| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wax
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
 |
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote
| Quote: | H1867
???????
da^reya^ve^sh
BDB Definition:
Darius = "lord"
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Identity_of_.22Darius_the_Mede.22
"Identity of "Darius the Mede"
The personage whom Daniel describes as taking control of Babylon after
Belshazzar is deposed is named as Darius the Mede, who rules over
Babylon in chapters 6 and 9. Daniel reports that Darius was 'about 62
years old' when he was 'made king over Babylon.'
'Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus', while mentioned in the book of
Daniel, the works of Flavius Josephus, and Jewish Midrash material, is
not known from any primary historical sources.[citation needed]
As Darius the Mede is unknown to any other source[citation needed],
many historians view his presence in Daniel as simply a mistake of a
much later author, who has perhaps inadvertently placed the Persian
King Darius I at an earlier date than he actually reigned. Three key
pieces of information seem to support this. Firstly, Darius I, like
Cyrus, also conquered Babylon and personally commanded the Persian
army that took the city in 522 BC to put down a rebellion. Secondly,
Daniel's reference to Darius organising the empire by appointing
satraps and administrators fits Darius I perfectly: he is known to
history as the Persian king par excellence who professionalised the
empire's bureaucracy and organised it into satrapies and tax
districts. Thirdly, Darius I was an important figure in Jewish
history, remembered as a king associated with Cyrus who permitted the
returned exiles to rebuild the temple (see Ezra chs 1-6).
Historians criticize the notion of a separate Mede rule by pointing
out that the Persians at that point in history had control over the
Medes, and that the contemporary cuneiform documents, such as the
Cyrus Cylinder and the Babylonian Chronicle, leaves no room for any
Mede occupation of Babylon before the Persians under Cyrus conquered
it. It has been suggested[5] that the author's apparent confusion on
this issue could be due to his reliance on Jeremiah (see Daniel 9:2):
and Jeremiah prophesied (in Jeremiah 51:11), at the height of the
Median empire's power, that Babylon would fall to the Medes. An author
writing centuries later, and under the impression that Jeremiah was a
true prophet, might simply assume that a Mede must have taken Babylon.
Among writers maintaining an early date for the Book of Daniel, there
are several interpretations of the identity of Darius the Mede. On the
difficulty of ascertaining the correct view, H.H. Rowley in Darius the
Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel states: "[T]he
references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been
recognized as providing the most serious historical problems in the
book." ***** His view concludes that Darius is just another name for
Cyrus the Great, who captured Babylon on October 15th, 539 BCE. >*****
Another view, promoted by John Whitcomb (though first proposed by
Babelon in 1883) in his 1959 book, Darius the Mede says that Darius is
another name for the historical figure of Gubaru (sometimes spelled as
Ugbaru). The third view (also that of Syncellus) sees Darius as
another name for Astyages, the last Mede king who was ultimately
deposed by Cyrus. Josephus makes Darius the son of Astyages, and uncle
of Cyrus. Several scholars in the past (including Calvin, Ussher and
John Gill) as well as in more recent times (eg. Keil and Delitzsch Vol.
6, p.546-548) have thus attempted to identify 'Darius the Mede' with a
certain Cyaxares II, who is mentioned as having the same relationships
by Xenophon[6]
"Darius the Mede" as Cyrus the Great: Unlike Gubaru or Astyages, Cyrus
the Great of Persia was the king who took over the Babylonian Empire.
Cyrus was also married to a Mede, and himself had Medean blood. An
analysis of variant early texts, particularly the Septuagint, reveals
that the names "Darius" (DRYWS in Hebrew) and "Cyrus" (KRWS) are
reversed in 11:1, and may have been miscopied elsewhere[citation
needed]. The appellation "Mede" (Heb. MADAI) may have been used as >an
ethnic term to apply to Persians as well, who were of the same
race[7]. In addition, Dan. 6:28, "So Daniel prospered during the reign
of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian," could also be
translated, "So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is,
the reign of Cyrus the Persian."...
There's more at that site.
|
Linda,
Thank you, but I have done my homework and have already read the Wikiipedia
article which you cite. The article is quite good. Notice that the issue
is much more than the identity of Darius the Mede. There is also the date
of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem, the identity of Belshazzar's father
and other problems.
Under the subheading "Dating and content" the Wikiipedia article states:
Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been
written by its namesake during and shortly after the
Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view
continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and conservative
Jews, it has been rejected by the bulk of the scholarly community
since the end of the nineteenth century. While a small number of
conservative commentators continue to cling to a sixth century
date, "for mainline scholarship... these issues were decided at
least a century ago". Even leading evangelical scholars have
recently adopted this position, while in the Roman Catholic
community it has been the norm since World War II.
--Wax |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Linda Lee" <lindagirl444@juno.com> wrote
| Quote: | Here is more from the same website - note the second paragraph:
"Darius the Mede" as Gubaru/Ugbaru: Gubaru is the historical general
known to have actually led the army that captured Babylon (see Pierre
Briant below), according to Nabonidus. It is possible that Cyrus would
have rewarded Gubaru with a regional governorship for capturing the
capital of the Babylonian Empire and virtually ending the war.
