Jump to content

Athiest Billboard


Recommended Posts

So the last two major debates we have had here:First one was that Eve eating the fruit was a good thing for mankind. The whole bringing death and sin were a bummer side consequence, but at least we can now recognize that American Idol would not exist if we couldn't know how to differentiate between two things.Second one is that a prophecy of impossible conditions to be fulfilled is wrong because Daniel used a different word combination than we think he should.Next I'm sure we will debate how Christ turning the 3 fish and loaves was insensitive to the introduction of bread into their diet because of what we know about carbs now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gotta admit I wasn't really up on the Daniel quote so I checked it out."Seventy sevens have been decreed for your people. . . . So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two sevens the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”That sounds like something from Mel Brooks', History of the World.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta admit I wasn't really up on the Daniel quote so I checked it out."Seventy sevens have been decreed for your people. . . . So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two sevens the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”That sounds like something from Mel Brooks', History of the World.
It's good to be the king
Link to post
Share on other sites
Strong's Concordance has been the authority on Hebrew and Greek words of the Bible for a long long time. I understadn why you need to discount it, it would be bring devastation to your new books 'theories'.
Strong's is only the authority for those who already accept the truth of the bible and the absolute truth of the very interpretation of the word in question -- pretty much the definition of circular evidence. This is what Strong's editors already believe and what its users already believe, so there is no possibility that any word in any verse could ever mean anything that contradicts the evangelical position. For the rest of us, the authority on ancient Hebrew would be ... scholars of ancient Hebrew, who let the words mean what they mean.
So my mixing the two definitions makes me wrong about the reality of what turning Hebrew in English entails...okay, good thing for you this 'out' fits your needed loophole quota to ignore the forest be focusing on a single tree.You remind me of a Bible verse:Matthew 23:24
I was pointing out the mistake, not using it for any purpose. As you can see, I didn't draw any conclusion from it or refer to it again. Settle down, Beavis.And all this but still ... no word, no usage.The problem is, it's not this one verse. This same thing could be done over and over again, as it already has with "generation," Jesus's two genealogies, etc., ad nauseum. It's an accumulation of contradictions and errors that can only be explained away by dependence on (slavish devotion to) the notion of "the proper interpretation," nearly all of which dates from no earlier than the 1850s and flies in the face of the previous 1,900 years of commentary and exegesis.P.S. Again, what about the 285 "weeks" that have passed so far between Israel's 69th "week" and its 70th "week"? The first 69 weeks were worth counting, but not the rest? And this doesn't throw the math off one little bit? 69 + 285 + 1 = 70?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Strong's is only the authority for those who already accept the truth of the bible and the absolute truth of the very interpretation of the word in question -- pretty much the definition of circular evidence. This is what Strong's editors already believe and what its users already believe, so there is no possibility that any word in any verse could ever mean anything that contradicts the evangelical position. For the rest of us, the authority on ancient Hebrew would be ... scholars of ancient Hebrew, who let the words mean what they mean.
Wow, I can't believe you would write this, I always thought you were more open minded.If the only way you can support your current belief system is to pretend that breaking down every single word of the Bible and cross referencing it with all examples of it through out the Bible can be slanted in any way possible...it shows that truth is the farthest thing from your things to find today list.
I was pointing out the mistake, not using it for any purpose. As you can see, I didn't draw any conclusion from it or refer to it again. Settle down, Beavis.And all this but still ... no word, no usage.The problem is, it's not this one verse. This same thing could be done over and over again, as it already has with "generation," Jesus's two genealogies, etc., ad nauseum. It's an accumulation of contradictions and errors that can only be explained away by dependence on (slavish devotion to) the notion of "the proper interpretation," nearly all of which dates from no earlier than the 1850s and flies in the face of the previous 1,900 years of commentary and exegesis.
I will have to bow to your superior knowledge of judging the intent of ancient writers by not allowing context to ever influence the results.Context should be stripped from any curriculum for any courses on language translations. It is only used to fool us.
P.S. Again, what about the 285 "weeks" that have passed so far between Israel's 69th "week" and its 70th "week"? The first 69 weeks were worth counting, but not the rest? And this doesn't throw the math off one little bit? 69 + 285 + 1 = 70?
