homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Kerygmania   » Daniel 9:24-27

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Daniel 9:24-27
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Deep, deep down in Dead Horses, Jamat invited me to consider this particular passage in Daniel and to answer the following questions:

'Is it predictive of Christ? Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part? Who is the prince who is to come? Who are the ‘people’ of Daniel?'

The context was a discussion of how 'prophecy' works in the scriptures, whether it is predictive or whether it's a case that subsequent generations (notably the early Christians) interpreted and applied writings originally addressed to specific situations in Israel's history in a Messianic way in relation to Christ.

In this thread I invite Shipmates to give their answers to Jamat's questions. That way, we can all see (he foretells, hopefully! [Biased] ) how wide a range of interpretations there are.

To kick off, here's my take:

Firstly, an obvious place to start is by saying that I'm very aware of how these verses are understood and interpreted among various 'tribes' within evangelicalism, the tradition I probably know best.

Secondly, I'll readily acknowledge never being entirely convinced of the elaborate schemas devised to explain what the 'seventy sevens' and so forth stand for - nor the way the 'sealing up of vision and prophecy' (v.24) was customarily applied in highly conservative circles.

But that is to step outside of Jamat's original question.

'Is it predictive of Christ?'
Yes, I'd say so as the early Church seems to have intepreted it that way. Does that mean that it's original application was as a prophecy of Christ?

No, I don't think so. Rather, I'd suggest it had contemporary relevance and application whenever it was written (late date, early date, take your pick). Subsequently, it helped the development of Jewish ideas of a coming Messiah which the early Christians then 'recognised' and applied to Christ.

So if it is predictive, it is not predictive in a 'mechanical' sense ... if that makes sense.

It's predictive in the sense of being discerned to be so by later readers.

Is prophecy, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? I'm still working on that one ...

[Biased]

Jamat's second question: 'Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part?'

Again, I am very aware of how these verses and references/echoes of them in the Gospels are understood within conversative evangelical circles and within Dispensationalism in particular.

My cop out answer would be, 'Who knows? Wait and see ...'

A more considered answer would be, 'I can see why people interpret these as having some kind of future fulfilment as there appears to be some kind of future loose-ends or foretelling going on in the Gospels, using these or similar tropes.'

But again, there are other ways of understanding this. People have applied them to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 of course. There are other ways to interpret and understand them too.

That's the nature of prophecy and the nature of apocalyptic writings.

We can interpret and apply them to a wide variety of things. There are references to the destruction of Jerusalem - to an end of sacrifice and offering. This has happened several times - with the defilement of the Second Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the exiles and devastation caused by Hadrian ...

Likewise, 'the abomination that causes desolation' is capable of being understood in various ways.

Some see it as a reference to the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes which sparked the Maccabean revolt. Some see it as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (whether foretold by Christ or redacted by Gospel writers after the event). Some see it as having some future fulfilment.

There's even a school of thought I've come across recently that suggests that when Christ used it he was applying it to his own death - certainly an abomination that caused desolation in one sense.

So it can be applied to a number of possibilities. All carry some weight.

My own 'take' would be that it's most likely to be a reference to the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and that it became a by-word for sacriligious or outrageous acts/persecution by Gentiles etc etc ...

Am I looking for some future fulfilment in terms of events in Jerusalem? No, but given the history of religious violence in the region then there are all sorts of things that could happen which people could interpret as fulfilment of these verses.

Do I attempt to fit this and other references into some kind of elaborate eschatological schema?

No, I don't and I am highly suspicious of any movements or schools of thought that do.

Jamat's third question 'Who is the prince who is to come?'

Again, there could be all kinds of candidates for that if we take this as some kind of predictive prophecy. I'm not prepared to speculate. It's a waste of time.

I don't 'ignore' or overlook it, but I am happy to leave it as a reference to events involving the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - and that's happened several times.

Jamat's fourth question, 'Who are the "people" of Daniel.'

I presume that Jamat is referring to the 'many' of Daniel 9:27 (NKJV), rather than the 'people of the prince who is to come' of verse 26.

Well, the obvious inference is that Daniel is referring to his own people, the Jews or those among them who accept the covenant or treaty mentioned in verse 27. Again, there would be a number of ways to interpret that - by relating it to historical events or making it 'fit' some known occurence, or else (as Jamat presumably does) by projecting it into the future for some ultimate fulfilment according to his particular eschatological schema.

I'm not inclined to follow him down that route.

Nor do I 'require' there to be clear-cut and dried answers to these questions.

I am happy to live with a degree of ambiguity and mystery.

My faith doesn't stand or fall by there 'having' to be some neat tying up of loose-ends.

I've heard plenty of sermons and read plenty of explanations, none of which sound entirely convincing. It's a red-herring to expect these things to dove-tail neatly as some kind of seamless schema.