Furthermore, under the first translation of Dan. 6:28, Darius ruled
during the reign of Cyrus, and Dan. 5:31 states that Darius the Mede
"received the kingdom" of the Chaldeans. Complicating this view is the
question of whether or not Gubaru and Ugbaru are two different people,
or simply a clerical mistake of the same name.
|
According to Dan 6:1-3 Darius appointed satraps and supervisors over the
kingdom, which indicates that Darius was himself a king, and not just a
satrap or governor.
| Quote: | **** Also, verse 1 of "Bel and the Dragon" (chapter 14 in Greek
Daniel) references Astyages the Mede, who was indeed the last king
before Cyrus; but nearly the same verse is added in the Greek LXX
after the end of chapter 6, only reading "Darius" in place of
"Astyages". ( LXX Dan. 14:1 and Dan 6:29) ****
|
I don't see how this bears on the situation. Although the Greeks did not
distinquish between Medes and Persians, the Book of Daniel did.
| Quote: | "Darius the Mede" as king of the Medes: Talmudic and midrashic sources
describe Darius the Mede as the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus the
Great, to whom Cyrus owed fealty. After Darius's death, Cyrus took the
throne. According to Yossipon, the Ahasuerus in the book of Esther was
the son of Darius the Mede. The Midrash Tanchuma describes the fall of
Babylon as described in Daniel and adds to the narrative Darius taking
Vashti, the daughter of Belshazzar, as a wife for his son Ahasuerus.
|
Talmudic and midrashic sources were written long after "The Book of Daniel",
and are obviously influenced by the book. Natually they would attempt to
explain away historical errors.
[edit] Belshazzar
| Quote: | For many years Belshazzar (Akk. bźl-sar-usur), was an enigma for
historians. The book of Daniel states that he was "king" (Ar. ?????)
the night that Babylon fell (chap. 5) and says that his "father" (Ar.
???) was Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 1 . Prior to 1854,
archeologists and historians knew nothing of Belshazzar outside the
book of Daniel. Indeed, while the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch
(Baruch 1:11, 12) and the writings of Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.2-4
§231-247) do mention Belshazzar, the references to Belshazzar in these
works are ultimately dependent on the book of Daniel (Collins, p. 32).
Both Xenophon (Cyropaedia, 7.5.28-30[8]) and Herodotus (The Histories,
1.191) recount the fall of Babylon to Cyrus the Great, yet neither of
these writers give the name of the king of Babylon. Additionally, both
Berossus' and Ptolemy's king lists have Nabonidus (Akk. Nabū-na'id) as
the last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar.
From that time new evidence from Babylon has verified the existence of
Belshazzar as well as his co-regency during the absence of his father,
Nabonidus, in Temā. For example, In the Nabonidus Cylinder, Nabonidus
petitions the god Sin as follows: "And as for Belshazzar my firstborn
son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his
heart, and may he commit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life". In
addition, The Verse Account of Nabonidus (British Museum tablet 38299)
states, "[Nabonidus] entrusted the army (?) to his oldest son, his
first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He
let everything go, entrusted the kingship (Akk. sarrūtu) to him, and,
himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of
Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temā deep in the west" (Col. II,
lines 18 - 29. 1. In line with the statement that Nabonidus
"entrusted the kingship" to Belshazzar in his absence, there is
evidence that Belshazzar's name was used with his father's in oath
formulas, that he was able to pass edicts, lease farmlands, and
receive the "royal privilege" to eat the food offered to the gods.
The available information concerning Belshazzar's regency goes silent
after Nabonidus' fourteenth year. According to the Nabonidus
Chronicle, Nabonidus was back from Temā by his seventeenth year and
celebrated the New Year's Festival (Akk. Akitu). Whether or not
Belshazzar continued his regency under his father's authority after
his return cannot be demonstrated from the available documents. Some
scholars have argued that the non-observance of the Akitu during
Nabonidus' absence demonstrates that Belshazzar was not the "king"
since it shows that he could not officiate over the festival. However,
The Verse Account of Nabonidus says, "Nabonidus said: 'I shall build a
temple for him (the Moon god Sin)...till I have achieved this, till I
have obtained what is my desire, I shall omit all festivals, I shall
order even the New Year's festival to cease!'" Thus, the halting of
the Akitu may have been done by the king's command rather an inability
on the part of Belshazzar. This stated, the fact that Belshazzar did
not disobey his father's command is evidence that Nabonidus remained
the official (and actual) king of Babylon.
There is no evidence that Belshazzar ever officially held the title of
"king" as he is never called such in the Nabonidus Cylinder.
Furthermore, the Aramaic term ??? (mlk, king) applied in Daniel could
be used to translate titles of various levels of high ranking
officials. (This can be seen in the case of a 9th century BC Akkadian/
Aramaic bilinguagal inscription found at Tel Fekheriyeh in 1979 which
reads "king" for the Akkadian "governor".) A contract tablet dating to
the third year of his regency (550 B.C.E) includes the designation
"son of the king." [9] This, of course, is not proof that he possessed
any status as the official king of Babylon. The bottom line is that
Nabonidus was still alive when Cyrus conquered Babylon, and had not
been replaced as the official king of Babylon by Belshazzar.
No known extrabiblical text indicates a blood relation between
Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Historians have objected to this aspect
of the record in Daniel. There were several rulers over Babylon
between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the rulership of Nabonidus and
Belshazzar. Many scholars have attributed the lack of mention of these
rulers as indicating the author mistakenly thought that the two
rulerships were consecutive. The Jewish Encyclopedia, holding to a
later date of the book (see 'Date'), supposed that "during the long
period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily
have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus,
would have been taken as the successor of the well-known
Nebuchadnezzar." Based on this reasoning, historians have considered
the reference to Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar simply an
error based on the above misconception.