Israel has been appointed 70 weeks, 69 ended when Rome destroyed their Temple. They began wandering, a people without a country for the next 1900 years, they next time that the nation Israel will be the focus of the world will be the final 7 years of life on earth, the tribulation.But you caught that silly Daniel, trying to say that Israel would only have 70 weeks of days then it would be no more. He really stepped on it when he made that prophecy.Weird that not one single scholar for 2000 years ever saw it the way you see it now. You must be THAT good.What other possible answer could there be?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, I can't believe you would write this, I always thought you were more open minded.If the only way you can support your current belief system is to pretend that breaking down every single word of the Bible and cross referencing it with all examples of it through out the Bible can be slanted in any way possible...it shows that truth is the farthest thing from your things to find today list.I will have to bow to your superior knowledge of judging the intent of ancient writers by not allowing context to ever influence the results.Context should be stripped from any curriculum for any courses on language translations. It is only used to fool us.Israel has been appointed 70 weeks, 69 ended when Rome destroyed their Temple. They began wandering, a people without a country for the next 1900 years, they next time that the nation Israel will be the focus of the world will be the final 7 years of life on earth, the tribulation.But you caught that silly Daniel, trying to say that Israel would only have 70 weeks of days then it would be no more. He really stepped on it when he made that prophecy.Weird that not one single scholar for 2000 years ever saw it the way you see it now. You must be THAT good.What other possible answer could there be?
LOL
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's good to be the king
Apparently it's good to be the Messiah whoever that is. I think Daniel is the only one to ever mention the word in the bible which makes me wonder if Jesus actually was who he was refering to. Isn't Daniel the last book added as well? Maybe he picked up some new Hebrew slang or something. And also, even if you think his seventysevendasevensevenstuff was true, we don't actually know which year Jesus was born or at least is conflicting so how do you reconcile that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently it's good to be the Messiah whoever that is. I think Daniel is the only one to ever mention the word in the bible which makes me wonder if Jesus actually was who he was refering to. Isn't Daniel the last book added as well? Maybe he picked up some new Hebrew slang or something. And also, even if you think his seventysevendasevensevenstuff was true, we don't actually know which year Jesus was born or at least is conflicting so how do you reconcile that?
Daniel was not the last book 'added' unless you by into the 'new' scholars who claim Daniel was written centuries after it claims because they can find no other way to reconcile his many prophecies that came true with their contention that no prophecies are real.Daniel's prediction was on when the Messiah would be shown to the nation Israel, this was fulfilled when Christ road into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. Not His birth.Which by the way, we pretty much know when He was born since we base our entire view of time on His birth. The discussion is what month, not what year. I think I remember He was born in the Spring... not sure because don't care.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, people that did bring it up were either ostracized, tortured or murdered? It's never been very popular to bring these details up ya know.
Pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to find one person in the history of the world who was killed for thinking Daniel said Israel would only exist for 490 days after the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.I would start looking around 564 AD to 1241 AD...more likely to find something if you really focus your attention on these dates because of the lack of any other written material surviving
Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel was not the last book 'added' unless you by into the 'new' scholars who claim Daniel was written centuries after it claims because they can find no other way to reconcile his many prophecies that came true with their contention that no prophecies are real.
What's your objection to the word 'added'?
Link to post
Share on other sites
What's your objection to the word 'added'?
I don't think the Jews added the book of Daniel in the way the new testament had books added etc. The book of Daniel was like always scripture to them
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the Jews added the book of Daniel in the way the new testament had books added etc. The book of Daniel was like always scripture to them
Surely you would think the Torah, or at least the 10 Commandments proper, predates The Book of Daniel. According to the biblical time-line, Moses has been dead for several hundred years during the events of Daniel. The Hebrews didn't carry the Book of Daniel inside the Ark of the Covenant, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel was not the last book 'added' unless you by into the 'new' scholars who claim Daniel was written centuries after it claims because they can find no other way to reconcile his many prophecies that came true with their contention that no prophecies are real.Daniel's prediction was on when the Messiah would be shown to the nation Israel, this was fulfilled when Christ road into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. Not His birth.Which by the way, we pretty much know when He was born since we base our entire view of time on His birth. The discussion is what month, not what year. I think I remember He was born in the Spring... not sure because don't care.
Well, I guess I am one of those "people". Those kind of people that look rationally and don't try to find weird ways to bactrack into the bible in order to justify a couple thousand year old myth as reality. One of those.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I guess I am one of those "people". Those kind of people that look rationally and don't try to find weird ways to bactrack into the bible in order to justify a couple thousand year old myth as reality. One of those.
