Athiest Billboard

[Roll the Bones 74]

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?

I admittedly haven't done alot of research on the subject but have learned a little. I just found it odd that you can use the bible to count back, but not forward. I am a little more familiar with all the rapture predicitons that didn't come true. I 'll reread some stuff though and see if I can come up with anything.

[Balloon guy 158]

I admittedly haven't done alot of research on the subject but have learned a little. I just found it odd that you can use the bible to count back, but not forward. I am a little more familiar with all the rapture predicitons that didn't come true. I 'll reread some stuff though and see if I can come up with anything.

I think I've said it here before but a guy once told me that there is a lot of money in end times prophecy. Christians are just as able to write crappy books to make money with no regard to the validity of their work as anyone else.Prophecy is a difficult thing to interpret. Why? don't know. Maybe we aren't supposed to know the future? Hollywood has made many movies about this excuse and we get a decent excuse for this.Daniel prophesied about the next 4 world governments, but did it in the manner of a statue made up of different material. After the events, we can see how this prophecy was right, but before you could never get it. For both of these the argument is: We aren't supposed to know the future events, we are supposed to realize that God knew about them.So with regards to the rapture and stuff, God could write about it in the Bible in many places, yet also say that: 'No man knows the day or the hour'. After the event the prophecy will be revealed because we will see it with new eyes.Now I will admit that this can open the door to speculation that we are forcing events to fit prophecy. Can you admit that maybe this was the way God wanted it so we would only see His wisdom after it is too late to buy stock in the Roman company?

[BaseJester 1]

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 there maybe a word missing from this post?

[BaseJester 1]

For both of these the argument is: We aren't supposed to know the future events, we are supposed to realize that God knew about them.

Is it your position that this is the case with the Prophecy of Seventy Septets? I.e., the readers didn't know if the Hebrew meant years or days until after the events happened?

[Balloon guy 158]

Is there maybe a word missing from this post?

No, what I meant will become clear later when I tell you what I meant.

[Balloon guy 158]

Is it your position that this is the case with the Prophecy of Seventy Septets? I.e., the readers didn't know if the Hebrew meant years or days until after the events happened?

No, you again are under this impression that the word means either the english word day or the english word year. It's not like that.But the fact is this was a prophecy by Daniel, who is a pretty big deal in Judaism. And nobody was expecting the return of Messiah on the year that Daniel predicted. Why?Because in prophecy, the clarity comes after the even most times. I don't know why. But I see it over and over again.The statue in King Nebuchadnezzar's dream is a perfect example.It clearly predicts the next 4 major world powers, yet you could never see it from the imagery, until after the events happen.Now we see the progression from the descriptions, but at the time it made no sense.I understand that you can discount all prophecy by claiming that it is being forced. But when you have a specific number of years from a specific date and the years happen exactly as said with a span of over 400 years...I think you are being purposefully argumentative if you don't consider the reality that Daniel knew when Christ was going to be revealed to the city of Jerusalem.

[Roll the Bones 74]

No, you again are under this impression that the word means either the english word day or the english word year. It's not like that.But the fact is this was a prophecy by Daniel, who is a pretty big deal in Judaism. And nobody was expecting the return of Messiah on the year that Daniel predicted. Why?Because in prophecy, the clarity comes after the even most times. I don't know why. But I see it over and over again.The statue in King Nebuchadnezzar's dream is a perfect example.It clearly predicts the next 4 major world powers, yet you could never see it from the imagery, until after the events happen.Now we see the progression from the descriptions, but at the time it made no sense.I understand that you can discount all prophecy by claiming that it is being forced. But when you have a specific number of years from a specific date and the years happen exactly as said with a span of over 400 years...I think you are being purposefully argumentative if you don't consider the reality that Daniel knew when Christ was going to be revealed to the city of Jerusalem.

I am reading up on Daniel and really, it's some fun shit. Dude was whacked.

[Balloon guy 158]

I am reading up on Daniel and really, it's some fun shit. Dude was whacked.

