Sorry, zone -- I don't mean to derail your thread --- but then, [ at least most of ] what I have to say actually supports your intent for this thread...
![]()
hi GRA - i forgot about this thread
Sorry, zone -- I don't mean to derail your thread --- but then, [ at least most of ] what I have to say actually supports your intent for this thread...
![]()
I ain't forgotten zone, waiting til i finish these stints of 12 hour shifts
According to Wikipedia, here's the historical-critical school of interpretation for Daniel 9:24-27
Is there any evidence refuting this understanding of the text?
God-inspired words do not lie.What's the problem with the interpretation that it was written in 163 BC and referred to the then-current events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes, and prior?
Maybe I'll get an answer from zone, since he was the one that wanted to use Daniel as conclusive proof of accurate prophecy.
So wait, you don't believe Bible prophecy either?
Your constant personal attacks are getting tiresome. Reported, for whatever little good that does here.
You're the one implying there's no accurate prophecy in Daniel. You can settle this right now by simply stating that you believe the Bible prophecies in the book of Daniel. So then, can you tell me that?
I will not condone your personal vendetta against me by submitting to your inquisition. If you're interested in my personal beliefs, ask about them in a non-adversarial context. They are not relevant here.
God-inspired words do not lie.
Asking questions about belief is not necessarily a personal attack, but in this case it certainly is... as your following paragraph makes clear:Ah, so asking you questions about what you believe is now a personal attack?
... in case anyone has any doubt that megaman125 has it out for me, personally, here it is. He's calling me a conspirator, a liar, and an atheist with a "brilliant plan." If this isn't punished as rude and harrassing behavior, then I have to conclude that there are no such rules enforced on this forum.It's a rather brilliant defense and cover up plan. Create an account, call yourself a Christian, do nothing but fight against Christians at every step and cause division, side with the atheists about everything, and here you are fighting against Christians who believe the prophecies in Daniel. Then whenever you're rightfully questioned, and asked very simple, easy to answer questions about your beliefs, get as defensive as possible and play the victim card to insult anyone who dares raise these valid questions, while avoiding the real issue at hand. The brilliant part is how long the mods have been allowing you to get away with this.
Asking questions about belief is not necessarily a personal attack, but in this case it certainly is... as your following paragraph makes clear:
... in case anyone has any doubt that megaman125 has it out for me, personally, here it is. He's calling me a conspirator, a liar, and an atheist with a "brilliant plan." If this isn't punished as rude and harrassing behavior, then I have to conclude that there are no such rules enforced on this forum.
So instead of answering the question "Do you believe the prophecies in the book of Daniel" instead you respond with "Boo hoo hoo, how dare you question me, waaa."
The point is that what is accepted without evidence does not qualify as evidence.
zone was attempting to use the prophecies of Daniel as incontrovertable evidence for the divinity of Scripture. But in order to do that, we need to provide historical reasons to accept its claims as to when it was written and what events it was describing. It doesn't do to start with the assumption that it must be true prophecy and then try to fit it to future events; if you do that, then it can never be used as evidence of true prophecy. For it to be evidence, you have to provide sufficient basis, from the record itself, for choosing the prophetic explanation over any other.
Maybe I'll get an answer from zone, since he was the one that wanted to use Daniel as conclusive proof of accurate prophecy.
Since no one else is even willing to investigate the validity of the historical-critical interpretation, or explain whether or not there is any evidence against it, I'll have to wait on zone.