Different state past

Elendur · Apr 27, 2012

dad said:
Evidence must relate to what it is supposed to evidence. Elementary.

Yup. And since no DS has been observed... You get the point?

dad said:
False. I do not base continental drift or mountain building, or decay, or human life spans of the past by present rates and processes.

That wasn't what I wrote either.

You base your stories of present stuff as well.

dad said:
I lead discussions, not just follow them. This thread is very concerned with what is known about the state of the past. (not by what you see in the present and feel that you can project into the past).

Hows them apples?

And that's why I focus on why you're so adamantly claim you know the past while noone else does.

dad · Apr 27, 2012

Tiberius said:
So then you are saying that all the samples we test that have the exact ratios we'd expect to see if it's all a product of radioactive decay got this particular ratio... how? Magic? A huge coincidence?

I would suspect so. If the materials were here already at the onset of this state, how would they not be in some process and in relative amounts?

How did this ratio come about in EVERY sample we've tested if not by radioactive decay?

How would we find water in the tennis balls? There was water, and when tilted, more water started to flow. All that we would be seeing is a state change and therefore, of course a change in what the material did. No surprise, therefore that we do have the materials.

But if we see a tennis ball that has a certain amount of water in it, we can determine how long the board has been tilted by seeing how long it takes the tennis ball to get that much water with the board tilted to that degree.

No! ONLY if we did the tilting, and knew how much water was in a ball before it got tilted.

We can then say that it takes X seconds for a tennis ball to fill with Y amount of water with the board tilted at Z degrees. And then we can look at other balls and we can say things like, "This ball has more than Y amount of water, so there must have been water in the ball before it was tilted."

False as explained. Not if the tennis balls were here and it was not you who saw when they were tilted. Really.

You don't really think these things through.

Hey, so far I am way ahead of you.

dad · Apr 27, 2012

Elendur said:
Yup. And since no DS has been observed... You get the point?

False! If distant space were a different state space, then we observe we know not what after all.

You base your stories of present stuff as well.

False.

And that's why I focus on why you're so adamantly claim you know the past while none else does.

Now now, let's try to be motivated more by intellectual honesty, than by petty jealousy.

Elendur · Apr 27, 2012

dad said:
False! If distant space were a different state space, then we observe we know not what after all.

I... don't understand what you're trying to say...

dad said:
False.

Oh really? How so?

dad said:
Now now, let's try to be motivated more by intellectual honesty, than by petty jealousy.

I am.
You've shown a complete lack of understanding of both sides of the debate, crucial terms and the proper way to discuss.
You've put yourself on a pedestal free from any other rules you expect everyone else to follow.
That is nothing to be jealous of.

Farinata · Apr 27, 2012

I do NOT question Hindu demons. Really. I also would not doubt many would feel the spirits. So?? The fact remains that this is 2012. AD!!! Many real people testified to the facts. It changed the world.

But what you're essentially saying here then is that everyone who follows a god other than yours is deluded in some way. In fact the gods they follow may be "demons" who intentionally mislead people.

Where do you get the authority to say that your god is the "true" god and all the others are false? The Bible? Your holy book? Yeah I can open up the Quran and show you where it says Jesus wasn't divine but I'm guessing you won't buy that. Eye witness testimony of miracles and accounts of personal religious experiences isn't unique to Christianity so that isn't a good basis either.

False. I do not deny that some pagan records pre date the written known copies of the records of heaven.

That's progress I guess.

Our records pre date the planet. Top that!

Records which you just made up and for which you have no evidence. In other words, non-existent records.

Noo wonder you left whatever 'church' that infused that insane doctrine of devils into you.

My church didn't teach that, just something I learned after doing a lot of independent study into Christianity, the Bible, and the early church. The first followers of Jesus, the original movement, did not consider him to be divine.

The plates now move slow. But the creation debate is not about now.

Find me a recent earthquake that has occurred for which the natural explanation, plate tectonics, fails. Then maybe you might have some credibility in claiming that the quakes emanate from some divine will.

dad said:
Easy to refute.

173,880 days.

Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy

I left this until last because my response will likely be somewhat lengthy. I've seen this particular "prophecy" pop up both when I was a Christian and now when I'm not. It's a perfect example of trying to retrofit the square peg of prophecy into the round hole of history. A fair eye easily deconstructs the link above's interpretation of the Daniel seventy weeks prophecy.