Good nutritionist though

[BaseJester 1]

No, you again are under this impression that the word means either the english word day or the english word year. It's not like that.

Is there nothing so incontrovertible that you won't argue with it?Here are my assertions thus far:

1. The goal of a translation is to make the reader understand the meaning of the original text.
2. A day and a year are in fact different lengths of time, irrespective of their representation in Hebrew.
3. A translation that confuses the reader as to the meaning of the original text is a poor one.

I'll go ahead and make some controversial ones below, but wtf man? You're going to argue with this shit?

But the fact is this was a prophecy by Daniel, who is a pretty big deal in Judaism. And nobody was expecting the return of Messiah on the year that Daniel predicted. Why?

Because it's vague? Except for the wisemen, who got it.

Because in prophecy, the clarity comes after the even most times. I don't know why.

Because it's untestable, unfalsifiable bullshit?

I understand that you can discount all prophecy by claiming that it is being forced. But when you have a specific number of years from a specific date and the years happen exactly as said with a span of over 400 years...I think you are being purposefully argumentative if you don't consider the reality that Daniel knew when Christ was going to be revealed to the city of Jerusalem.

Or perhaps born or crucified or about a different person entirely at a different time entirely, depending on who you ask. This word exactly, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[brvheart 1,759]

Enjoy it bastards.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

"...even If I genuinely thought he was a man of God, the only difference is that the lightsaber would be blue."

[Balloon guy 158]

Is there nothing so incontrovertible that you won't argue with it?Here are my assertions thus far:

1. The goal of a translation is to make the reader understand the meaning of the original text.
2. A day and a year are in fact different lengths of time, irrespective of their representation in Hebrew.
3. A translation that confuses the reader as to the meaning of the original text is a poor one.

1. Not really, the goal of a translator of something as important as the Bible is to stay as true as possible to the original text, to prevent themselves from interjecting their own interpretation.2. They didn't use the word for day here, they used a word that literally means sevens. 3. The notion that everything you read should be easy to understand is silly. Prophecy isn't normal conversational speech. Very few instances of future telling prophecies exist, in fact outside of the Bible very very few. If prophetic language isn't normal speech, why do you insist that the translation of it be normal?

Because it's vague? Except for the wisemen, who got it.

Or it had a purpose that didn't include having everyone party it up for 400 years knowing thy didn't have to worry about Messiah for quite a while?Many prophecies about Christ only made sense after He came, so there is a track record of things like the future being hidden until the time they are supposed to be revealed. I guess you know better than God though on how He should do the whole save mankind thing. Commence to stating how you would do it.

Because it's untestable, unfalsifiable bullshit?

We're not talking about evolution here. But we can if you want, good start in fact.

Or perhaps born or crucified or about a different person entirely at a different time entirely, depending on who you ask. This word exactly, I do not think it means what you think it means.

You are exactly argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and it makes you look foolish.

[BaseJester 1]

1. Not really, the goal of a translator of something as important as the Bible is to stay as true as possible to the original text, to prevent themselves from interjecting their own interpretation.2. They didn't use the word for day here, they used a word that literally means sevens.

The logical conclusion of your assertions is that the word should be translated "sevens". I can't imagine what the disconnect is here.

[Balloon guy 158]

The logical conclusion of your assertions is that the word should be translated "sevens". I can't imagine what the disconnect is here.

My Ryrie Study Bible has it 'weeks' in the New King James, but with a footnote that says: Literally sevens.The NIV says 'sevens'The KJ says 'weeks' with a of of thees and thousIt is not a set in stone interpretation to translate this passage as a 7 day week.

[brvheart 1,759]

My Ryrie Study Bible has it 'weeks' in the New King James, but with a footnote that says: Literally sevens.The NIV says 'sevens'The KJ says 'weeks' with a of of thees and thousIt is not a set in stone interpretation to translate this passage as a 7 day week.

True story: My dad is good friends with Ryrie, and he's actually in his will.There was a book written in honor of Ryrie's Basic Theology: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Theology-Appli...3763&sr=8-1...and Ryrie personally came to our house and asked my dad to write one of the chapters.Also: why are you not using his NASV Bible?

