no chapter and verse divisions. Dan.12:1 clearly details the time when 11:45 will take place. Therefore Dan.11:45 is still unfulfilled. It hasn't happened yet.

Again, I invite you, and those playing along, to pick up a good study Bible, and see for yourself. I also extend an invitation to read what true Bible scholars have written concerning Dan.11:45. Your presentation of Randel Helms as a Biblical expert is sad. He is a professor of English at Arizona State. He's not a Bible scholar at all. He teaches an undergraduate course on the Bible as literature. In his own words concerning the book that you mentioned, Professor Helms states "In the eighties and nineties I have written on the Gospels as works of literature (Gospel Fictions, 1988; Who Wrote the Gospels? 1997)."

I also stand by by statement concerning Bart Ehrman. His being a professor of religion and an agnostic is a contradiction in itself. How can one trust the teachings of one who doesn't believe what he's teaching? You may not feel I am qualified to teach Biblical doctrines, but at least I do believe what I teach.

Your theory has crumbled. The chaffe you have thrown out to divert attention from the prophecy of the ram and he-goat has fallen to the ground. The prophecy stands as predicted and is validated by history.

I will once again allow you the last word concerning this prophecy.

Ice_Monkey · 07-24-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Quote:

Probably the best and most elegant proof of the late date of Daniel is to be found in "Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel Helms. Helms points out hat Daniel 11 gives an excellent account of the life of the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV, also called Antiochus epiphanes. This must either be a prophecy written before the fact or history written after. As Helms points out, we know it was the latter because of the final verse of Daniel 11 (Dan. 11:45):

"And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea
and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to
his end, with none to help him."

Whenever you come across the phrase "the sea" in the Old Testament it means the Mediterranean Sea. The glorious holy mountain was Mt. Zion, i.e. the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. So Dan. 11:45 says that Antiochus Epiphanes will die between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea or somewhere west of Jerusalem.

In point of fact Antiochus Epiphanes died well to the east of Jerusalem, fighting against the Parthians in Mesopotamia. in 164 BCE. His desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, which is mentioned in Daniel 11, took place in 167 BCE. The author of the Book of Daniel got that right, but got his death all wrong. Therefore, Daniel was not a divinely inspired prophecy (unless, of course, God occasionally blows it).

Helms points out that the incorrect data on the death of Antiochus indicates that Daniel was written before 164 BCE and that the correct history of the desecration of the temple shows it was written after 167 BCE. So we can pinpoint the time Daniel was written to sometime in the three years between 167 and 164 BCE.

The original Daniel or Dan-el was a legendary sage from the Bronze Age, who is mentioned in cunieform tablets from the city of Ugarit, dating from ca. 1400 BCE. He was revered for his wisdom and piety. The character created in the biblical Book of Daniel is based on the ancient Canaanite sage. The Book of Daniel is an example of a common form of apocalyptic writing collectively referred to as the Pseudepigrapha ("falsely inscribed") These were so-called prophetic works attributed to earlier patriarchs as a way to give them legitimacy. Among the works of the Pseudepigrapha are: The Testament of Abraham, The Book of Jubilees, The Testament of the Twelve [tribal] Patriarchs and, most important, the Book of Enoch. While the books of the Pseudepigrapha were influential in their day (Enoch was even part of the Christian canon until at least CE 330), the only one to make it into the Hebrew Scriptures was the Book of Daniel.

Of course, it takes a bit of academic sleuthing to find out the true date of the book of Daniel (as you can probably tell from the capsule history given above), and if one uncritically accepts that Daniel was a real person who was the contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus the Great of Persia, then I'm sure its "prophecies" are convincing as hell. Of course, such a person really has no business in debating this stuff in the first place.

Oh, and while you might think that not having a personal agenda would interfere with Ehrman's instructions on textual criticism, I would strongly disagree. He doesn't teach people what to think - he teaches them how. You should look into what classes he actually instructs in before you make such comments. Suffice it to say that it is my strong opinion that you're not someone anyone should be taking advice on in regards to learning how to read the bible in a scholarly manner in the first place.

Very poor theology in your response Monkey. To start with Dan.11:45 is not a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes. It is Dan.11:21-35 where a fulfilled prophecy concerning Antiochus Epiphanes is found. Also note it is here, where he referred to as a "vile person".

However, the focus shifts at verse 36. Here a "king" is brought to light. This king is the future Anti-Christ. Most all good study Bibles will identify this change at verse 36. As will real Bible scholars: Scofield, Henry, Poole, McGee, Weirsbe, and numerous others.