However, there is another explanation. Belshazzar is never called an
independent king in the book of Daniel.[10] In fact, in Daniel 5:7,
16, 29 Belshazzar implies that he is the second ruler in the kingdom,
not the sole ruler; and yet, he has sufficient power to make someone
the third ruler in the kingdom. Secondly, we should note that co-
regencies were not that uncommon in the Ancient Near East.[11] Third,
we should also note that, Wilson, in the previous reference, showed
that the very word "king" was used in a variety of ways other than
that which we use today. The same also applies to the use of the word
"son"--it doesn't necessarily mean a biological relationship. (In this
case, though, it is a stretch to say that Belshazzar was a "son" of
Nebuchadnezzar, since neither he nor his actual father Nabonidus were
immediate successors to Nebuchadnezzar.) Finally, we should be aware
that Daniel is not writing an official state document for Babylon such
as one would expect from the court scribes, although the lack of
accurate specificity in the references also tends to be inconsistent
with the claim of an early date for Daniel.[12]
|
The "Book of Daniel" completely neglects to mention that Nabonidus was the
acturaal king of Babylon and was the father of Belshazzar. In chapter 5,
Belshazzar, Belshazzar's wife and Daniel himself all refer to Nebuchadnezzar
as Belshazzar's father. This is harder to accept when you consider that
Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean, while Nabonidus was a Babylonian and had
overthrown the Chaldean dynasty. It would be like George Washington
claiming that George III was his father.
| Quote: | [edit] Madness of Nebuchadnezzar
A third significant objection by historians is the account of the
insanity suffered by Nebuchadnezzar found in the fourth chapter of
Daniel. In the Dead Sea Scrolls a fragment known as The Prayer of
Nabonidus (4QPrNab, sometimes given as 4QOrNab) discusses a disease
suffered by Nabonidus, and there are obvious parallels between the two
accounts (1).
There are a number of superficial differences between The Prayer of
Nabonidus and the account of Nebuchanezzar's madness:
1. Nebuchadnezzar's "affliction" was of the mind whereas Nabonidus'
was an "evil ulcer."
2. Nebuchadnezzar's was a punishment from Daniel's God for sin,
there is no indication that such was the case for Nabonidus -- his was
supposedly for idolatry. (It could be argued, however, that
Nebuchadnezzar's "sin" was also a form of idolatry, involving self-
idolization, rendering this difference quite superficial.)
3. In the case of Nabonidus the "exorcist pardoned my sin" whereas
in the case of Nebuchadnezzar he "lifted up my eyes unto heaven and
mine understanding returned unto me." (KJV)--i.e., when he recognized
(accepted) the sovereignty of Daniel's god.
4. Nabonidus' condition was cured by an unnamed Jewish exorcist
whereas Nebuchadnezzar's recovery is not attributed to a human agent.
5. Nebuchadnezzar's illness came while he was in Babylon; while
that of Nabonidus was in Tema, although it does state in Daniel 4:33
that Nebuchadnezzar was "driven away from mankind." (NASB)
6. Finally, some of the words and phrases of the prayer have to be
inferred from the context because they are missing in the original
fragment. [Archer, Gleason L. "Daniel," Expositor's. Vol. 7
(Zondervan, 1985): 15; he cites Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the
Old Testament. (Tyndale, 1969): 1118-9]"
|
Make up your own opinion on that one. The "Prayer of Nabonidus" purportedly
tells the story of how the king was cured of his illness by a Jewish exile
and converted. In like manner Daniel 3 gives an account of
Nebuchadnezzar's conversion, and Daniel 6 gives an account of Darius the
Mede's conversion. There is no confirming evidence that either one of them
converted.
--Wax
Song of Songs 6:13
Turn, turn, O maiden of Shulam
Turn, turn, that I may stare at you! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:48efde94-9614-4f05-bec8-4163aec2d0c0@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Aug 7, 5:46 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com
wrote:
"Glenn" <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g77utn02nmd@enews1.newsguy.com...
The Omission of History From God's Word
Daniel's "Gap" (omission of human history) is visible in Chapter Nine,
between verses 26 and 27.
Horseshit.
Why doesn't that suprise me, coming from you?
In c. 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes "confirmed" the covenant with Menelaus
that he had made earlier with the traitorous priest Jason, but within a
year, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and committed the abomination of
desolation, taking away the "sacrifices and oblations" by raiding the
temple
treasury and ordering that all tributes be paid to him.
It wasn't the abomination of desolation relevant to the gospels,
|
NO?
THEN WHY DID JESUS GO UP TO OBSERVE THE "FEAST OF THE DEDICATION THAT IS
HELD IN THE WINTER," i.e. HANUKAH?
| Quote: | as
this event had yet to occur in their time.
|
Duh.
Was.
Is.
Is to come.
| Quote: | But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth
understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Mark 13:14
|
Which one? The one that "was," the one that "is," or the one that is "yet to
come" (given that Jesus was prophesying backward, presently, and forward at
the same time, just like Ezekiel)?
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g7h5jp01l65@enews2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | colp wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:46 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com
wrote:
"Glenn" <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g77utn02nmd@enews1.newsguy.com...
The Omission of History From God's Word
Daniel's "Gap" (omission of human history) is visible in Chapter Nine,
between verses 26 and 27.
Horseshit.
Why doesn't that suprise me, coming from you?
In c. 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes "confirmed" the covenant with Menelaus
that he had made earlier with the traitorous priest Jason, but within a
year, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and committed the abomination of
desolation, taking away the "sacrifices and oblations" by raiding the
temple
treasury and ordering that all tributes be paid to him.