1. Weeks =/= years: The Jewish word for week is septad. If the Hebrew word for year follows septad, then it means a week of years (what your interpretation says). When it doesn't, it usually means a week of days. If the writer of Daniel meant a week of years, he would have included the Hebrew word for year as he did in Daniel 9:2. This is the custom in other Hebrew writings that mention sabbatical years such as Leviticus 25. To simply state the word week means seven ordinary chronological years, when the Hebrew word for year is not included (as it would have if that is what the writer wanted week to mean), is intellectually incoherent.

2. Starting point: The question of when the prophecy starts is obviously very important; if it didn't start in 445/4 BCE, then the whole argument that it predicts an event in Jesus' life falls apart. The seventy weeks start from "the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" Daniel 9:25. The far more logical reading has this starting at the decree from Cyrus back in the 530s BCE. Indeed, the bible even says as much too in the book of Ezra.

[1] In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: [2]"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. [3] Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel -- he is the God who is in Jerusalem; [4] and let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God which is in Jerusalem." Ezra 1:1-4

It's only a post hoc reading with clear bias that shoehorns in the comparably minor proclamation of Artaxerxes to set up some walls around the already inhabited and existing city. In fact Josephus himself, every Christian's favorite historian, says that the Cyrus' decree mentioned rebuilding both the city and the temple. The Cyrus decree was, by any measure, the much more important and memorable event. It marks the juncture between Jerusalem being completely devastated and being restored as a city. It marks the juncture between the lack of a Jewish temple and sacrifices (the focus of the Jewish faith at the time) and its restoration. The Jerusalem of Artaxerxes' time was inhabited and had a temple with sacrifices already going on. Jerusalem and the temple didn't need to be rebuilt or restored in 445/4 BCE.

3. The use of a 360 day year: The reasoning on this is even shoddier than the above. It completely ignores the fact that the Jewish calendar has about six thirty day months and six twenty nine day months. In other words, a standard Jewish year is on average only 354 days, not 360 (sometimes 353 or 355 days depending on whether two months have 29 or 30 days each). 354 days/year, even if I give you everything else, only gets you to around 23-24 CE which is close but definitely before Jesus' crucifixion (the cut off part of this interpretation). The 360 day "prophetic year" is made out of whole cloth by the interpreter to make the prophecy work.

4. Misidentifying Jesus with "the anointed one": A reading of the original Hebrew renders Daniel 9:25-26 as "an anointed one", of which there are many mentioned throughout the Bible. There's no reason to consider this "anointed one" special or to identify him with Jesus other than wanting to make the prophecy work.

5. Mistranslation indicating when Jesus will arrive: The site you linked to depends heavily on a mistranslation that conflates the seven weeks and sixty two weeks into one period of time. Consider the more accurate translation of Daniel 9:25 -

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

So then Jesus should have appeared, if I give you everything else in your prophecy interpretation, at the end of 49 'prophetic years' (seven weeks). But that didn't happen. The conflating of the seven weeks period of time and the sixty two weeks period is a complete fabrication.

6. The end of the weeks: In Daniel 9:24, it is said that the end of sin and everlasting righteousness will happen at the termination of the 70 weeks.

[24]"Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

But, obviously, no Christian would say we live in a state of no sin. So the interpreter has to make something up like saying 'oh the clock on the prophecy stopped at the end of 69 weeks' or some such. I'm sorry but that's not how the prophecy reads. This is another extra-biblical invention casually used by those seeking validation for their beliefs.

If any or even one of the problems I mentioned above are salient, the whole "prophecy" falls apart. But again, if an interpreter looks at a text with a bias already in mind, he's likely to come out the same way.

dad · Apr 28, 2012

Farinata said:
But what you're essentially saying here then is that everyone who follows a god other than yours is deluded in some way. In fact the gods they follow may be "demons" who intentionally mislead people.

True. Bible or Babel.

Where do you get the authority to say that your god is the "true" god and all the others are false? The Bible? Your holy book? Yeah I can open up the Quran and show you where it says Jesus wasn't divine but I'm guessing you won't buy that. Eye witness testimony of miracles and accounts of personal religious experiences isn't unique to Christianity so that isn't a good basis either.

Jesus. So if you no likey...too bad. Stick to failing to be able to prove your same state past. That is what you are good at.

Records which you just made up and for which you have no evidence. In other words, non-existent records.