That's not how these things work.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was in a Bible study once where someone said that prophecies can be fulfilled more than once. The fact that a certain past event appears to fulfill a certain prophecy does not mean that prophecy cannot be fulfilled again.

I'm passing this along as an interesting idea. I'm one of those people who is not all that interested in prophecy, except as a general indication of God's interest and care for us.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20346 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is interesting, Moo, but I suspect it simply underlines a point I was trying to make about it being in the nature of prophetic/apocalyptic writings to be sufficiently elastic to be applied to all manner of things/circumstances.

So, for instance, the 'abomination that causes desolation' is so flexible a term that it could be applied to anything the Jews considered sacrilegious - be it a statue of a ruler and the sacrifice of pigs in the Temple; the marching standards of Roman legions placed near or inside the Holy Holies; the death of Christ even ...

To apply it to a literal future time of Temple offering and sacrifice, the Anti-Christ or Man of Sin etc etc can result in the development of the kind of overly literal schemas I've been talking about ... requiring the literal re-establishment of the Temple and the Jewish sacrificial system etc. All of which enters the realm of pure speculation.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here is Chapter 9 of Daniel. I linked the entire chapter for context.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2696 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think I can accept predictive prophecy in the way Jamat understands it, but I'd like to think my objection is based on the Bible and the nature of Christianity.

The problem ISTM is that predictive prophecy leads to a variant on the grandfather paradox. If it's prophesied that something bad will happen, and you believe the prophecy, then you will take steps to make sure it doesn't. If you succeed, then the future foreseen by the prophet no longer exists and there is nothing for him to foresee.

Now AIUI this was not a problem for the pagan Greeks because they believed the future was fixed and unchangeable even by the gods, and so any steps you took to prevent a prophecy from happening would in fact be part of the set of events that cause that prophecy to be fulfilled. Laius and Jocasta receive a prophecy that their son Oedipus would murder his father and marry his mother, so they expose him. Consequently, he grows up not knowing who his parents are, so nothing tells him not to kill Laius or marry Jocasta.

By contrast the Bible, ISTM, teaches that the future is not immutable and human choices do matter. Jonah prophesies that Nineveh will be destroyed, so the Ninevites repent, and it isn't. Isaiah tells Hezekiah that he won't recover from his illness; Hezekiah repents, and lives fifteen years longer.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7222 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As said in the closed

"Daniel 9: Taken as 69 (=62+7) – all driven by Jeremiah's 70 year Exile prophecy (Jer. 25:12) - x 7 = 483 years. To make that tie up with Christ's death in 30-33 one has to use 'prophetic years' (Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Dan 7:25; 12:7)) of 360 days to get back to the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445(a) odd to rebuild the temple. All very Dispensationalist.

And I can accept it. All. Whether it was written around 200 or 600 BCE. As miraculous revelation from God of His intent. Because again, He doesn't have to do anything. Nothing intrusive, coercive, nasty. Un-Christlike. All He had to do was ensure that Nehemiah got the warrant and that was followed through, and incarnate ( 483 x 360 ) / 365.25 = 476 = 445(a) + 30 odd years later. Despite there being a perfectly good... historical-critical solution* that avoids prophecy. He didn't have to passively see a future that didn't exist by magic. He couldn't have worked it out like 500 years of Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Roman dominance, it's too detailed. He had to intervene, minimally. Fine.

*62 'weeks' (428 if 'prophetic', 434 if not) from 605/4 or 539/8 or 458/7 or 445/4 giving us 177/6 or 171/0, 111/0 or 105/4, 30/29 or 24/3 and 17/6 or 11/0 BCE in which the 605/4 – 434 one in eight permutation gives us the 'an anointed one... cut off'; high priest Onias III's murder. Montgomery's “dismal swamp” of critical exegesis indeed! Rationalistically it's the only answer."

But He didn't. Intervene. Any more than He inspired foretelling prophecy. In Daniel 9. He inspired apocalyptic. He inspired the apocalyptic recording of history as it had unfolded in Daniel 9 and 10-11.

There is nothing prophetic of Jesus here, just a normal, common recurring anthropological trope throughout Jewish and other oppressed cultures which Jesus and His apologists more so, particularly Matthew, arrogated. Rightly.

Daniel was no seer. Nobody was. Including Jesus of course. Not by any rationally faithful criteria.

[ 01. January 2018, 14:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17366 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.

[ 09. January 2018, 21:08: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3133 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm no longer into this sort of thing. However, if someone is going with the idea that God literally dictated scripture, then God could've intended additional meanings, prophecies, resonances that the person taking dictation wasn't aware of.

If you believe the entire Bible is literally given by God and infallible in the original manuscripts, then the Bible becomes a wonderful call and response. A symphony with repeating themes and snatches of themes.

