Originally posted by no1marauderI guess No1 took your advice Darfius and got himself some sleep ....
You're a joke. Name a SECULAR scholar who's says that this prophecy is "totally accurate." When you deliberately say falsehoods like this it just shows the extent of your fanaticism. YOU'VE twisted the words and the time fr ...[text shortened]... ths like in your last post aren't going to fool anybody, Darfius.
Deep down inside .... he is really a decent and reasonable man .... *sigh* ......
It must be the medication .... 😕
Originally posted by no1marauderhere's a religious scholar writing c.180 BC
You're a joke. Name a SECULAR scholar who's says that this prophecy is "totally accurate." When you deliberately say falsehoods like this it just shows the extent of your fanaticism. YOU'VE twisted the words and the time fr ...[text shortened]... ths like in your last post aren't going to fool anybody, Darfius.
http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/kjv-apoc/Sirach/
where's Daniel ?
and a bit more reference here
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05263a.htm
edit 2 more sites
and for background a couple more on the Nature of the religion of the israelites.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/god/canaan.htm
http://essenes.net/kein.html
I'm going to go through Daniel and see what I think about how prophetic it is. It's not that long; 22 pages in my Catholic Study Bible. I'll assume it was indeed written about 530 B.C. as Darfius claims.
Daniel 1 No prophecies here.
Daniel 2:1-30 Still no prophecy.
Daniel 2:31-35 The 'prophetic' dream is described. It's not in and of itself prophetic without interpretation.
Daniel 2:36-38 Daniel starts interpreting. So far he only describes that part of the dream which represents the present. No prophecy seen yet.
Daniel 2:39 Two future kingdoms are mentioned; the next one after the Babylonian is described as "inferior to [the Babylonian Empire]". The following one is "of bronze" and "shall rule over the whole earth." The "inferior" one is not yet decribed in any detail. It isn't even described as ruling over the whole earth; that's reserved for the "bronze" one.
Darfius claims that the "inferior" second kingdom is the Medo-Persian Empire which conquered the Babylonian Empire. Wikipedia does mention a "Persian-Medes empire".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire#Median_Dynasty. It's under "Elamite Empire".
This website
http://www.reformation.org/fourthempire.html
calls it both the "Medo-Persian Empire" and simply the "Persian Empire". Apparently Cyrus the Great was the guy who created this empire. Here's the Wikipedia entry on Cyrus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_II_of_Persia
I don't know if the Persian Empire was inferior to the Babylonian Empire and I can think of no way to rigorously determine this. At this point in my reading, the claim that the "inferior" empire was Cyrus II's Persian Empire has no support.
The third kingdom is described as having two characteristics so far; it's "of bronze" and that it "shall rule over the whole earth." Supposedly this predicts Alexander the Great's empire. This website describes iron weapons from this time and bronze greaves. What is it about Alexander the Great's empire that is "of bronze"? I see Darfius wrote "of brass" instead...what does the original word mean in Hebrew (or whatever language it was) and what does this description mean?
What does it mean to "rule over the whole earth"? There were definitely huge parts of the inhabited world which Alexander did not have dominion over - the Americas, Australia, most of Africa, Europe and Asia...This isn't very convincing so far.
I'll keep going through Daniel and commenting when I have time.
The basic point I was trying to make is that if a "prophecy" can be read in multiple ways and each one is presumed to be "accurate" then the prophecy is worthless. In the Daniel example, Darfius claims that it is accurate, in part, because it predicts that Alexander's empire would split in 4; but in the immediate aftermatch of his death it split in 5, after 22 years it THEN split in 4 and after ANOTHER 30 years it split into 3. Thus, the prophecy could say 3, 4 or 5 and Darfius would claim that it was "100% accurate". If the prophecy was referring to Alexander the only support for that claim is that it mentions a King of Grecia; however, Alexander himself was King of Macedonia, not Greece. Darfius tries to escape this by saying he Greece "pledged allegiance" to Phillip(which is not totally true: Sparta and its allies were never subdued nor , but ignoring that) but he also conquered other areas as well. So if it said the King of Macedonia or the King of Asia Minor or Illyria, the claim again would be that it fulfills the conditions. Since the conditions themselves are this vague, the prophecy is worthless.
Daniel 2:40 The fourth kingdom is supposed to be "strong as iron". Well, sure, the Romans were very strong. "It shall break into pieces and subdue all these others." What does this mean? Is this claiming that the Romans subdues all three of these Empires, or the homelands that they all sprang from? I'll assume the latter. In addition, it claims the Romans would break apart Babylonia, Alexander's Empire and Medo-Persia. Rome did get to Mesopotamia and Macedon but as far as I can tell the Empire never occupied Persia, let alone the entire Persian Empire.
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~sctwiseh/Roman/RomanEmpire.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationIran.png
Nor did the Romans subdue the Persian or Babylonian Empires, as these were already subdued by the time the Romans began to conquer their Empire.