It wasn't the abomination of desolation relevant to the gospels, as
this event had yet to occur in their time.
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth
understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Mark 13:14
Amazing, isn't it, that Jesus spoke of Daniel's prophecy of the
Abomination as being in the disciples future... but some claim that He was
a liar, or a fool, and that the abomination was historical to His day!
Bottom line, plain and simple, Preterists state that Jesus was a liar.
|
So do Dispensationalists (and Historicists, and Idealists, etc., etc).
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:f54a3290-9451-4cf9-9afc-7c1513b98954@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Aug 8, 10:02 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
colp wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:46 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com
wrote:
"Glenn" <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g77utn02nmd@enews1.newsguy.com...
The Omission of History From God's Word
Daniel's "Gap" (omission of human history) is visible in Chapter
Nine,
between verses 26 and 27.
Horseshit.
Why doesn't that suprise me, coming from you?
In c. 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes "confirmed" the covenant with
Menelaus
that he had made earlier with the traitorous priest Jason, but within
a
year, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and committed the abomination of
desolation, taking away the "sacrifices and oblations" by raiding the
temple
treasury and ordering that all tributes be paid to him.
It wasn't the abomination of desolation relevant to the gospels, as
this event had yet to occur in their time.
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth
understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Mark 13:14
Amazing, isn't it, that Jesus spoke of Daniel's prophecy of the
Abomination as being in the disciples future... but some claim that He
was a liar, or a fool, and that the abomination was historical to His
day!
Bottom line, plain and simple, Preterists state that Jesus was a liar.
It's interesting the Preterism originated in defence of the universal
church of Rome, with the apocalyptic language of Revelation tending
to identify the RCC as the whore of Babylon when not interpreted in a
historical context.
|
No, actually, that's backwards: Preterism was explored by the CATHOLICS (who
rejected it) to counter REFORMATION HISTORICISM.
PRETERISM
Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism
was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also
wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the
Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it all of
Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of
Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):
Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the
great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is
identified as Cęsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman
Catholic Church.
Again, Alcazar found no application of prophecy to the middle ages or to
the papacy. That his interpretation differed so greatly from that put forth
by Francisco Ribera or Cardinal Bellarmine, mattered little. Catholicism,
the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was
presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible interpretations of
prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the reformers.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:poho94h7p7c0l7mtafve3hgoalo6h908rs@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:06:55 -0500,
in article <g7hgdh$t5e$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54ol9456gjb1frvjieoh2ftnpurqsdl1n7@4ax.com...
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:46:10 -0500,
in article <g7e273$k6o$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Glenn" <gamcclary@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:g77utn02nmd@enews1.newsguy.com...
The Omission of History From God's Word
Daniel's "Gap" (omission of human history) is visible in Chapter Nine,
between verses 26 and 27.
Horseshit.
In c. 167 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes "confirmed" the covenant with Menelaus
that he had made earlier with the traitorous priest Jason, but within a
year, Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and committed the abomination of
desolation, taking away the "sacrifices and oblations" by raiding the
temple
treasury and ordering that all tributes be paid to him.
"Desolations" were "poured out" on Antiochus as he continued to loose
battle
after battle to the Jews, the Egyptians, and, ultimately the Romans, and
he
died at the hands of his own soldiers, who were fed up with his
foolishness.
These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable.
[snip]
Ike
That they are indisputable, historical facts doesn't make them
anything more than a typical fulfillment of the prophecy.
No, shit, Sherlock--THE FIRST FULFILLMENT of them, from THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE TEMPLE to the END OF THE MACCABEAN REVOLT, which means that THE
PROPHECY
WAS FULFILLED IN IT'S ENTIRETY before GOING ON TO ANOTHER STATEMENT.
THANKS.
YOU JUST CONFESSED THAT DISPENSATIONALIST ESCHATOLOGY is BULLSHIT.
Even
in your three, seventy year iteration, scheme of things,
NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING, asshole.
you
admit this isn't the "real" fulfillment, but have the final 70
year iteration remaining.
WHICH IS PRECISELY RIGHT, moron.
THE PROPHECY WAS BASED ON SEVENTY YEARS ALL ALONG, FOLLOWING DANIEL'S
FORM,
JESUS' OUTLINE, AND JOHN'S STEP-BY-STEP CHRONOLGY.
FINALLY, RANDY REALIZES THAT THE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE, AND CONFESSES
THAT
WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG WAS RIGHT, which means HIS ESCHATOLOGY IS BULLSHIT.
About time.
Ike
Dream on Hermanut. I've never disputed the historical facts
point to a typical fulfillment, and maintain that the real
fulfillment was never given in three 70 year iterations, but
70 sevens of years, which is precisely what the text of
Daniel 9, and the historical facts, indicate:
|
Which is a whole host of lies.
1) I never said prophecy was fulfilled in three seventy ***YEAR***
iterations.
2) Leviticus et al. declare that WEEKS is a CONVERTIBLE TERM, and is NOT
ALWAYS SEVEN YEAR PERIODS, as THE LYING DISPENSATIONALISTS DO TEACH.
3) BY IGNORING THE HISTORICAL FACTS in relation TO THEIR HISTORICAL
FULFILLMENT (which had NOTHING TO DO with Jesus but for the fact that the
establish a model for His second advent), you ARE ***DENYING*** THE
HISTORICAL FACTS.