The bible exists...really. Even ancient Egypt and Sumer existed. Last Thursday too.

My church didn't teach that, just something I learned after doing a lot of independent study into Christianity, the Bible, and the early church. The first followers of Jesus, the original movement, did not consider him to be divine.

Lie.

Find me a recent earthquake that has occurred for which the natural explanation, plate tectonics, fails. Then maybe you might have some credibility in claiming that the quakes emanate from some divine will.

Who said it fails? What fails is you predicting them. Also plate tectonics is a crock. Yes there are 'plates' perhaps, that move. But all the same state past imaginary past mumbo jumbo is garbage.

I left this until last because my response will likely be somewhat lengthy. I've seen this particular "prophecy" pop up both when I was a Christian and now when I'm not. It's a perfect example of trying to retrofit the square peg of prophecy into the round hole of history. A fair eye easily deconstructs the link above's interpretation of the Daniel seventy weeks prophecy.

We shall see.

1. Weeks =/= years: The Jewish word for week is septad. If the Hebrew word for year follows septad, then it means a week of years (what your interpretation says). When it doesn't, it usually means a week of days. If the writer of Daniel meant a week of years, he would have included the Hebrew word for year as he did in Daniel 9:2. This is the custom in other Hebrew writings that mention sabbatical years such as Leviticus 25. To simply state the word week means seven ordinary chronological years, when the Hebrew word for year is not included (as it would have if that is what the writer wanted week to mean), is intellectually incoherent.

Source?

2. Starting point: The question of when the prophecy starts is obviously very important; if it didn't start in 445/4 BCE, then the whole argument that it predicts an event in Jesus' life falls apart. The seventy weeks start from "the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" Daniel 9:25. The far more logical reading has this starting at the decree from Cyrus back in the 530s BCE. Indeed, the bible even says as much too in the book of Ezra.

Nope. There was some criteria. The decree for example had to include the certain things, that not all decrees did.

It's only a post hoc reading with clear bias that shoehorns in the comparably minor proclamation of Artaxerxes to set up some walls around the already inhabited and existing city. In fact Josephus himself, every Christian's favorite historian, says that the Cyrus' decree mentioned rebuilding both the city and the temple. The Cyrus decree was, by any measure, the much more important and memorable event. It marks the juncture between Jerusalem being completely devastated and being restored as a city. It marks the juncture between the lack of a Jewish temple and sacrifices (the focus of the Jewish faith at the time) and its restoration. The Jerusalem of Artaxerxes' time was inhabited and had a temple with sacrifices already going on. Jerusalem and the temple didn't need to be rebuilt or restored in 445/4 BCE.

Not more important to God apparently. It didn't fit the bill. Now if one wanted to get into detail they could look here....

Daniel, Vol. 03

click on listen.

It covers er.

3. The use of a 360 day year: The reasoning on this is even shoddier than the above. It completely ignores the fact that the Jewish calendar has about six thirty day months and six twenty nine day months. In other words, a standard Jewish year is on average only 354 days, not 360 (sometimes 353 or 355 days depending on whether two months have 29 or 30 days each). 354 days/year, even if I give you everything else, only gets you to around 23-24 CE which is close but definitely before Jesus' crucifixion (the cut off part of this interpretation). The 360 day "prophetic year" is made out of whole cloth by the interpreter to make the prophecy work.

Irellevant, even if true. God's biblle indicates a 360 year day. From Genesis to Revelation. That is in the bag.

4. Misidentifying Jesus with "the anointed one": A reading of the original Hebrew renders Daniel 9:25-26 as "an anointed one", of which there are many mentioned throughout the Bible. There's no reason to consider this "anointed one" special or to identify him with Jesus other than wanting to make the prophecy work.

Absurd nonsense. The many titles of the Messiah are known and Jesus fulfilled them all. Your unsupportable dogma is a doctrine of devils. Literally. Ho hum.

5. Mistranslation indicating when Jesus will arrive: The site you linked to depends heavily on a mistranslation that conflates the seven weeks and sixty two weeks into one period of time. Consider the more accurate translation of Daniel 9:25 -

Well, you can use the new link I gave.

[25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

So then Jesus should have appeared, if I give you everything else in your prophecy interpretation, at the end of 49 'prophetic years' (seven weeks). But that didn't happen. The conflating of the seven weeks period of time and the sixty two weeks period is a complete fabrication.