Did the Romans "break apart" these places? I don't know. Can anyone enlighten me?
Daniel 2:41-43 The Roman Empire was at times was divided, sure. It wasn't always though. Was it fragile? I don't know. Calling it "fragile" isn't a useful part of the prophecy as far as I can tell. "They shall seal their alliances by intermarriage, but they shall not stay united" - I don't know enough about the Roman Empire to talk about this too much. Didn't everyone seal alliances by intermarriage in those days? Or were the Romans the first? No, Rome didn't stay united, but who ever has? Actually, the Roman Empire was known as "eternal" because it lasted so long relative to other empires no?
Daniel 2:44 Which kingdom did God set up that was truly eternal? I don't buy this. I imagine Christians think this refers to Jesus, but it's a huge stretch to call Jesus' influence as the creation of an eternal kingdom. If I were living at that time and I had the hypothesis that this was a prophecy with predictive value, I'd expect an empire like the other four but one that would never be destroyed, but would instead control the world forever afterwards.
The rest of Daniel 2 is not prophecy.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is not time for the eternal kingdom yet. The Roman empire isn't over yet. It has lived on in the Vatican. And the European Union is hailing itself as the "Revived Roman empire". The Antichrist will likely be its leader.
[b]Daniel 2:40 The fourth kingdom is supposed to be "strong as iron". Well, sure, the Romans were very strong. "It shall break into pieces and subdue all these others." What does this mean? Is this claiming that the Romans subdues all three of these Empires, or the homelands that they all sprang from? I'll assume the latter. In addition, ...[text shortened]... ld instead control the world forever afterwards.
The rest of Daniel 2 is not prophecy.[/b]
They built a building modeled after an artists' rendition of the Tower of Babel. Their motto is "Many nations: One voice."
One of their coins has a woman riding a beast. Remember that from the Revelations verse I cited in one thread?
Originally posted by DarfiusThe Roman Empire was destroyed in 476 AD. The present Vatican City dates from the 1920's; you got a 1400+ year gap there where neither existed. Quote me some official from the European Union who calls the EU the "Revived Roman Empire". This stuff is the sheerest baloney.
It is not time for the eternal kingdom yet. The Roman empire isn't over yet. It has lived on in the Vatican. And the European Union is hailing itself as the "Revived Roman empire". The Antichrist will likely be its leader.
They built a building modeled after an artists' rendition of the Tower of Babel. Their motto is "Many nations: One voice. ...[text shortened]... s has a woman riding a beast. Remember that from the Revelations verse I cited in one thread?
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.inplainsite.org/html/eu_superstate.html
The Roman Empire was destroyed in 476 AD. The present Vatican City dates from the 1920's; you got a 1400+ year gap there where neither existed. Quote me some official from the European Union who calls the EU the "Revived Roman Empire". This stuff is the sheerest baloney.
and...
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/european_union.html
By the way, I meant the Catholic Church was the Roman empire. Very few monarchs became such without the approval of the Church.
Originally posted by DarfiusI'm not going wading through page after page of that rubbish. You said "the European Union is hailing itself as the 'Revived Roman empire'", so show me where an official of the EU described it as the "Revived Roman Empire".
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/eu_superstate.html
and...
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/european_union.html
By the way, I meant the Catholic Church was the Roman empire. Very few monarchs became such without the approval of the Church.
Your assertions that the Roman Empire = the Catholic Church is a fantasy. What monarchs are referring to? What time period? I'm tired of your broad assertions; present some specific facts supporting such grandiose claims.
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't stand by No.1's forum etiquette by any means, but if you throw info like that out into the forums, I feel you should give shreds of evidence beyond posting web pages to read.
I forgot I'm not talking to you. Sorry.
You might even go as far as to read the web page yourself, and make up your own mind and words on the subject. Once you make up your mind, be able to prove it if you must... or just say that is how you feel about it.
Other than that, I feel you are making bold claims with no proof, and trying to pass them off as facts.
P
Originally posted by DarfiusClaiming that the Catholic Church was predicted as one of the kingdoms/empires is a serious stretch, Darfius. If you can make a stretch like that, then this prophecy could indeed have been applied almost no matter how things turned out. This is not scientificly rigorous prediction. It's closer to astrology or fortune telling - vague statements that people interpret to fit reality.
It is not time for the eternal kingdom yet. The Roman empire isn't over yet. It has lived on in the Vatican. And the European Union is hailing itself as the "Revived Roman empire". The Antichrist will likely be its leader.
They built a building modeled after an artists' rendition of the Tower of Babel. Their motto is "Many nations: One voice. ...[text shortened]... s has a woman riding a beast. Remember that from the Revelations verse I cited in one thread?
Those websites are a lot of material to wade through. I saw something about an art exhibit. Can you give me the name of this exhibit, how it's sponsored by the EU, and exactly how it said what you claim it said in a paragraph?