Debate with Darfius

Originally posted by Darfius
I'm not sure how "four world empires will arise" is symbolic, Pawn?

There've only been four. Hitler tried, the Brits tried, Spain tried, Napolean tried...they all failed.

Unfortunately--and this is where the verification bias comes in--what constitutes a "world" empire, or a "great" empire, is a matter of opinion.

Firstly, no empire ever ruled the entire world. (But the Americans are working on it). Lots of bits escaped. So were those empires truly "world" empires? How big does an empire have to be? Maybe you are fitting your criteria for "world" to make the passage retrospectively accurate?

For example, numerically, the ancient Chinese "empire", the series of dynasties after the period of the Warring States, was surely larger, maybe even culturally more homogenous, than, say, the Greek empire. Why do the Chinese get excluded? Because they didn't take over the Holy Land? Well, the Brits ruled Palestine for a while, but apparently (and even though the phrase "British Empire" is often used) that isn't enough of an "empire" to qualify as a biblical referent.

On a more general note, I think that you are misreading the spirit of the passage. The choice of "four" empires is very likely symbolic, not literal. The bible isn't a history book, and shouldn't be regarded as such.

Best wishes,

Aiden

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Unfortunately--and this is where the verification bias comes in--what constitutes a "world" empire, or a "great" empire, is a matter of opinion.

Firstly, no empire ever ruled the entire world. (But the Americans are working on it). Lots of bits escaped. So were those empires truly "world" empires? How big does an empire have to be? Maybe you ar ...[text shortened]... l. The bible isn't a history book, and shouldn't be regarded as such.

Best wishes,

Aiden

Well, frankly, that is your opinion that the Bible isn't a history book. I mean, do you have proof backing up that rather brash statement? I believe the Bible quite accurately records history.

One example is scholars have long scoffed that the Jews ever fought with the Edomites, thinking the Edomites existed centuries after them, but recent archeological evidence has shown that, yet again, the Bible is absolutely accurate and indeed must be regarded as the best single book of ancient history in the world.

Again, that is your opinion that the passage should be interpreted any way but literally. At the time of the British empire, there were the French and Spanish who challenged their authority, so were they really world rulers?

Who, at the time of Alexander the Great, could have challenged the Greeks?

Who could have challenged the Babylonians? or the Medo-Persians? or the Romans?

It's not merely a question of how large you are, but a question of whether you have absolute control of the world, or could if you so desired. The British could not. Neither could the Chinese.

And the fact that the four who could controlled Israel speaks volumes, frankly.

Regards,
Darfius

Originally posted by Darfius
Well, frankly, that is your opinion that the Bible isn't a history book. I mean, do you have proof backing up that rather brash statement? I believe the Bible quite accurately records history.

One example is scholars have long scoffed ...[text shortened]... controlled Israel speaks volumes, frankly.

Regards,
Darfius

I am not saying that no accurate historical events are recorded in the Bible. What I am saying is that the Bible is clearly not a history book.

For example, novels often accurately depict particular historical events too. That does not make them history books.

You know what I mean by a history book. You can find them in bookshops and libraries. They are books written with the sole and express purpose of relating (plus interpreting) historical events in a factual manner.

This is clearly not the sole and express purpose of the Bible. I mean, it obviously isn't. There is symbolic writing all over the place. There are interpolated mythical stories. There is mix of fact and fiction.

The fact that you and I disagree over whether an particular passage has either a straightforward or a symbolic interpretation, or which empires are referred to and what qualifies as an empire, just proves that the bible does not contain the historical precision that a bona fide history book does.

Originally posted by Darfius
Well, frankly, that is your opinion that the Bible isn't a history book. I mean, do you have proof backing up that rather brash statement? I believe the Bible quite accurately records history.

One example is scholars have long scoffed ...[text shortened]... controlled Israel speaks volumes, frankly.

Regards,
Darfius

Hi Darfius,

You have now expanded your definition of empire to one that did not necessarily rule all the world, but could have if it so desired. This defines empire both presumptively and counterfactually.

Perhaps today America could rule the world, if it wanted to, by firing off some nukes preemptively at choice locations. Does that mean that the biblical prophecy of four empires, rather than five, is false? By your OWN STATED CRITERIA, this is a distinct possibility.