[Balloon guy 158]

True story: My dad is good friends with Ryrie, and he's actually in his will.There was a book written in honor of Ryrie's Basic Theology: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Theology-Appli...3763&sr=8-1...and Ryrie personally came to our house and asked my dad to write one of the chapters.Also: why are you not using his NASV Bible?

That is cool about your dad, I remember the John MacArthur and Ryrie debates over MacArthur's book The Gospel According To Jesus and Ryrie's 'rebuttal' book So Great a Salvation.I took MacArthur's side, but read both books.I got the NKJ as my first Bible cause that's what the Calvary Chapel I went to used, and 20 years later I am used to it.I worked on a golf course construction job in Hawaii and the cultural anthropologist was on the team that translated Ephesians for the NIV, he was an interesting character. I like the NIV, but never attended a church that used it.I think the NASV is the best scholarly translation, but the NKJ is comfortable to me, plus the Ryrie has all my notes, and the correct passages highlighted to impress the people next to me in the pew.I read the Christian in Complete Armour in the 16th century original language and found that once I got comfortable with the syntax, it is a very poetic language. I also have a 5 translation parallel Bible that I used to use for study, and enjoyed reading passages in multiple ways.So far none of them change the message, and when I go deep in the Word for studying, I end up using Strong's Concordance anyway to open the Bible up to me. My new church uses one of the 'easy' to read translation that escapes me now, but I just follow along in the NKJ.

[Balloon guy 158]

True story: My dad is good friends with Ryrie, and he's actually in his will.There was a book written in honor of Ryrie's Basic Theology: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Theology-Appli...3763&sr=8-1...and Ryrie personally came to our house and asked my dad to write one of the chapters.Also: why are you not using his NASV Bible?

That is cool about your dad, I remember the John MacArthur and Ryrie debates over MacArthur's book The Gospel According To Jesus and Ryrie's 'rebuttal' book So Great a Salvation.I took MacArthur's side, but read both books.I got the NKJ as my first Bible cause that's what the Calvary Chapel I went to used, and 20 years later I am used to it.I worked on a golf course construction job in Hawaii and the cultural anthropologist was on the team that translated Ephesians for the NIV, he was an interesting character. I like the NIV, but never attended a church that used it.I think the NASV is the best scholarly translation, but the NKJ is comfortable to me, plus the Ryrie has all my notes, and the correct passages highlighted to impress the people next to me in the pew.I read the Christian in Complete Armour in the 17th century original language and found that once I got comfortable with the syntax, it is a very poetic language. I own a copy from the 175o's. I also have a 5 translation parallel Bible that I used to use for study, and enjoyed reading passages in multiple ways.So far none of them change the message, and when I go deep in the Word for studying, I end up using Strong's Concordance anyway to open the Bible up to me. My new church uses one of the 'easy' to read translation that escapes me now, but I just follow along in the NKJ.

[antistuff 0]

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

just what i immediately found - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Jewish_canonits not clear but it seems like it was an open thing that they added to as time went on. this too (2.a)http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.htmlhttp://www.juliantrubin.com/biblefacts.html#27 - up to 300bc i guess?i wish i could find better sources about this. odd that there isnt a page detailing the story of the old testament or something.

[brvheart 1,759]

That is cool about your dad, I remember the John MacArthur and Ryrie debates over MacArthur's book The Gospel According To Jesus and Ryrie's 'rebuttal' book So Great a Salvation.I took MacArthur's side, but read both books.I got the NKJ as my first Bible cause that's what the Calvary Chapel I went to used, and 20 years later I am used to it.I worked on a golf course construction job in Hawaii and the cultural anthropologist was on the team that translated Ephesians for the NIV, he was an interesting character. I like the NIV, but never attended a church that used it.I think the NASV is the best scholarly translation, but the NKJ is comfortable to me, plus the Ryrie has all my notes, and the correct passages highlighted to impress the people next to me in the pew.I read the Christian in Complete Armour in the 16th century original language and found that once I got comfortable with the syntax, it is a very poetic language. I also have a 5 translation parallel Bible that I used to use for study, and enjoyed reading passages in multiple ways.So far none of them change the message, and when I go deep in the Word for studying, I end up using Strong's Concordance anyway to open the Bible up to me. My new church uses one of the 'easy' to read translation that escapes me now, but I just follow along in the NKJ.