See my links. Learn something powerful.

6. The end of the weeks: In Daniel 9:24, it is said that the end of sin and everlasting righteousness will happen at the termination of the 70 weeks.

[24]"Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

But, obviously, no Christian would say we live in a state of no sin. So the interpreter has to make something up like saying 'oh the clock on the prophecy stopped at the end of 69 weeks' or some such. I'm sorry but that's not how the prophecy reads. This is another extra-biblical invention casually used by those seeking validation for their beliefs.

Just study the links. This is drivel. The final week end is when the everlasting righteousness comes. Not before.

If any or even one of the problems I mentioned above are salient, the whole "prophecy" falls apart. But again, if an interpreter looks at a text with a bias already in mind, he's likely to come out the same way.

Relax, then. It is all fragrant stuff.

DaneaFL · Apr 28, 2012

I still haven't seen any proof against Last Thursdayism...

Therefore it's the only true undefeated theory.

You lose dad!

dad · Apr 28, 2012

Elendur said:
I... don't understand what you're trying to say...

If earth is in a temporary state complete with the space around it, and the far universe is different with different laws then all we see is what filters in and can exist here.

Oh really? How so?

False, because...well, the future is a good example. I agree with God. He says that many things will be different. So I base my conception of the future on that, not present state laws.

I am.
You've shown a complete lack of understanding of both sides of the debate, crucial terms and the proper way to discuss.
You've put yourself on a pedestal free from any other rules you expect everyone else to follow.
That is nothing to be jealous of.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. The rules that the future and past are free of are the present state ones! You cannot argue against that. If you could you would have done so, and would certainly get into gear about NOW!!!! How sweet it is, this victory of the ages.

dad · Apr 28, 2012

DaneaFL said:
I still haven't seen any proof against Last Thursdayism...

Therefore it's the only true undefeated theory.

You lose dad!

How would that prop up your science foundational belief in a present state having existed from creation? You see, I agree with last week. Last century also. Even thousands of years ago. That is what you must face here woman. Hey do not think that because you have a pretty picture posted I will let you win the day here.

Farinata · Apr 28, 2012

dad said:
Jesus. So if you no likey...too bad. Stick to failing to be able to prove your same state past. That is what you are good at.

Not a rebuttal.

Lie.

Not a lie. The Ebionites, one of the earliest Christian groups, considered Jesus the messiah but did not think he was divine. Early Christian history was not nearly as doctrinally "clean" as you think it was. The reality is that concepts like the virgin birth, the trinity, the two natures of Jesus, etc... were all fleshed out over a few centuries. Even the 325 Nicean council didn't definitively settle all these conflicts. You might want to look into the scholarship done by Bart Ehrman, a formerly fervent born again evangelical Christian who, after doing extensive study into the original Christian documents, became an agnostic.

Who said it fails? What fails is you predicting them. Also plate tectonics is a crock. Yes there are 'plates' perhaps, that move. But all the same state past imaginary past mumbo jumbo is garbage.

Who said anything about predicting when earthquakes happen? Plate tectonics merely provides an explanation for why earthquakes occur.

Source?

Knock yourself out. Section 9. Whole thing is worth a read if you're actually serious in learning about Biblical exegesis.

"Hermeneutical Factors In Determining The Beginning Of The Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:25)" by Vern Sheridan Poythress

Nope. There was some criteria. The decree for example had to include the certain things, that not all decrees did. Not more important to God apparently. It didn't fit the bill. Now if one wanted to get into detail they could look here...Daniel, Vol. 03 click on listen.

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't present your own argument and back it up, then I really don't know what to say.

I would hope your belief in God, something so fundamental to life and existence, warrants you knowing the prophecies backwards and forwards. If not, you have to question how much you're depending on other people's readings and whether they have made mistakes. Have you actually thought/reasoned this through yourself or are you just believing what other people have told you?

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15

Irellevant, even if true.

True. And completely relevant. If the 360 days/year idea is false, your interpretation of the prophecy completely falls apart yes? The dates don't match up then.

Hebrew calendar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God's biblle indicates a 360 year day. From Genesis to Revelation. That is in the bag.

You make the assertion but can you back it up? Convince me. Cite your Bible verses and show me.

Absurd nonsense. The many titles of the Messiah are known and Jesus fulfilled them all. Your unsupportable dogma is a doctrine of devils. Literally. Ho hum.