Even still, I don't think the Romans could have conquered North and South America for sure, do you? Or China, for that matter? But these are surely parts of the world too.

Now, I fear we will have to debate what the meaning of "world" is, perhaps conveniently restricting it to areas near to and including the Holy Land.

Can't you admit that this is, perhaps, just a degree of subjectivity and flexibility in your interpretations of an esoteric and symbolic biblical text, and that you might be running the risk of overfitting the data to theory?

I am not saying you are wrong, and that I am right, but that you should take into account the fact that you may well be wrong.

Best wishes,

Aiden

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Hi Darfius,

You have now expanded your definition of empire to one that did not necessarily rule all the world, but could have if it so desired. This defines empire both presumptively and counterfactually.

Perhaps today America c ...[text shortened]... ount the fact that you may well be wrong.

Best wishes,

Aiden

Hey, Pawn

You raise some very good points. It does seem as if I'm changing the definition to suit my purpose, but we both must agree that America would be demolished if they preemptively striked everyone. We are no match for the combined strength of the European Union and the Asian countries. The Romans could have conquered the Asian countries, but what would have been the point? There was nothing there they wanted.

I feel I should have included why I said the specific empires. Keep in mind Daniel lived in the 6th to 5th century BC. Alexander the Great lived in the 3rd century BC. I'm not sure when the Medians/Persians took over, but I'm pretty sure Daniel only saw the Babylonian empire.

"8:15 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. 8:18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 8:22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. "

I wonder, Pawn, how Daniel, a prophet from God, knew exactly two of the future kings who would rule the known world. And I also wonder how he knew that when Alexander died, his four most powerful generals would split his kingdom.

I hate to pop into this little debate, but the assumption that the Romans could have conquered Asia had they wanted to is completely false. The proof is in the pudding as they say. The pudding being the Huns, who could and did conquer the Eastern Roman Empire and knocked on the door to the Western Roman Empire. This was years after the Rome of the time of Christ, but it was exactly this time that should have solidified the Roman Empire in the areas that it had conquered. As we know, however, it didn't. Rome over-extended itself and was whooped.
You may have had a better chance with the Alexandrian Greeks, but I doubt that even they could have take much more of Asia than they did. And I'm pretty sure that they didn't get very deep into Southern Africa. I don't think that they even made it to Ethiopia.
And we must agree that while it wasn't know to the writers of the Bible, North and South America were still apart of the world and as such should have been know to "the creator".

Once again, I apologize for jumping into your debate.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
I hate to pop into this little debate, but the assumption that the Romans could have conquered Asia had they wanted to is completely false. The proof is in the pudding as they say. The pudding being the Huns, who could and did conquer the Eastern Roman Empire and knocked on the door to the Western Roman Empire. This was years after the Rome of the time ...[text shortened]... ould have been know to "the creator".

Once again, I apologize for jumping into your debate.

It's ok, I realize the urge is too great sometimes, but I (and I'm sure Pawn) would appreciate it if you just copy and pasted my post and your rebuttal in the Discussion for this Debate thread. Appreciate it.

Yes, it would have been known to God, but as I've said, verbatim discussion between God and a prophet was rare. God is Holiness personified, and direct contact between Him and a human could be disastrous. For instance, Moses spoke to a burning bush, or a billowing cloud. Job spoke to God in human form (probably Lord Jesus). Daniel spoke to Gabriel the archangel. When Paul saw God in all His glory from Heaven when He appeared to him on the road to Damascus, Paul went blind as a result.

Because of this, God usually inspires His prophets by visions. The most clear example of this is John in Revelations. He is clearly talking about the end times (presumably somewhere in the near future), but since he has no idea what a tank is or what to call it, the vision in his head prompts him to say "roaring lions" and he calls helicopters "armored locusts with tails like a scorpion." Nuclear weapons he calls "stars falling from the sky polluting the waters." Ezekiel described a neutron bomb when he says the enemies would have their flesh melt as they stood, their tongues melt in their mouths and their eyes melt in their sockets.

To answer your specific question, I don't think God told Daniel about South America because the "world" really only meant civilized people who could dictate world events. As such, Gabriel only mentioned the Medo/Persians and Alexander the Great because they would attempt to rule the world. As would the Romans. The Huns might have attempted, but Hun himself died rather early in the campaign. Hitler tried, but he failed horribly.