IKE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:y5_mk.296050$SV4.140950@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: |
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
One of the curious things about the book of Daniel is its place in the
Jewish canon. Instead of being listed among the Prophets where you
would expect it, Daniel is part of the Writings.
What Bible have you been reading?
The Jewish Publication Society's translation, "TANAKH, The Holy
Scriptures" 1985 edition.
Daniel is the last of the major prophets, and the first of the minor
prophets, and he isn't located ANYWHERE NEAR the "writings."
Isaiah, Jeremiah, (Lamentations of Jeremiah), Ezekiel, DANIEL, Hosea,
Joel, etc., etc.
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin
with.
It's the law, history books, poetry books, and OTHER writings,
including the books we refer to as "the prophets."
And the Jews never referred to these by section, but by the saying "the
law and the prophets."
So your argument is ridiculous in every way.
The Jewish canon is divided into three major sections: Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings , The books and divisions are listed below:
Torah Five Books of Moses.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Nevi'im The Prophets
Joshua
Judges
1 & 2 Samuel
1 & 2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Minor Prophets
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Kethuvim The Writings
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
The Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 & 2 Chronicles
I hope this helped.
Yes it did.
It proved you don't know what you're talking about.
The books listed as "the writings" were canonized AT THE END of the
BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY, when the Jews finished compiling them.
The fact that you are no longer disputing me on the divisions of the
Jewish canon indicates that you have learned something.
|
No, it indicates that you don't know WHEN YOU'RE SCREWED IN THE HEAD.
The placement of Daniel HAD NOTHING TO DO with Jewish opinions on its
AUTHENTICITY.
It was just about THE CHRONOLOGY IN WHICH THESE THINGS WERE LAID OUT.
| Quote: | As for when the "Writings" were canonized, it was long after the
Babylonian captivity.
|
No, it wasn't.
| Quote: | Some authorities date it as late as the council of Jamnia in 90 c.e.
|
Patently impossible: Jesus was referring to Daniel in c. 27 AD.
| Quote: | The traditions that went into the Pentateuch were compiled BEFORE the
Babylonian captivity, but borrowed heavily from BABYLONIAN MYTHOLOGY,
adapted to the JEWISH STORY.
On that I agree. Final editing of the Torah would most likely have been
in the period of the Babylonian exile. However, there are some who argue
that portions of "P" we were written after the return.
|
Which was what I already said.
| Quote: | The books of the "prophets" were adapted EARLY in the Babylonian
captivity. (Note that Jeremiah is listed in "the prophets," but
Lamentations, which describes the fallen state of Jerusalem, which the
Jews always accepted as being written by Jeremiah, is listed IN THE
WRITINGS.)
Seeing that some of the prophetic books such as "Haggai", "Zechariah", and
"Malachi" were written after the Babylonian exile, you must be wrong.
|
Ah, no, THEY "must be wrong."
| Quote: | Plus give them at least one hundred years before being canonized.
In all the books of the Later Prophets from "Isaiah" down, the author is
identified within the text. "Lamentations" is attributed to Jeramiah, but
itself is an anonomous book. Plus, "Lamentations" is not a prophetic book
These facts may account for it being left out of the Prophets. However,
as a Writing, "Lamatations" rates right up their with the other books in
that catagory.
THIS is why the LATTER BOOKS ARE IN THEIR OWN SCROLL,
and NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO with the JEW'S
ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of DANIEL, as you falsely imply.
It simply has to do with the ORDER in which the books were canonized,
NOT THEIR VALIDITY.
Where did I imply that the Jews rejected "Daniel"?
|
???
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
| Quote: | They included it among the Writings. Being written in the middle of the
second century b.c.e., it was too late to be included in the Prophets.
|
Right. But here we have to distinguish between the PROPHECIES of Daniel and
the BOOK of Daniel, the latter being constructed (rather poorly) around the
FRAMEWORK of the prophecies of Daniel, the scribe attempting to add
INTERPRETATIONS to Daniel's prophecies (when, in fact, God NEVER gives
prophecies WITH their interpretations), as were preserved for posterity.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Dragonblaze" <dragonblaze@apexmail.com> wrote in message
news:b97e38c2-34a0-4c66-b1f4-dee990437c93@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 8, 3:32 am, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com>
wrote:
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
| Quote: | Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin with.
Oi, ignoramus, what might Navi'im - and that is a section in the
Tanakh - mean?
|
PROPHETS didn't mean PROPHETS in the CONTEMPORARY SENSE OF THE WORD.
The various CHRONICLES were also referred to as "THE PROPHETS," as when
Jesus referred to "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."
He did NOT mean JUST THE PROPHETIC BOOKS that we NOW refer to as "PROPHECY,"
but ALL THE BOOKS THAT RELATED TO THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL as well.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:13:46 -0500,
in article <g88j3b$fc2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Dream on Hermanut. I've never disputed the historical facts
point to a typical fulfillment, and maintain that the real
fulfillment was never given in three 70 year iterations, but
70 sevens of years, which is precisely what the text of
Daniel 9, and the historical facts, indicate:
Which is a whole host of lies.
1) I never said prophecy was fulfilled in three seventy ***YEAR***
iterations.
|
Liar:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 02:03:39 -0500,
in article <g710sb$4f7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
| Quote: | Which is not a formula whereby one may extrapolate that all
prophecy must therefore occur in three seventy year
iterations.
|
Bub, THAT'S THE FORMULA GOD DECLARES IN THE WORD.