If that's what Jamat believes, then what he says makes some sense.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18392 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course it makes sense, but it only makes sense in its own terms and within its own fairly narrow and somewhat hermetically sealed frame of reference.

It can become highly reductionist. It's not a corset but a strait-jacket.

It's as if there's no room for mystery, as if we have to tie up all loose-ends.

It becomes a closed system.

To an extent, yes - there are parameters, guidelines, frames of reference.

The issue, it seems to me is how tightly we tie the knots. If we operate within a system that every single verse and reference must have an equal and corresponding reference somewhere else within the corpus otherwise we begin to get jumpy, then we are going to start looking for patterns and principles that appear to make it all 'fit'.

That's what Dispensationalism does and it's an enticing option and prospect if one is inclined to want everything to be neatly packaged and tied up.

I understand the motivation, but not the execution. It becomes forced and contrived as proponents try to vire everything into fit.

I think it's unfair though to accuse Jamat of promoting a 'dictation' theory of divine inspiration. He doesn't appear to regard the scriptures as a form of 'automatic writing' or dictated in some way as Muslim fundamentalists seem to believe in the case of the Quran.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As for the Bible being a symphony with repeating themes and snatches of themes - well yes, I don't have an issue with that at all.

That's how I approach scripture.

So, yes, Revelation picks up on themes and imagery from Daniel, Ezekiel and so on. There are echoes, references, parallels ...

Absolutely.

It's rather like T S Eliot's Four Quartets where themes are repeated and developed as though in a piece of music.

I'm all in favour of that.

I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I wasn't accusing Jamat of anything. I grew up with the church teachings I mentioned. Most of that is in my "don't know" stack (along with just about everything else in life).

I read your posts, Gamaliel, as saying that his beliefs didn't make any sense. And I'm surprised to hear that you want some mystery--that seems the opposite of what you were posting.

Did I misread you?

I just thought that maybe I could shed a little light on what Jamat was saying.

I'm tired, so I'll stop now. Will try to check back in the next couple of days.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18392 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17366 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apart from Jesus' single Marcan reference used by the Matthew school, which isn't related to Jesus Himself. That's the point. Jesus never used Daniel to see Himself. Interesting that.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17366 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Posts: 3133 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.

Wow really? But you NEVER have anything to say about specifics or any genuine alternative readings. When, for instance Messiah was cut off and had nothing, this is undeniably a prophetic reference to the crucifixion. So, given there are 70 weeks and Messiah dies after 69..pretty accurate..what has happened to the 70th week?

You have a very accurate fulfilled prediction but then..a puzzle. The accuracy of the first part betokens a genuine prophecy. Do you say the second part is wrong? ..but Jesus refers to it in Matt 24:15 so it can’t be! The only solution is that the 70th week is still future, despite actions of Antiochus IV who certainly did desecrate the temple but many years before.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3133 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.

Wow really? But you NEVER have anything to say about specifics or any genuine alternative readings. When, for instance Messiah was cut off and had nothing, this is undeniably a prophetic reference to the crucifixion. So, given there are 70 weeks and Messiah dies after 69..pretty accurate..what has happened to the 70th week?

You have a very accurate fulfilled prediction but then..a puzzle. The accuracy of the first part betokens a genuine prophecy. Do you say the second part is wrong? ..but Jesus refers to it in Matt 24:15 so it can’t be! The only solution is that the 70th week is still future, despite actions of Antiochus IV who certainly did desecrate the temple but many years before.

All you are doing is proving my point about there being people who want to batten down all the hatches and tie up apparent loose ends.

Other posters have gone into the specifics and provided alternative readings and so on. I'm reasonably conversant with the scriptures - signs of a better-spent youth ... [Biased] but I don't have time to go poring over prophecies with a pocket-calculator trying to work out when the 39th, 49th, 59th or 69th week was fulfilled.

That's not how I approach scripture.

As it happens, yes, I do see a Messianic 'anticipation' or reference in Daniel 9 and it does 'fit' the events around the crucifixion - but that doesn't necessarily imply a commutive direct equivalence thing ... we are talking about echoes, parallels, 'this is that ...'

As for the reference to the 'abomination that causes desolation' in Matthew 24:15 - well yes, this is Jesus picking up on and applying a reference in Daniel to his own times and ministry - and there are various hypotheses as to what he was referring to.

- Is it the destruction of The Temple in AD 70?

- Is it his own death, as some commentators have postulated?

- Is it a future event yet to be fulfilled?

One can argue the case for each, and I daresay other alternatives besides.

Fair enough.

What I wouldn't do is to present any one 'take' or interpretation as to what it might be as the cast-iron last-word on anything.

That sounds a reasonable position to me as we're dealing with mysteries and prophecy not with a cross-word puzzle or some kind of verbal Meccano-set or an Ikea assembly diagram that somehow (eventually) all fits.