Bump, still waiting for you to answer my last post and the one about Cliff, Pawn. Also would like people to discuss those two posts in the Discussion of this debate thread.

Bump

Rather than get bogged down in minutiae, let me keep my points general.

First, even if Daniel's did made empirical prophecies, and these were correctly interpreted, thier validity wouldn't automatically imply that God exists, or that the majority of points I have so far raised, for example concerning the fallibility of religious conviction, are rebutted.

For example, it could be that superhuman aliens, with knowledge of the future, implanted the prophecies in Daniel's mind. Or that were are all in The Matrix anyhow. It's not that these are likely possibilities. It just that they may be no more unlikely than that God lay behind the prophecies.

Okay, I haven't exhaustively reviewed the historical evidence and biblical text of Daniel to systematically assess whether the degree of correlation would be unlikely by chance alone. However, it still seems to me that there is considerable latitude of interpretation possible, such that, if a "match" between bible text and historical record occurs, it is then intuitively scored as a hit, whereas if a mismatch occurs, it is NOT then intuitively scored as a miss, but is rather ignored, or escapes being scores as a miss by a subtle shifting of the goal posts.

One reason I am sure this is so is by reasoning from analogy by known examples of psychological confirmation bias. For example, it is well known that confessed showmen, who deny telepathic ability, are able to "cold read" naive individuals such that an impression is given that they are miraculously able to divine facts about the individual that they simply "could not" have known. Actually, the "mind reader" capitalizes on chance and knowledge of normative trends (e.g., a lot of people of a certain age are called "Sarah"😉, but most importantly, makes ambiguous statements that the read individual interprets as specific to themselves, when in fact they are not. That cold reading is possible proves the existence of a tendency to see what is personally relevant in an bunch of ambiguous information, and get the impression that objective connections are being made when in fact they are being supplied by the mind of the individual.

First, even if Daniel's did made empirical prophecies, and these were correctly interpreted, thier validity wouldn't automatically imply that God exists, or that the majority of points I have so far raised, for example concerning the fallibility of religious conviction, are rebutted.

If Daniel attributed the prophecies to God, why wouldn't it imply He existed? Clearly the supernatural powers came from somewhere, why not trust the recipient?

For example, it could be that superhuman aliens, with knowledge of the future, implanted the prophecies in Daniel's mind. Or that were are all in The Matrix anyhow. It's not that these are likely possibilities. It just that they may be no more unlikely than that God lay behind the prophecies.

Why would aliens not take credit? Why the deception? God is much more likely because He took credit for it, and did it all throughout the Bible. Sounds like an unnecessary conspiracy theory to blame aliens when the prophet already gave us the culprit.

Okay, I haven't exhaustively reviewed the historical evidence and biblical text of Daniel to systematically assess whether the degree of correlation would be unlikely by chance alone. However, it still seems to me that there is considerable latitude of interpretation possible, such that, if a "match" between bible text and historical record occurs, it is then intuitively scored as a hit, whereas if a mismatch occurs, it is NOT then intuitively scored as a miss, but is rather ignored, or escapes being scores as a miss by a subtle shifting of the goal posts.

You're not following. The Bible isn't a "hit and miss" thing. The prophecies it made were always specific and always came true. I challenge you to find one that hasn't (not including end time prophecies--usually discernible by "in the last days..."😉.

One reason I am sure this is so is by reasoning from analogy by known examples of psychological confirmation bias. For example, it is well known that confessed showmen, who deny telepathic ability, are able to "cold read" naive individuals such that an impression is given that they are miraculously able to divine facts about the individual that they simply "could not" have known. Actually, the "mind reader" capitalizes on chance and knowledge of normative trends (e.g., a lot of people of a certain age are called "Sarah"😉, but most importantly, makes ambiguous statements that the read individual interprets as specific to themselves, when in fact they are not. That cold reading is possible proves the existence of a tendency to see what is personally relevant in an bunch of ambiguous information, and get the impression that objective connections are being made when in fact they are being supplied by the mind of the individual.