Here's your proof. Look at Dan.11:45 again. "And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."
It's not "sea" but "seas", plural.
The holy mountain is not Mt. Zion. When referring to Mt. Zion, it is always called God's holy mountain, or His holy mountain. The word "holy" simply means "seperate".

What difference does this make? Dan.11:45 is a prophecy of the battle of Armageddon. "Armageddon" meaning "mount of Megiddo" This area lies in the valley of Jezreel. If you look at a map of Israel you will see this area lies between the "seas" of Galilee and the Med.

More proof? Look at the very next verse following Da.11:45. That would be Dan.12:1. It is a direct reference to end of the Great Tribulation still to come. Remember, when Scripture was written there were no chapter and verse divisions. Dan.12:1 clearly details the time when 11:45 will take place. Therefore Dan.11:45 is still unfulfilled. It hasn't happened yet.

Again, I invite you, and those playing along, to pick up a good study Bible, and see for yourself. I also extend an invitation to read what true Bible scholars have written concerning Dan.11:45. Your presentation of Randel Helms as a Biblical expert is sad. He is a professor of English at Arizona State. He's not a Bible scholar at all. He teaches an undergraduate course on the Bible as literature. In his own words concerning the book that you mentioned, Professor Helms states "In the eighties and nineties I have written on the Gospels as works of literature (Gospel Fictions, 1988; Who Wrote the Gospels? 1997)."

I also stand by by statement concerning Bart Ehrman. His being a professor of religion and an agnostic is a contradiction in itself. How can one trust the teachings of one who doesn't believe what he's teaching? You may not feel I am qualified to teach Biblical doctrines, but at least I do believe what I teach.

Your theory has crumbled. The chaffe you have thrown out to divert attention from the prophecy of the ram and he-goat has fallen to the ground. The prophecy stands as predicted and is validated by history.

I will once again allow you the last word concerning this prophecy.

Anyone that considers the likes of Falwell (finally that horror story has a plot) to be a "scholar" is not going to appreciate non-fundie headcases, such as Ehrman & Helms (you haven't commented on Callahan yet, but he's not nuts, co you probably don't like him.

If there are two or more interpretations available, you'll pick the more outlandish, as long as it fits your needs. There's a new thread for you up now.

Abel · 07-24-2008, 10:57 AM

I most definately consider Jerry Falwell much more of an expert on the Bible than an agnostic or an English professor.

I don't know enough about Tim Callahan to draw any conclusion.

I don't pick the most outlandish interpretation of the Bible, I pick the one I believe to be correct.

Ice_Monkey · 07-25-2008, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

I most definately consider Jerry Falwell much more of an expert on the Bible than an agnostic or an English professor.

Then you're an idiot.

I'd love to match wits with you in regards to textual criticism, but my dad always told me that I should never shoot an unarmed man.

If there's anyone out there who would like to go head to head with me in an honest, intellectual study of the bible who has not already drawn conclusions based on what they want it to say, please speak up.

Please.

Composer · 07-25-2008, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice_Monkey

If there's anyone out there who would like to go head to head with me in an honest, intellectual study of the bible who has not already drawn conclusions based on what they want it to say, please speak up. Please.

a) I am honest but I have yet to determine you are actually capable of being honest in anything?

b) What do you consider ' the Bible ' to be?

c) Does that opinion carry for all Bibles or do you have varying opinions about various translations?

Thank you

Ice_Monkey · 07-25-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Composer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice_Monkey

If there's anyone out there who would like to go head to head with me in an honest, intellectual study of the bible who has not already drawn conclusions based on what they want it to say, please speak up. Please.

a) I am honest but I have yet to determine you are actually capable of being honest in anything?

b) What do you consider ' the Bible ' to be?

c) Does that opinion carry for all Bibles or do you have varying opinions about various translations?

Thank you

Doesn't matter.

Do you have a prophesy for me?

Abel · 07-25-2008, 09:25 AM

Composer
You're wasting your time with this primate. He reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. With no legs, and no arms, he still wants to fight.

romansh · 07-25-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

I don't pick the most outlandish interpretation of the Bible, I pick the one I believe to be correct.

So just by careful study the one you picked is perfectly accurate?

Wow!

Og · 07-25-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

I most definately consider Jerry Falwell much more of an expert on the Bible than an agnostic or an English professor.

Interesting. I don't see how you can make this conclusion other than by redefining the term expert to mean something other than the generally accepted definition. Making a broadly sweeping comment about all english professors would tend to indicate that your definition of expert has nothing to do with expertise.