A title given to Jesus is "the anointed one", I'm not disputing that. But not all biblical references to "anointed one" refer to Jesus.

E.g.

“Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.” 1 Chronicles 16:22

"But you have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one." Pslam 89:38

Well, you can use the new link I gave. See my links. Learn something powerful. Just study the links. This is drivel.

Again, present the argument yourself. If you don't, I'm going to assume you can't and don't know what you're talking about.

The final week end is when the everlasting righteousness comes. Not before.

Well then why didn't sin end at the end of the final week? If the prophecy starts at 445/4 BCE, then why didn't sin end and everlasting righteousness come seven years after Jesus was crucified (the supposed 69th week)?

Elendur · Apr 28, 2012

dad said:
If earth is in a temporary state complete with the space around it, and the far universe is different with different laws then all we see is what filters in and can exist here.

Yeah, but how can anyone refute that?
In fact, how can you even determine that?

dad said:
False, because...well, the future is a good example. I agree with God. He says that many things will be different. So I base my conception of the future on that, not present state laws.

So you are basing your conception of the future on what god 'has said' in the present state.
You're still basing everything in the present state then, by your own words.

dad said:
Methinks thou dost protest too much. The rules that the future and past are free of are the present state ones! You cannot argue against that. If you could you would have done so, and would certainly get into gear about NOW!!!! How sweet it is, this victory of the ages.

Actually I can argue against that. Plenty others have as well.

"The rules that the future and past are free of are the present state ones!"
How do you know this? Is it from a present state source, like the bible?

Save your celebration for when you've actually succeeded in something. Right now you're relying heavily on the one thing people has agreed on, nothing can be proved for certain, and twist it to your need.
(Edit: And you still haven't refuted LastThursdayism, like DaneaFL wrote.)

Tiberius · Apr 28, 2012

dad said:
I would suspect so. If the materials were here already at the onset of this state, how would they not be in some process and in relative amounts?

But why would those relative amounts be EXACTLY what we'd expect to see if they got there through radioactive decay?

How would we find water in the tennis balls? There was water, and when tilted, more water started to flow. All that we would be seeing is a state change and therefore, of course a change in what the material did. No surprise, therefore that we do have the materials.

Ah, but if the board was less tilted in the past, then we'd expect to see some tennis balls that had a little bit of water, but that couldn't make it to the hoses between balls until the table was tilted more.

No! ONLY if we did the tilting, and knew how much water was in a ball before it got tilted.

We can determine it by examining different balls and comparing the water level inside them.

False as explained. Not if the tennis balls were here and it was not you who saw when they were tilted. Really.

We don't need to see the board being tilted. We can come in at any point and look at the distribution of water and create a model for the way the board was tilted in the past.

Hey, so far I am way ahead of you.

lol, you tell yourself that. I've already lapped you. Don't think that you;re winning just because you;ve seen me behind you. I've just gone so far around that I'm catching up to you again.

dad · Apr 28, 2012

dad · Apr 28, 2012

......

dad · Apr 28, 2012

Farinata said:
Not a lie. The Ebionites, one of the earliest Christian groups, considered Jesus the messiah but did not think he was divine. Early Christian history was not nearly as doctrinally "clean" as you think it was. The reality is that concepts like the virgin birth, the trinity, the two natures of Jesus, etc... were all fleshed out over a few centuries. Even the 325 Nicean council didn't definitively settle all these conflicts. You might want to look into the scholarship done by Bart Ehrman, a formerly fervent born again evangelical Christian who, after doing extensive study into the original Christian documents, became an agnostic.

The ones Jesus taught to teach others knew perfectly well, and made it crystal clear in God's word to man. Jesus Personally promised that His spirit would be there to ensure that they remembered things right for the record. No 'also ran' cult of heretic nobodies matters on whit.

Who said anything about predicting when earthquakes happen? Plate tectonics merely provides an explanation for why earthquakes occur.

If you knew your stuff you could predict.

Knock yourself out. Section 9. Whole thing is worth a read if you're actually serious in learning about Biblical exegesis.

"Hermeneutical Factors In Determining The Beginning Of The Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:25)" by Vern Sheridan Poythress

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't present your own argument and back it up, then I really don't know what to say.

I gave a link. Lurkers listen up to it. I doubt I need to dig further here. The days are clear and exact.