**************************************************************
| Quote: | 2) Leviticus et al. declare that WEEKS is a CONVERTIBLE TERM, and is NOT
ALWAYS SEVEN YEAR PERIODS, as THE LYING DISPENSATIONALISTS DO TEACH.
|
Proving the possibility of your lame interpretation doesn't
prove it's the actual interpretation:
www.pulpitfire.net/360_Day_Prophetic_Year.htm
| Quote: | 3) BY IGNORING THE HISTORICAL FACTS in relation TO THEIR HISTORICAL
FULFILLMENT (which had NOTHING TO DO with Jesus but for the fact that the
establish a model for His second advent), you ARE ***DENYING*** THE
HISTORICAL FACTS.
IKE
|
ibid. You're the one ignoring the historical facts. We
acknowledge the typical fulfillments, which were never part of
the actual chronology:
www.pulpitfire.net/360_Day_Prophetic_Year.htm
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n6ga4dij7gdopvh7khouol6v79gdpdrb2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:13:46 -0500,
in article <g88j3b$fc2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
Dream on Hermanut. I've never disputed the historical facts
point to a typical fulfillment, and maintain that the real
fulfillment was never given in three 70 year iterations, but
70 sevens of years, which is precisely what the text of
Daniel 9, and the historical facts, indicate:
Which is a whole host of lies.
1) I never said prophecy was fulfilled in three seventy ***YEAR***
iterations.
Liar:
|
NO, YOU ARE THE LIAR, WRITING YOUR OWN WORDS, THEN ATTRIBUTING THEM TO ME,
FABRICATING A FALSE ACCUSATION, JUST LIKE YOUR FATHER, SATAN.
NOW TELL GOD I EVER TAUGHT "THREE SEVENTY ***YEAR*** ITERATIONS.
| Quote: | 2) Leviticus et al. declare that WEEKS is a CONVERTIBLE TERM, and is NOT
ALWAYS SEVEN YEAR PERIODS, as THE LYING DISPENSATIONALISTS DO TEACH.
Proving the possibility of your lame interpretation doesn't
prove it's the actual interpretation:
www.pulpitfire.net/360_Day_Prophetic_Year.htm
|
THERE IS NOTHING "LAME" ABOUT THE HISTORICAL FACTS AND THE BIBLICALLY GIVEN
FORMULA (both of which the lying Dispensationalists ignore).
| Quote: | 3) BY IGNORING THE HISTORICAL FACTS in relation TO THEIR HISTORICAL
FULFILLMENT (which had NOTHING TO DO with Jesus but for the fact that the
establish a model for His second advent), you ARE ***DENYING*** THE
HISTORICAL FACTS.
IKE
ibid. You're the one ignoring the historical facts. We
acknowledge the typical fulfillments, which were never part of
the actual chronology:
|
THEY WERE "PART OF THE ACTUAL CHRONOLOGY." MOREOVER, THE "ACTUAL CHRONOLOGY"
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS CHRIST IN THE FIRST PLACE (except to
establishment a historical precedence for Jesus' second advent).
IT STARTED "TYPICAL," AND IT ENDED "TYPICAL:" JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PROPHECY
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. IT WAS FULFILLED (once) IN ITS DAY, but DEFICIENTLY or
EXCESSIVELY (as the details reveal).
THUS, DISPENSATIONALISMS "SEGMENTATION" IS FALSE, WHICH LEADS TO YOUR FALSE
GOSPEL, AND YOUR FALSE THEOLOGY, AND BACK AROUND AGAIN, ONE LYING FEEDING
THE REST OF THE LIES.
(And thus the dogs wind up chasing their own "tales.")
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Randy ®
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:04:12 -0500,
in article <g89ele$2hc$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n6ga4dij7gdopvh7khouol6v79gdpdrb2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:13:46 -0500,
in article <g88j3b$fc2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
Dream on Hermanut. I've never disputed the historical facts
point to a typical fulfillment, and maintain that the real
fulfillment was never given in three 70 year iterations, but
70 sevens of years, which is precisely what the text of
Daniel 9, and the historical facts, indicate:
Which is a whole host of lies.
1) I never said prophecy was fulfilled in three seventy ***YEAR***
iterations.
Liar:
NO, YOU ARE THE LIAR, WRITING YOUR OWN WORDS, THEN ATTRIBUTING THEM TO ME,
FABRICATING A FALSE ACCUSATION, JUST LIKE YOUR FATHER, SATAN.
NOW TELL GOD I EVER TAUGHT "THREE SEVENTY ***YEAR*** ITERATIONS.
2) Leviticus et al. declare that WEEKS is a CONVERTIBLE TERM, and is NOT
ALWAYS SEVEN YEAR PERIODS, as THE LYING DISPENSATIONALISTS DO TEACH.
Proving the possibility of your lame interpretation doesn't
prove it's the actual interpretation:
www.pulpitfire.net/360_Day_Prophetic_Year.htm
THERE IS NOTHING "LAME" ABOUT THE HISTORICAL FACTS AND THE BIBLICALLY GIVEN
FORMULA (both of which the lying Dispensationalists ignore).
3) BY IGNORING THE HISTORICAL FACTS in relation TO THEIR HISTORICAL
FULFILLMENT (which had NOTHING TO DO with Jesus but for the fact that the
establish a model for His second advent), you ARE ***DENYING*** THE
HISTORICAL FACTS.
IKE
ibid. You're the one ignoring the historical facts. We
acknowledge the typical fulfillments, which were never part of
the actual chronology:
THEY WERE "PART OF THE ACTUAL CHRONOLOGY." MOREOVER, THE "ACTUAL CHRONOLOGY"
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS CHRIST IN THE FIRST PLACE (except to
establishment a historical precedence for Jesus' second advent).