How could Daniel have "cold read" that a king from Greece would try to take over the world AFTER the Medo/Persians and that when he died his kingdom would be split into 4 parts? Keep in mind that Daniel is also the one who predicted when the Messiah would be born.

Bump

Hi Darfius,

You wrote:

If Daniel attributed the prophecies to God, why wouldn't it imply He existed? Clearly the supernatural powers came from somewhere, why not trust the recipient?

It wouldn't imply He existed because Daniel could have been mistaken in attributing them to God. It seems to me that, in the absence of direct insight into the nature of God, which would probably surpass all human understanding, Daniel could not be regarded as an expert on the provenance of his prophecies.

Analogy: You see a computer in front of you. However, that does not, in itself, make you an expert on how underlying mental processes deliver the final perceptual product of your computer to your awareness. That's why you need perception psychologists to do experiments.


Why would aliens not take credit? Why the deception? God is much more likely because He took credit for it, and did it all throughout the Bible. Sounds like an unnecessary conspiracy theory to blame aliens when the prophet already gave us the culprit.


As I said, I don't think the alien hypothesis is likely to be true. But I also don't think that the God hypothesis may be any more likely to be true. My point, which is valid, is that the mere presence of correct prophecies in the bible would not automatically imply that God exists.


You're not following. The Bible isn't a "hit and miss" thing. The prophecies it made were always specific and always came true. I challenge you to find one that hasn't (not including end time prophecies--usually discernible by "in the last days..."😉.


I am following and I disagree with you. Prophecies in the bible are often not specific and, when they are not, they allow plenty of room for interpretation. The illusion of specificity depends, I contend, upon a confirmatory bias well documented by psychologists, involving nonconsciously homing in on what is relevant to oneself or to one's hypothesis. (As an intoduction to this phenomenon, I recommend, for example, the book "How we know what isn't so" by Thomas Gilovich.)

But let me take you up on your challenge to find one prophecy which, in virtue of its specificity, wasn't fulfilled. It came from the mouth of Jesus.


Luke 9:27
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.



Luke 21:25 to 21:32

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.


Mark 13:23 to 13:30

But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

The above passages document Jesus clearly mispredicting his Second Coming.

You will be aware that, since Jesus did so, thousands of followers have followed suit at different times, often utterly convinced in their capacity to discern the time of the Second Coming. They have proselystized as zealously as you do on the basis of their convictions. They have all been wrong. This proves, does it not, that subjective certainty with regards to biblical prophecies is, as a general rule, a poor guide to their accuracy?

Would you have us believe that you are a shining exception to the rule?

Best wishes,

Aiden

Howdy, Pawn

It wouldn't imply He existed because Daniel could have been mistaken in attributing them to God. It seems to me that, in the absence of direct insight into the nature of God, which would probably surpass all human understanding, Daniel could not be regarded as an expert on the provenance of his prophecies.

"Which would probably surpass all human understanding"? What God are you talking about? The claim I'm making is that the God of the Bible exists. It seems like you have your own, preconceived notion of what God should be like, but that's irrelevant. Daniel, who's clearly a rational person, says he saw the future, and wrote it down exactly as it happened, and even said he saw an angel. Why would Daniel need to be an expert on anything? If God wanted to, could He not have chosen Daniel because Daniel was a faithful follower? Daniel fasted 21 days before Gabriel came to describe what the dream was.

Analogy: You see a computer in front of you. However, that does not, in itself, make you an expert on how underlying mental processes deliver the final perceptual product of your computer to your awareness. That's why you need perception psychologists to do experiments.

Perception psychologists? Are you saying God should have transported perception psychologists to the 6th century BC, observed Daniel as God made contact with him and took notes while he talked to an angel? Do you not see how absurd that is? This guy saw the future, unless you can do that on a regular basis, I think it's safe to say we should trust him when he gives us a source.

As I said, I don't think the alien hypothesis is likely to be true. But I also don't think that the God hypothesis may be any more likely to be true. My point, which is valid, is that the mere presence of correct prophecies in the bible would not automatically imply that God exists.

That's the thing, your point isn't valid. It wouldn't make it a certainty, but it WOULD imply God existed, since all of the prophecies are attributed to Him, and no one else saw the future unless they asked for help from God.