I would hope your belief in God, something so fundamental to life and existence, warrants you knowing the prophecies backwards and forwards. If not, you have to question how much you're depending on other people's readings and whether they have made mistakes. Have you actually thought/reasoned this through yourself or are you just believing what other people have told you?

I checked them out. I kid you not.

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15

The answer is that the Messiah was fortold as Jesus said and taught.

True. And completely relevant. If the 360 days/year idea is false, your interpretation of the prophecy completely falls apart yes? The dates don't match up then.

Hebrew calendar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False. According to the bible, they do. We can look at the time of the flood and the months in the tribulation for example and clear that up. 360 days per year.

A title given to Jesus is "the anointed one", I'm not disputing that. But not all biblical references to "anointed one" refer to Jesus.

E.g.

Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm. 1 Chronicles 16:22

"But you have rejected, you have spurned, you have been very angry with your anointed one." Pslam 89:38

There is THE Anointed ones, and His anointed also. Not sure where your mental anguishing lies.

Well then why didn't sin end at the end of the final week? If the prophecy starts at 445/4 BCE, then why didn't sin end and everlasting righteousness come seven years after Jesus was crucified (the supposed 69th week)?

I will look at this later..

Farinata · Apr 29, 2012

dad said:
The ones Jesus taught to teach others knew perfectly well, and made it crystal clear in God's word to man. Jesus Personally promised that His spirit would be there to ensure that they remembered things right for the record. No 'also ran' cult of heretic nobodies matters on whit.

But Jesus himself never wrote anything down. The only reason you know anything about his life & teachings is because other people wrote these things down. This goes to a fundamental issue: why do you consider specific books canon and specific books heretical? Some Pauline epistles are almost certainly genuine (e.g. Romans, Galations, 1 & 2 Corinthians) but some are now known to almost certainly not be written by him (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy). Other very popular books among early Pauline Christians, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, never made it into the Bible. Famous Church fathers used, defended, and advocated for both so why aren't they in the Bible?

Even Athanasius included certain non-canonical books in the canon he arranged (Book of Baruch & Letter of Jeremiah). So why should we the treat the current Biblical books as canon when so many early Church fathers were so bitterly divided over it?

I gave a link. Lurkers listen up to it. I doubt I need to dig further here. The days are clear and exact.

You asked for a source for my argument. I provided a link. I asked for an argument, you provided a source. In any case you haven't answered the original question: why are the "weeks" supposed to represent years? Especially when the Hebrew word for year is conspicuously missing from the verse?

I checked them out. I kid you not.

I hope I don't offend but that's not the impression I've gotten.

False. According to the bible, they do. We can look at the time of the flood and the months in the tribulation for example and clear that up. 360 days per year.

Then why is there no record of this 360 day year independent of your Biblical conjecture? As for the quotes in Genesis and Revelation, they are approximate. The average Hebrew month has around 29.5 days. It is perfectly reasonable for the text writers to want to use round figures. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened in the Bible either:

[23] He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [24] Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. 1 Kings 7:23

The quotation above seems to imply that pi is equal to 3 (circumference of a circle = 2*pi*radius => 30 = 2 * pi * 5) when we know pi is actually something more like 3.14. Should this be proof that the Bible is wrong about pi? No. The writer simply used rounded numbers for their measurements.

There is THE Anointed ones, and His anointed also. Not sure where your mental anguishing lies.

In Pslam 89:38, the title "anointed one" does not refer to Jesus. This shows that even a singular use of that term need not refer to Jesus. There's no reason to believe that the term "an [not the] anointed one" in Daniel 9:25 refers to Jesus other than to make the prophecy work.

I will look at this later..

Please do. Take your time.

Tiberius · Apr 29, 2012

dad said:
....

dad said:
......

I hope these weren't responses to me. I'd hate to think you were giving up...

dad · Apr 30, 2012

Tiberius said:
I hope these weren't responses to me. I'd hate to think you were giving up...

No need to flatter yourself. It was a triple post somehow...so I deleted 2 of them. I can do math to some degree.

dad · Apr 30, 2012

Tiberius said:
But why would those relative amounts be EXACTLY what we'd expect to see if they got there through radioactive decay?