IT STARTED "TYPICAL," AND IT ENDED "TYPICAL:" JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PROPHECY
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. IT WAS FULFILLED (once) IN ITS DAY, but DEFICIENTLY or
EXCESSIVELY (as the details reveal).
THUS, DISPENSATIONALISMS "SEGMENTATION" IS FALSE, WHICH LEADS TO YOUR FALSE
GOSPEL, AND YOUR FALSE THEOLOGY, AND BACK AROUND AGAIN, ONE LYING FEEDING
THE REST OF THE LIES.
(And thus the dogs wind up chasing their own "tales.")
Ike
|
When you respond to my actual post, instead of your mutilated,
amputated version, let me know.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:5 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
| Quote: | "wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
One of the curious things about the book of Daniel is its place in
the Jewish canon. Instead of being listed among the Prophets where
you would expect it, Daniel is part of the Writings.
What Bible have you been reading?
The Jewish Publication Society's translation, "TANAKH, The Holy
Scriptures" 1985 edition.
Daniel is the last of the major prophets, and the first of the minor
prophets, and he isn't located ANYWHERE NEAR the "writings."
Isaiah, Jeremiah, (Lamentations of Jeremiah), Ezekiel, DANIEL,
Hosea, Joel, etc., etc.
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin
with.
It's the law, history books, poetry books, and OTHER writings,
including the books we refer to as "the prophets."
And the Jews never referred to these by section, but by the saying
"the law and the prophets."
So your argument is ridiculous in every way.
The Jewish canon is divided into three major sections: Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings , The books and divisions are listed below:
Torah Five Books of Moses.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Nevi'im The Prophets
Joshua
Judges
1 & 2 Samuel
1 & 2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
The Minor Prophets
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Kethuvim The Writings
Psalms
Proverbs
Job
The Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 & 2 Chronicles
I hope this helped.
Yes it did.
It proved you don't know what you're talking about.
The books listed as "the writings" were canonized AT THE END of the
BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY, when the Jews finished compiling them.
The fact that you are no longer disputing me on the divisions of the
Jewish canon indicates that you have learned something.
No, it indicates that you don't know WHEN YOU'RE SCREWED IN THE HEAD.
The placement of Daniel HAD NOTHING TO DO with Jewish opinions on its
AUTHENTICITY.
It was just about THE CHRONOLOGY IN WHICH THESE THINGS
WERE LAID OUT.
|
I never said it had anything to do with the Jewish opinion on its
authenticuty. I stated that it was not included in the Prophets because it
had not been written at the time that the Prophets were canonized.
| Quote: | As for when the "Writings" were canonized, it was long after the
Babylonian captivity.
No, it wasn't.
Some authorities date it as late as the council of Jamnia in 90 c.e.
Patently impossible: Jesus was referring to Daniel in c. 27 AD.
|
Patently absurd. Before any book can be canonized, it has to be written.
"Daniel" was written in the mid 2nd century b.c.e. That gives Jesus plenty
of time to read the book.
| Quote: | The traditions that went into the Pentateuch were compiled BEFORE the
Babylonian captivity, but borrowed heavily from BABYLONIAN
MYTHOLOGY, adapted to the JEWISH STORY.
On that I agree. Final editing of the Torah would most likely have been
in the period of the Babylonian exile. However, there are some who argue
that portions of "P" we were written after the return.
Which was what I already said.
The books of the "prophets" were adapted EARLY in the Babylonian
captivity. (Note that Jeremiah is listed in "the prophets," but
Lamentations, which describes the fallen state of Jerusalem, which the
Jews always accepted as being written by Jeremiah, is listed IN THE
WRITINGS.)
Seeing that some of the prophetic books such as "Haggai", "Zechariah",
and "Malachi" were written after the Babylonian exile, you must be wrong.
Ah, no, THEY "must be wrong."
|
Are you saying that "Haggai", "Zechariah", and "Malachi" were written before
the end of the Babylonian exile? That would be quite a surprise. In
"Haggai" they are already beginning to rebuild the Temple. By the time of
"Malachi" the temple appears to have been rebuilt, and the issue is the
proper performance of the sacrifices.
| Quote: | Plus give them at least one hundred years before being canonized.
In all the books of the Later Prophets from "Isaiah" down, the author is
identified within the text. "Lamentations" is attributed to Jeramiah,
but itself is an anonomous book. Plus, "Lamentations" is not a prophetic
book These facts may account for it being left out of the Prophets.
However, as a Writing, "Lamatations" rates right up their with the other
books in that catagory.
THIS is why the LATTER BOOKS ARE IN THEIR OWN SCROLL,
and NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO with the JEW'S
ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of DANIEL, as you falsely imply.
It simply has to do with the ORDER in which the books were canonized,
NOT THEIR VALIDITY.
Where did I imply that the Jews rejected "Daniel"?
???
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
|
False. I never said any such thing. The fact that "Daniel" is part of the
canon is proof that the book is accepted by the Jews.
| Quote: | They included it among the Writings. Being written in the middle of
the second century b.c.e., it was too late to be included in the
Prophets.
Right. But here we have to distinguish between the PROPHECIES of
Daniel and the BOOK of Daniel, the latter being constructed (rather
poorly) around the FRAMEWORK of the prophecies of Daniel, the
scribe attempting to add INTERPRETATIONS to Daniel's prophecies
(when, in fact, God NEVER gives prophecies WITH their interpretations), as
were preserved for posterity.
|
So even you find parts of Daniel to be screwed up. And you are trying to
defend it.