No, we are dealing with something a lot deeper and richer than that.

I'm sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating, but I'm not prepared to play the kind of interpretative games that Schofield, Darby, Anderson and others indulged in. I don't see the point. I don't think they get us anywhere.

We see as through a glass darkly, but we still see.

I'm all for picking up on the harmonies and strands in scripture. I love it. What I don't do is concoct a join-the-dots or Painting By Numbers approach to working out how they all fit.

Speculating about whether there is an as yet unfulfilled '70th week' dangling around out there awaiting the final count-down strikes me as a complete waste of time and energy.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Posts: 3133 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.

And a prophet isn't a seer.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17366 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.

And a prophet isn't a seer.

You ARE just making it up as you go along..oh well.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3133 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Or not answers you'd like to hear.

There is a difference.

I have given answers, even if they are in the form of questions.

Like so:

Matthew 24:15 What is the 'abomination that causes desolation'?

- Is it the destruction of The Temple in AD 70?

- Is it his own death, as some commentators have postulated?

- Is it a future event yet to be fulfilled?

I can't see what's wrong with that as an answer as it could be any one of those or a combination of all three - or it could be other options I've not listed.

Plenty of posters, Ricardus, Eutychus, Martin60 (when I can follow what he's saying), Nick Tamen and many others have put forward possible answers and solutions whether on this thread or on the 'apocalyptic literature' thread or the Dead Horses thread about scriptural inspiration.

Somehow, none of these are 'good enough' for you.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Jamat, we have been warned by Hosts and Admins that posts of this nature belong in Hell.

I think this one deserves a Hell call.

May I cordially invite you to the Nether Regions?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!

Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”

Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.

And a prophet isn't a seer.

You ARE just making it up as you go along..oh well.
Yep, just like Jesus.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17366 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, because I know everyone is anxious to hear more about the 360-day prophetic year.

The story so far: on the DH thread Jamat presented a scheme by a chap called Sir Robert Anderson which requires us to suppose that Daniel's weeks refer to seven years of 360 days each. Scriptural support for a 360-day year comes from the calendar dates of the flood in Genesis.

My objection to this is a.) a lunar cycle is 29.5 days, so a 30-day month would quite quickly lose the connection between the new moon and the new month, and b.) at least some Hebrew festivals are tied to the seasons, specifically to the harvest, and it would be impossible to do this unless your year at least averaged 365.25 days (e.g. by intercalation). Therefore whatever the Genesis passage means, it doesn't mean a 360-day year.

Jamat's response was that Sir Robert Anderson had an answer to this and that I should read him. Regretfully, I have not been able to find him online, but the objections above are so obvious that I was reasonably certain that dispensationalists would have responses to them, so I have browsed quite a lot of websites in search of those responses.

Firstly I found a quote from Anderson:
quote:
It is noteworthy that the prophecy was given at Babylon, and the Babylonian year consisted of twelve months of thirty days. That the prophetic year is not the ordinary year is no new discovery. It was noticed sixteen centuries ago by Julias Africanus in his Chronography, wherein he explains the seventy weeks to be weeks of Jewish (lunar) years, beginning with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the fourth year of the 83rd Olympiad, and ending in the second year of the 202nd Olympiad; 475 Julian years being equal to 490 lunar years.
This would be quite neat, except that:
1.) the Babylonian calendar does not have 30-day months, but alternates 29- and 30-day months just like the Hebrew calendar;
2.) Julius Africanus in fact assumes a year of 354 days, which is the Jewish calendar without intercalary months - this is obvious in that he arrives at a figure of 475 Julian years whereas Anderson has 477 Julian years;
3.) If the Babylonian calendar did have 30-day months, then by definition it wouldn't be a lunar calendar;
4.) It still doesn't explain my objection (b) above.

Among the numerous dispensationalist websites I browsed I could find only two other responses to my objections:

1.) That the length of the lunar and solar cycles changed at some point in history - possibly as a consequence of the Flood and/or Hezekiah's shadow;

2.) That Hebrew months weren't in origin lunar.

(1) I think is an application of Poe's Law. Regarding (2), I'm not sure there is anything in the Bible that explicitly says the months are lunar but the idea that they weren't goes against everything we know about the Hebrew calendar - and it likewise doesn't resolve my objection (b).

So I think I agree with Eutychus' comment on the DH thread - that this sort of exposition creates more problems than it solves; in order to explain an apparent dating discrepancy in Genesis, we have to suppose that the entire solar system reorganised itself without leaving any astronomical trace. I'd also say that points 1-4 are evidence that Sir Robert Anderson doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ 20. January 2018, 08:28: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7222 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well done Ricardus.

I think we can all agree that there is a theological term for dear old Anderson's eschatological speculations:

Bollocks.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15848 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools