Re: Substantiating The Validity Of Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

There's important things yet to emerge such as the full implementation of moneyless global monetary completion as prophesied in Revelation 13

---

Revelation 13 doesn't mention the abandonment of money."Biblical" prophecy often seems to have little basis in the Bible. Perhaps it is beause the actual record of real Biblical prophecy is so poor.a

Time to show how this "prophecy" is not found on the Bible.

quote:

---

1. Nobody can buy or sell without a mark or number on the hand or forehead.

---

Which can simply mean that it is forbidden to "buy or sell" without the mark (which quite likely refers only to merchants rather than ordinary people). So all it need refer to is the passing of a law restricting trading. Modern society already includes a lot of restrictions on buying and selling - there are items which may not be bought and sold at all and items which only registered traders may deal in. So a law of this sort absolutely does not require a cashless economy.

quote:

---

2. . chips with marks and numbers are already being implanted in animals, et al. It will likely be a matter of time before chips will be implanted on the forehead or hand so as to prevent security breaches and identity theft which is becoming a very serious problem.

---

While chips for human identity have been proposed they are invisible implants - NOT the visible marks described by Revelation and nobody suggests putting them in the forehead. Even the hand is an unlikely choice. The arm, between elbow and shoulder, is the site suggested by the company that has been pushing the idea. So these chips are not the "Mark of the Beast" More importantly there is no proposal anywhere near acceptance and alternative technologies that look to be more promising.

quote:

---

3. The beast related to the number is the ten nation/region world power confederacy of rulers as per the same beast which is explained in Revelation 17. Thus it is a government mark or number such as the government issued social security number used presently.

---

It is far from clear that Revelation 18 refers to a confederacy of nations in the modern sense. Remember that it was written in the days of the Roman Empire, when local kings were sometimes permitted to rule more or less subject to the Roman Empire. The "ten horns" are said to be people who will rule as kings WITH the beast who is also identified as a king (and therefore a man, not a confederacy of nations). Even the count of ten must be wrong since there are 11 kings, ten of whom are subject to the first. Worse for you a confederacy of only 10 nations would not plausibly have the power to achieve all this.

quote:

---

4. Never in the history of the world has a number or mark been required for all all nations of the world to buy or sell. Don't forget that this is global.

---

Since the nations are supposedly ruled by a single tyrant this doesn't propose any serious objection to the reading I'm suggesting. However it does raise a serious problem for those who propose it refers to events in the near future. There are plenty of powerful nations - many with nuclear weapons - who are unlikely to accept any proposed ruler, and even less likely to all accept the SAME ruler. Would China and the USA give up their independance to accept an outside ruler ? Would Pakistan and India ? Could they all agree on a single person to rule them ?So we can say that:1) There is no necessary connection between the trade restrictions and a cashless society. More Revelation never mentions the disuse of money which itself would be a major event2) There are currently no serious proposals to use RFID chips as part of a cash-substitute. If there were they do not fit the description of the "Mark"3) The beast is a ruler, not a confederacy of nations - and the "ten nation" idea relies on ignoring the beast himself.4) The supposed global extent just confirms that it is not going to happen unless the world situation changes drastically.In conclusion Revelation 13 can easily be read as referring to tattoos or brands and a law restricting trade. It cannot easily be read as referring to a cashless society based on RFID chip implants. Tattoos or brands fit the description of the mark and are likely to be placed on the hand or forehead. RFID chips do not fit the description and are unlikely to be placed at either site, especially not the forehead.Under neither reading is it at all likely to actually happpen in the next ten or twenty or even fifty years..

quote:

---

The book of Daniel is a good example. chapter 9 gives the prophecy: "Seventy sevens are determined for you holy city to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and Understand That from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven sevens and sixty two sevens; the street shall be built again, and the wall Even in Troublesome times.And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off but not for himself..."

​

The command was given by Artexerxes to Nehemiah who was allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild it. Archeologists found the stone cylinder with the command on it. That started the countdown. the sevens are properly translated as years or weeks of years in Hebrew. Exactly 69 weeks of years later...to the day...Palm Sunday... Jesus was acknowledged as the Messiah in Jerusalem. And then 62 weeks later Jesus was crucified.

---

There are some obvious problems here. Firstly the decree to rebuild is more plausibly the earlier command decree by Cyrus. Secondly since we cannot exacly date Jesus' life we cannot say that Palm Sunday was 69 x 7 year later. Also you cannot arbitrarily reuse the 62 x 7 years as 62 weeks. Finally you miss out the last week of the seventy that Daniel refers to entirely - as well as the destruction predicted for Jerusalem. If 1 week is seven years then Jerusalem would have to be conquered and destroyed within 7 years of the death of the messiah referred to.

quote:

---

Later in Daniel 11 Daniel describes the coming world kingdoms the same for the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. Daniel was written 606 BC but even if one late dates it they cannot get it later than the translation of the septuagint in 200 BC but it was obviously written before that. Anyway the statue of Nebechenezzar has Babylon, followed by the Medio-Persions followed by Greece then by Rome then the white stone cut without hands...the messiah. Daniel 11 describes each of the kingdoms coming accurately.