They probably use ESV. That's pretty popular nowadays.I took Ryrie's side on that debate, but mainly because he's right.

[Balloon guy 158]

I took Ryrie's side on that debate, but mainly because he's right.

HERETIC!..enjoy not going to heaven!I've always had a legalistic side to me...it's been tempered through the years by necessity, but all my favorite authors are the puritans like Spurgeon.

[Roll the Bones 74]

That's fantastic.the light saber thingy.

[Roll the Bones 74]

3. The notion that everything you read should be easy to understand is silly. Prophecy isn't normal conversational speech. Very few instances of future telling prophecies exist, in fact outside of the Bible very very few. If prophetic language isn't normal speech, why do you insist that the translation of it be normal?Or it had a purpose that didn't include having everyone party it up for 400 years knowing thy didn't have to worry about Messiah for quite a while?Many prophecies about Christ only made sense after He came, so there is a track record of things like the future being hidden until the time they are supposed to be revealed. I guess you know better than God though on how He should do the whole save mankind thing. Commence to stating how you would do it.

Yeah, well, except in virtually every other culture with mythology that ever existed, other than those, yeah, a very very few.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, well, except in virtually every other culture with mythology that ever existed, other than those, yeah, a very very few.

Care to mention any?You know, written prophecies that pre-date the actual result?One maybe?

[BaseJester 1]

Care to mention any?You know, written prophecies that pre-date the actual result?One maybe?

"The blood of the just will be demanded of London,Burnt by the fire in the year 66" - Nostradamus

[Roll the Bones 74]

Care to mention any?You know, written prophecies that pre-date the actual result?One maybe?

The Sibylline Books of ProphecyAnother of the enduring legends connected with the Cumaean Sibyl is that of her nine sibylline volumes of prophecy. It is said that, in the guise of an old woman, she attempted to sell her written visions to the then king of the roman kingdom, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. The king duly declined the offer, citing the old woman’s exorbitant fee. The sibyl proceeded to destroy three of the prophecies but again offered Tarquin the remaining six at the same original price. Again he refused, to which she burned yet a further three; for reasons unknown the king finally relented and purchased the final volumes.The books came to be revered sources from which to consult in times of turmoil. They were stored in a vault within the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in Rome. And there they remained until the temple was destroyed by fire in the 80s BC; hence the original sibylline books were lost forever.Rewriting the PropheciesWhen mentioned in ancient writings [1-2-3] the Cumaean Sibyl was said to have foretold her visions in leaves; scattered at the entrance to her grotto. If by chance an errant breeze would disturb these leaves the vision would be lost, never to be uttered again. And so, following the destruction of the sibylline volumes, an attempt was made to replace the lost ‘leaves’ from the four corners of the new empire. Over many years these ‘authenticated writings’ were carefully collated and again stored in the, now rebuilt, Apollonian temple.Christianity Embraces the Ancient OracleThe final fate of the books ironically elevated the Cumaean Sibyl into Christian favor. They were burned in AD 405 by General Flavius Stilicho, a Christian who believed them to be pagan heresy. But, in fact, certain passages within the books had already been perceived as prophecy pointing to the birth of Christ. And so the immortal seer of myth inadvertently formed a bridge between pagan ritual and the early establishment of Christianity. Subsequent Christian apologists would mention her many times over in their art, verse and even political aspirations.The Christian emperor, Constantine included entire passages referring to her so called ‘Christ Prophecies’ in his inaugural address to the roman assembly. In years to come Michelangelo would go so far as include her image amongst the prophets upon the Sistine ceiling (1508-12); strikingly manlike and hulking in appearance she is eloquently portrayed in the throes of Apollo’s curse.