Because what you expect to see is based in part on what exists. What exists also did exist for the most part in the former state. But do give us a clear example of something you 'expect' exists? Let me point out that a lot of what you expect is missing stuff. For example, if we have a chain of decay (supposedly) where there were say, 10 parts in the chain, we might have 4 parts missing. Missing isotopes that you 'expect' to not be there, but cannot prove they ever were there! The only reason for anyone to believe that they ever existed at all then is faith! Right?

Ah, but if the board was less tilted in the past, then we'd expect to see some tennis balls that had a little bit of water, but that couldn't make it to the hoses between balls until the table was tilted more.

No. Because the tilting represents a different state, not a tilt in this state!

We can determine it by examining different balls and comparing the water level inside them.

No. Impossible unless we know how much water was there when the tilt took place!

We don't need to see the board being tilted. We can come in at any point and look at the distribution of water and create a model for the way the board was tilted in the past.

NO! You can't which is the point! You see let us say that some of the tennis balls down the line already had water in them....how could you know? You showed up after the tilt. All you could do would be to say 'IF this state existed when the tilt took place, and there was no daughter water in any balls, then all the daughter water came from the post tilt reality.

lol, you tell yourself that. I've already lapped you. Don't think that you;re winning just because you;ve seen me behind you. I've just gone so far around that I'm catching up to you again.

Just waiting for you to catch on that your position is a sinking ship. No more need to fire at it now. Just a matter of time and the inevitable happening.

dad · Apr 30, 2012

Farinata said:
But Jesus himself never wrote anything down.

He was writing something on the ground when He stopped the stoning of the lady. So He did write stuff.

The only reason you know anything about his life & teachings is because other people wrote these things down.

A sacred record was passed down and we know the record is true.

This goes to a fundamental issue: why do you consider specific books canon and specific books heretical? Some Pauline epistles are almost certainly genuine (e.g. Romans, Galations, 1 & 2 Corinthians) but some are now known to almost certainly not be written by him (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy). Other very popular books among early Pauline Christians, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, never made it into the Bible. Famous Church fathers used, defended, and advocated for both so why aren't they in the Bible?

God must be factored into the equation for you to understand why. Since you delight in factoring Him out, there is no hope for your position.

You asked for a source for my argument. I provided a link. I asked for an argument, you provided a source. In any case you haven't answered the original question: why are the "weeks" supposed to represent years? Especially when the Hebrew word for year is conspicuously missing from the verse?

"Now, there's a key to the whole thing‑‑the first two words of verse 24, seventy weeks.. What are they? Well, the term for "'?eeks,??????Hl or ???????? in Hebrew, does not mean "week." It means "seven," seventy sevens. It doesn't in itself identify days, it doesn't identify. weeks, it doesn't identify months, it doesn't identify years, it just means seventy sevens. And so, whenever you see the term, you've got to get its meaning from the context or the verses around it. And I'm convinced, as are almost all, certainly all evangelical Bible scholars, that it refers to years, not weeks of days but weeks of years. Why? Well, Daniel was already thinking in sevens of years. Verse 2, he was thinking of the seventy years prophecy. So he was thinking in terms of years. And there's a sense in which I see a play on words here. Daniel is thinking, "Lord, seventy years and it will all be over." And God is saying to him, "No, seventy times seven, seventy sevens." You're not there yet. Oh, there will be restoration to the land after the seventy but there's a lot more after that until all of sin is dealt with and everlasting righteousness is brought in. And so, I think he plays off of the very thought of the seventy.
And let me add another reason why. I believe it refers to years. The Jews had the concept of weeks of years. For example, the Sabbath rest of the land was to occur, according to Leviticus 25:3 and 4, every seven years. In other words, there were six years where you worked your land and the seventh year your land had to rest. And so they saw years in terms of weeks of seven. And after seven weeks of seven years, in the forty‑ninth year, came a year known as what? The "Jubilee Year," and the land rested and all the estates returned to their original owners and all debts were forgiven and all slaves were freed. And so a multiple of these week of years was very familiar to the Jewish thinking.
And may I add another thought? Another reason I believe it refers to years is because the only other time Daniel ever uses the term shabuwa or seven, he uses it in chapter l0 verses 2 and 3. And as he refers to it in verse 2, it says three full weeks, "and then in verse 3 three whole weeks." And what he uses there is the word for days. He uses it specifically for days in the Hebrew. And it's almost as if he puts the word days in reference to weeks in chapter l0 and leaves it out in chapter 9 so that you'll know there's a difference.
But I think there's one other thought that's just amazing, just amazing in this prophecy. Now think with me on this. Daniel knew this, Daniel knew that one of the reasons the children of Israel were taken into captivity, now mark this, one of them‑- there were several‑‑but one of the reasons they were taken into captivity was that they had constantly violated that seventh year Sabbath. They had become greedy and self‑indulgent and materialistic and they'd worked that land six years and instead of letting that seventh year rest to restore the land, they'd plow that land the seventh year and they kept doing it and kept doing it and kept doing it and they violated Sabbath year after Sabbath year after Sabbath year after Sabbath year. And that is one of the reasons that they were removed from the land because God wanted to give to His land its proper Sabbath rest. You see? And if they wouldn't let the land rest when they were in it, then God would empty it of them and let it rest on His terms. And in 2 Chronicles 36:2l, it says: "To fulfill the Word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, talking about the captivity, .until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths, for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years.. How many is that? Seventy.
Now listen, this is a tremendous truth. God says you're going to stay out of that land for 70 years. You know why? They had violated how many Sabbaths? Seventy. They violated 70 Sabbaths. How many years would it take you to violate seventy Sabbaths? Four hundred and ninety. It seems to be that the Spirit of God is telling us that just as they had violated the Sabbath for 490 years, so 490 more years would be determined upon their history. Amazing. In their 800 years as a nation, they had violated 70 of their Sabbaths. And so, God uses the same number of years violated as the basis of His future plan. And each year in captivity was for one seven‑year period when the Sabbath was violated. Boy, God is very exacting, isn't He?
And so, I believe these are weeks of years. And you people...I read a commentary that said, "Well, we can't be sure they're years, they might just be symbolic of movements. They might mean days or weeks or long period? You know, that's just so much spaced‑out hocus pocus. Daniel didn't have any problem with seventy years, he understood that."