I am following and I disagree with you. Prophecies in the bible are often not specific and, when they are not, they allow plenty of room for interpretation. The illusion of specificity depends, I contend, upon a confirmatory bias well documented by psychologists, involving nonconsciously homing in on what is relevant to oneself or to one's hypothesis. (As an intoduction to this phenomenon, I recommend, for example, the book "How we know what isn't so" by Thomas Gilovich.)

What? Show me a general prophecy, please. The one I showed was quite specific, and I'd like to see proof of your assertion. As I said, Daniel said "Median/Persian king" and "King of Grecia", I mean you can't get much more specific than that.

But let me take you up on your challenge to find one prophecy which, in virtue of its specificity, wasn't fulfilled. It came from the mouth of Jesus.


Luke 9:27
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.


Jesus spoke the truth. In the very next verses Peter, James, and John witnessed Moses and Elijah descend from Heaven and speak with a transfigured Jesus:

"And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen." Luke 9:28-36

There is also a theory that the Apostle John may still be alive today and may be one of the two witnesses at the Temple Mount at the time of the antichrist, because of what my Lord Jesus says here:

"Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." John 21:20-24

"The disciple whom Jesus loved" was how John referred to himself in his writings, because he was a modest man and he hated writing his own name in a book about his Savior.


Luke 21:25 to 21:32

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Probably not on purpose, but you took this out of context. This is what the disciples asked my Lord Jesus to prompt this speech called the Olivet Discourse:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them..." Matthew 24:3-4

This means that all of these things would happen before Jesus' 2nd coming. And the parable of the fig tree is another clue that's what He was talking about, because Israel is referred to as a fig tree all throughout the Bible, and its rebirth in 1948 signaled the beginning of the end.


Mark 13:23 to 13:30

But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Again, He was clearly speaking about the end times.

The above passages document Jesus clearly mispredicting his Second Coming.

Nope, it helps if you put it in context. Jesus 2nd coming will be at the end of this world.

You will be aware that, since Jesus did so, thousands of followers have followed suit at different times, often utterly convinced in their capacity to discern the time of the Second Coming. They have proselystized as zealously as you do on the basis of their convictions. They have all been wrong. This proves, does it not, that subjective certainty with regards to biblical prophecies is, as a general rule, a poor guide to their accuracy?

No, this proves they haven't been reading their Bible. Jesus Himself said that no man could know the hour of His 2nd coming, only the Father in heaven. But He DID tell us to watch for the season, lest we be unprepared. And the parable of the fig tree (Israel's rebirth in 1948), is the hugest end time sign ever.

Would you have us believe that you are a shining exception to the rule?

I would have you believe that Jesus is coming soon and to get right with Him before He does.



Regards,

Darfius

Hi Darfius,

I found some of your rebuttal breezy and unfocused. I'll just restate my main criticisms.

First, I claimed that, if Daniel had in fact predicted the future, and had attributed the ability to do so to God, this would still not automatically imply, on its own, that God existed, or that God was the cause of his precognition. I think this lack of implication is obvious: there could be an alternative explanation. You seem to think there could NOT be an alternative explanation. But I'm afraid, whatever you think, there could be one, and that you are obviously wrong in thinking there could not be. As regards the relative plausibility of that alternative explanation, compared to the God explanation, this is something that could be debated.

My more general point, that experiencing X does not make you an expert on what caused X, is not something that you have yet offered a coherent counterargument against. So I will take it as established unless you can offer one in due course.

Non-specific prophecies? That would include, for a start, most things allegedly predicted by the highly symbolic Book of Revelation. Not to mention the fig tree "referring" to Israel in 1948.

I agree that, with respect to the Luke 9:27 prediction, the Kingdom of God *may* have referred to the vision the disciples were about to have.

However, as regards Luke 21:25 to 21:32, and Mark I think it is perfectly clear that Jesus is saying that the generation to which the disciples belonged would not pass away before the end times would be at hand. But that generation did pass away, and we are still here 2000 years later. You would have to invent a highly misleading interpretation of "this generation" to think otherwise.

I am going to quit the debate here, as I'll be taking a break from RHP shortly. I think that both of us have had the opportunity to make our respective cases at reasonable length, happily without insulting one another. Hopefully other people will find it useful. I leave it to you to provide the final rebuttal to my points.

Best wishes,

Aiden