So you really think that being able to see that the phrase sixty two sevens being interpreted as 434 years instead of 434 days after you see that the 434 years after the future prophesied date results in an exact match, is a real stretch that no rational person would ever make?Especially when the word in question means sevened, not days.You guys making some stand on this subject is amazing to me. I mean how blind do you need to be, how firm are the hands covering your ears as you say lalalala over and over?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking into this birth thingy, in 1650 Archbishop James Usshe wrote, Annals of the Old Testament, Deduced from the First Origin of the World. At the time it was the most comprehensive study of creation history. He used Old Testament geneology, astronomical and hisotrical data, Roman histor and the New Testament, etc. He calibrated Hebrew chronology with the Christian calender. The 6000 year history of the earth would end 2000 years after Christs birth.The BC-AD system wasn't invented until the 6th century AD, so he deduced that since Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, (who talked to the Magi and ordered the slaying of the innocents). Herod died in 4 BC so he figured this was the latest possible date of Jesus birth, right? Alot of theologians go with that if I'm not mistaken, or well, the bible had alot of bullshit. So anyway he figured that the earth started on October 23rd, 4004 BC and he eeven nailed the time down, "high noon!" So, there must have been something wrong with this theory since the world apparently ended on October 23rd, 1996. I did check and something miraculous did happen on that day though. The Yankees down 6-3 in the 8th inning came back to beat the then invincible Braves, so it had to be a miracle! Well, that and God is a Yankee fan obviously. But I also got to thinking about SB's realization that there wasn't an actual Day Zero which throws the number off by 1, so it was actually 1997. So I checked again and it turns out the US Energy Department released a memo letting us know they lost about 30,000 Nukes. So maybe it was God letting us know that he changed his mind about the date or is stockpiling nukes for a later rapture.In any case, I don't think you can pinpoint Jesus birth like you think you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His birth was pretty important, His death is the most important thing in the entire world for every living person.But I do find it funny that you are arguing that a lack of information of the time makes knowing Christ's birthday difficult, while SB is claiming that they know enough about the time to date written documents by the common usage of words within a decade.It's like we know tons of stuff that we can disprove anything we want, but we don't know enough to prove anything at the same time.I have a copy of a book where a guy claimed that the world would end in 1984. Since this is all that is required for you to discount the entire belief system...a single person's theory being false, this book should be all you need to confirm your pre-conceived notion that we have a firm grasp of the meaning of the universe.Or maybe the world did end in 1984, and we are just the final electrical impulses being played out in the dream of a giant sloth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I always just discounted the whole thing since the bible has differing accounts of his birth by people obviously trying to backtrack into the dates and prophecies thus accounting for all the different versions. And really, the North Star wasn't even in the sky that the wise men were supposedly following at the time which simply shows that didn't forsee of have the knowledge to know that we would be able to call them out on the errors. Well, not that they probably even had the wildest inkling that people would still be taking it serious 2000 years later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you really think that being able to see that the phrase sixty two sevens being interpreted as 434 years instead of 434 days after you see that the 434 years after the future prophesied date results in an exact match, is a real stretch that no rational person would ever make?Especially when the word in question means sevened, not days.You guys making some stand on this subject is amazing to me. I mean how blind do you need to be, how firm are the hands covering your ears as you say lalalala over and over?
No, what I'm saying is that if it is the divinely inspired word of God, why did he inspire him to make the date simple and factual. Apparently his omnipotetent power didn't extend to making his points clear in his writings.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm literally starting to feel embarrassed for BG as I read his posts.It's like being in a public place and seeing someone stand up and start singing to their friends. Their friends blush and look around, clearly uncomfortable. And the singer is oblivious. Eyes closed, warbling away off key. Nasal. All the while thinking they're enchanting the crowd. Dreaming of how well they'll do during the upcoming American Idol audition. Just... embarrassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, what I'm saying is that if it is the divinely inspired word of God, why did he inspire him to make the date simple and factual. Apparently his omnipotetent power didn't extend to making his points clear in his writings.
I go back and forth with you Randy,At times I think you are wrong, but making an honest effort, reading and expanding your mind, and as such I respect your efforts and ability to argue a point.Then there are these times.I am sure God was trying to make sure that 21st century English speaking readers of translated documents would be fooled by using the common manner of speech of the Daniel's day to predict the coming of the Messiah.Don't feel bad, the Jews of the day missed it also, of course they were still flabbergasted that they were still around since they thought they were supposed to be gone 432 years ago.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I go back and forth with you Randy,At times I think you are wrong, but making an honest effort, reading and expanding your mind, and as such I respect your efforts and ability to argue a point.Then there are these times.I am sure God was trying to make sure that 21st century English speaking readers of translated documents would be fooled by using the common manner of speech of the Daniel's day to predict the coming of the Messiah.Don't feel bad, the Jews of the day missed it also, of course they were still flabbergasted that they were still around since they thought they were supposed to be gone 432 years ago.
Yeah, sorry. I slipped back into my old silly self. I am trying hard to learn BGspeak, but I got a little lazy. Of course God would speak in gobbledysevenspeak back then. You can understand that someone that doesn't research it fully might think that it seems a little like gibberish though. I'll try harder next time.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, sorry. I slipped back into my old silly self. I am trying hard to learn BGspeak, but I got a little lazy. Of course God would speak in gobbledysevenspeak back then. You can understand that someone that doesn't research it fully might think that it seems a little like gibberish though. I'll try harder next time.
to be honest, I am really lost as to what is giving you guys a feeling that your issues with this verse are reasonable. I cannot understand how you feel what you are arguing is reasonable.Let me see if I can say what I am hearing you guys say and you tell me if I am missing something.The verses in Daniel we are talking about have words that we are normally interpreting as the English word day.But you guys want to not interpret it into the word day here because you want to force the prophecy to come true, so you are willing to ignore the normal translation of this word to day and change it to years.Is that it?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...