--Wax
Job 13:7
Will you speak wickedly on God's behalf?
Will you speak deceitfully for him? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
wax
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote
| Quote: | "Dragonblaze" <dragonblaze@apexmail.com> wrote
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybo...@msn.com> wrote:
[snip the rest of the ignorant ranting]
Ike
P.S. There is no section of "prophets" in the Jewish canon to begin
with.
Oi, ignoramus, what might Navi'im - and that is a section in the
Tanakh - mean?
PROPHETS didn't mean PROPHETS in the CONTEMPORARY SENSE OF THE WORD.
|
As I said before, the Jewish canon is divided into three sections, "The
Torah" (aka "The Law"), "The Prophets", and "The Writings".
| Quote: | The various CHRONICLES were also referred to as
"THE PROPHETS," as when Jesus referred to "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."
|
By "Chronicles", I assume you mean "The Early Prophets" which include
Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, and 1&2 Kings. The rest are called "The Later
Prophets" which include "Isaiah", "Jeremiah", "Ezekiel", and "the Twelve
Minor Prophets".
1 & 2 Chronicles and Ruth are part of "The Writings".
Notice that Jesus to "The Law and the Prophets", but not to "The Writings".
Probably because they were not canonized at the time.
| Quote: | He did NOT mean JUST THE PROPHETIC BOOKS that we NOW
refer to as "PROPHECY," but ALL THE BOOKS THAT RELATED TO THE HISTORY OF
ISRAEL as well.
|
--Wax
Job 38:3
Who is this who darkens counsel
Speaking without knowledge? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n6jga41bkabokh0nuonl6eghj0uq6cqhs4@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:04:12 -0500,
in article <g89ele$2hc$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7n6ga4dij7gdopvh7khouol6v79gdpdrb2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:13:46 -0500,
in article <g88j3b$fc2$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
Dream on Hermanut. I've never disputed the historical facts
point to a typical fulfillment, and maintain that the real
fulfillment was never given in three 70 year iterations, but
70 sevens of years, which is precisely what the text of
Daniel 9, and the historical facts, indicate:
Which is a whole host of lies.
1) I never said prophecy was fulfilled in three seventy ***YEAR***
iterations.
Liar:
NO, YOU ARE THE LIAR, WRITING YOUR OWN WORDS, THEN ATTRIBUTING THEM TO ME,
FABRICATING A FALSE ACCUSATION, JUST LIKE YOUR FATHER, SATAN.
NOW TELL GOD I EVER TAUGHT "THREE SEVENTY ***YEAR*** ITERATIONS.
2) Leviticus et al. declare that WEEKS is a CONVERTIBLE TERM, and is NOT
ALWAYS SEVEN YEAR PERIODS, as THE LYING DISPENSATIONALISTS DO TEACH.
Proving the possibility of your lame interpretation doesn't
prove it's the actual interpretation:
www.pulpitfire.net/360_Day_Prophetic_Year.htm
THERE IS NOTHING "LAME" ABOUT THE HISTORICAL FACTS AND THE BIBLICALLY
GIVEN
FORMULA (both of which the lying Dispensationalists ignore).
3) BY IGNORING THE HISTORICAL FACTS in relation TO THEIR HISTORICAL
FULFILLMENT (which had NOTHING TO DO with Jesus but for the fact that
the
establish a model for His second advent), you ARE ***DENYING*** THE
HISTORICAL FACTS.
IKE
ibid. You're the one ignoring the historical facts. We
acknowledge the typical fulfillments, which were never part of
the actual chronology:
THEY WERE "PART OF THE ACTUAL CHRONOLOGY." MOREOVER, THE "ACTUAL
CHRONOLOGY"
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS CHRIST IN THE FIRST PLACE (except to
establishment a historical precedence for Jesus' second advent).
IT STARTED "TYPICAL," AND IT ENDED "TYPICAL:" JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER
PROPHECY
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. IT WAS FULFILLED (once) IN ITS DAY, but DEFICIENTLY
or
EXCESSIVELY (as the details reveal).
THUS, DISPENSATIONALISMS "SEGMENTATION" IS FALSE, WHICH LEADS TO YOUR
FALSE
GOSPEL, AND YOUR FALSE THEOLOGY, AND BACK AROUND AGAIN, ONE LYING FEEDING
THE REST OF THE LIES.
(And thus the dogs wind up chasing their own "tales.")
Ike
When you respond to my actual post, instead of your mutilated,
amputated version, let me know.
|
WHEN YOU STOP TELLING LIES BY FABRICATION, LIKE YOUR FATHER, SATAN, LET ME
KNOW.
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: OMISSION OF HUMAN HISTORY (AKA, "THE GAP") |
|
|
"wax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:71Zpk.5691$Mh5.1878@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[snip]
| Quote: | So even you find parts of Daniel to be screwed up. And you are trying to
defend it.
|
I don't have to.
JESUS ALREADY DID.
Or, to be more precise, Jesus upheld DANIEL THE PROPHET.
Now, as to the BOOK of Daniel, that's another matter altogether, as a latter
scribe attempted to supply prophecy AND interpretation, WHICH GOD DOESN'T
DO. (If He did, it would limit the prophecy to ONE interpretation instead of
MULTIPLE interpretations, which is how PROPHECY REALLY WORKS.)
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