---

According to Bible scolars Daniel was written towards the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC). The 200 BC date for the translation of the Septuagint refers only to the translation of the Torah, and not any other book. In all the book of Daniel there is only one passing reference to Rome (11:30). In fact most of Daniel 11 is about the struggle between the Seleucids (mainly Antiochus IV) - the King of the North and the Ptolomeys - the King of the South. I suspect that you have the wrong chapter.If you really want to discuss the details of the dating of Daniel then I suggest a new thread. However there are serious problems with dating it to 606 BC and the late date fits the evidence far better.aEdited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

quote:

---

however your assertion that Daniel does not mention Rome is wrong for Daniel Chapter 2:40 is rome as is Daniel 7:7; Daniel 2:36-40&44

---

No, that is the Greek empire of Alexander and his successors. YOu should look at the whole of Daniel - the book pays an awful lot of attention to the Hellenistic states and virtually none to Rome, as in chapter 11.

quote:

---

so you had the Babylonian kingdom, gold, Medio-persion, silver, grecian, bronze and rome iron with the stone cut without hands setting up the kingdom of God coming during the time of the Roman empire which was Jesus "The Kingdom of God is amongst you"

---

No, The Median Empire is Silver while the Persian Empire is Bronze. For one you can see that the second Empireis alleged to be less than the first - which is certainly not true of the Persian Empire. And as I have stated Daniel pays much attention to the division of the Greek Empire, and looks at the weak and strong kings of the divided states, but Rome merits only a single mention.

quote:

---

it is a biased methodology based on aprior presuppostions

---

No, it is based less on what the author of Daniel got right than on what he got wrong. He is not correct on events that happened on or recently befoe the time of supposed writing. Nor is he correct about the fate of Antiochus.

quote:

---

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia Website it was included in the Septuagint:

---

You have managed to misread your own sourceHere are some relevant parts which you should have read. [qs] According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), ...It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek...It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era... [/quote]Aristeas gives a date for the translation of the Torah, and NOT for any other books, just as I said. The date of translation of the other books is NOT known - according to the source you cited, adnd can only be nailed down to "before the Christian Era".I suggest that you also read what the Jewish Enclopedia has to say on the dating of Daniel so you are at least familiar with the arguments for a late date rather than repeating the misrepresentations of Christian apologists.
DANIEL, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

quote:

---

Your date of 200 BC only applying to the Torah is in error. The Torah was translated to greek as shown around 285-247BC and the rest of the Septuagint including Daniel around 200 BC.

---

That is a gross misreading of your source. The 200 BC date is the date of the letter of Aristeas - which refers to the translation of the Torah. It does not give a date for the translation of the other books at all as is absolutely clear if you go on and read the next paragraph.
h

quote:

---

... but you first stated the translation of the Torah i.e. Pentatuch was 200 BC

---

I did not. You were the one who suggested the 200 BC date, and you stated it as a bound - not the actual date that the translation was done. And that date was based on th letter of Aristeas which only refers to the translation of the Torah.

quote:

---

then you claim that Aristeas, is only talking about the Torah/Pentatuch which you have yet to prove

---

No, I quoted your own source as stating: The Pentateuch IS the Torah.

quote:

---

wrong again...Aristeas quoted Job which is not in the Torah/Pentatuch "Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C."

---

So in other writings Aristeas quotes Greek translatiosn of some other books. That does not change the fact that the letter refers only to the Torah. Thus I am not wrong at all. Yes, I left it out because it only provided weak support for my case. It does however establish that the article provides no support for the idea that Daniel had been translated by 200 BC, nearly 70 years earlier.

quote:

---

Because Septuagint containing all the books of the Old Testament including Daniel were translated into the Septuagint and common use by 132 BC and because Aristeas letter in 200 BC is given credit that "the tradition as to the origin of the Septuagint rests" it is reasonable that the Septuagint containing Daniel was translated around 200 BC. That's why I have been saying around 200 BC in my posts as in the last line of my previous post

---

The letter of Aristeas refers only to the Torah, this it does not help you. The only date you have which is relevant to Daniel is 132 BC. Thus it is not reasonable to claim that Daniel had been translated by 200 BC.

quote:

---

And , I did not cite a christian apologetic source, I cited a source from the University of Oslo that discussed the biases of the methodology of those who late date Daniel only because his accuracy of events,...you missed that.

---

No. The fact that a guy assciated with the University of Oslo makes a false claim in no way makes it true. If he repeats the usual falsehood of Christian apologists I conclude that he is a Christian apologist. And in fact he is not just an Christian apologist - he is an apologist for the Jehovah's Witnesses.See http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev1.htm

The 200 BC date was YOUR date, and you expressed it as a bound. THe text you quote is a reference back to your claim.

quote:

---

As for Furuli...I didnt know he was a Watch Tower apologist! Too bad, his analysis is correct but I'll have to find a different credible source for the same analysis.

---

His "analysis" is a tired old falsehood. It isn't true. No credible source would say it, for that simple reason.

quote:

---

The methdology of apriori assigning Daniel after Antiochus Epipanes due to his accuracy begs the question that we are discussing, prophecy, and reasons in a circle.

---

Which is why I am instead referring to the REAL arguments for assigning a late date for Daniel. Which are not circular.

quote:

---

so we can agree then that Daniel was translated in the Septuagint after 285 BC and well enough before 132 BC as to be in common use right?

---

We can't even be sure of that. You'd need to show that Daniel was widely accepted it the Jewish canon at that point for the letter to even support that claim.

quote:

---

And you didnt respond to the fact that the silver portion of the statue and the bear and the ram with 2 horns is the second of the four kingdoms making Greece/Alexander the 3rd kingdom, the bronze portion of the statue and the leopard and goat, making Rome the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 & 7. Does that mean you concede the point?

---

I did respond to it by pointing out that Daniel's Median Empire is a better fit for the second Empire and that the context of Daniel strongly supports the idea that the Greek Empire is the fourth. YOu didn't really answer my points.But, OK consider Daniel 8. The vision is a "visoin of the time of the end" (8:17) so it should show all the Empires. And the last one it shows is that of the Greeks (8:8) and from one of them - sited towards the North West of Israel - comes the "little horn" - clearly Antiochus. If this is the "time of the end" where is Rome ? On the other hand if the Greek Empire is the 4th and last there is no problem. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.