Israel's Future, Part 2

Then why is there no record of this 360 day year independent of your Biblical conjecture? As for the quotes in Genesis and Revelation, they are approximate. The average Hebrew month has around 29.5 days. It is perfectly reasonable for the text writers to want to use round figures. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened in the Bible either:

Easy peasy.

"
Now, what is the length of these years? How long is a year? You say, "It's easy, 365 days." No, that's not easy. Because not everybody used the 365‑day year in Daniel's time. How about that? You say, "What kind of year did they use?" Well, some used a 360‑day year and then they had to throw in an extra month every once in a while to catch up. You say, "Well, hmm, which year did the prophecy refer to? It's very important." Well, I believe, the prophecy refers to a 360‑day year. Now stay with me, folks. This is where we separate the men from the boys. Going to get heavy. Hang on. According to Genesis, the flood‑‑now you say, "Wait a minute, how did we get in the flood?" Don't worry about it. We're working our way back to Daniel. The Bible says in Genesis 7:11, don't turn to this just listen. If you start fumbling around in your Bible you're going to find yourself under the bed saying the Greek alphabet. Just hang in there. I'm going to give this my best shot, folks, we're going to get through this. All right, according to Genesis 7:11, the flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month. And the flood came to an end on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. Now if the flood started on the seventeenth day of the second month and ended on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, how many months was the flood? Good class, five months...five months.
You say, "What's so interesting about that?" Listen to this. In Genesis 7:24 and in Genesis 8:3, the Bible says the flood lasted for one hundred and fifty days. Now if the flood was l50 days and the Jews counted that as five months, how long were their months? Thirty days.
Twelve thirty‑day months equals a 360‑day year. So we believe the Jews functioned on a 360‑day year calendar. The earliest known months used then in the biblical text were 30‑day months giving us a 360‑day year.
And then every once in a while they'd throw in an extra pile to catch up with the solar year.
Now let me give you another thought. Are you ready for this one?
Daniel 7 says that the great Tribulation will last for a time (that's one),times (that's two), and half a time (that's half)‑‑ times, time, half a time, three and a half. Revelation l3 says the Tribulation will last forty‑two months. And Revelation l2:6 says the Tribulation will last l260 days.
Now isn't that interesting? We have three different time frames for the Tribulation. In one place it says three and a half years, one place it says 42 months and one place l260 days. Three and a half years equals 42 months. Is that right? That's right. I'll tell you that's right. Thirty‑six plus six‑‑three and a half, okay. Three and a half years equals 42 months, but if 42 months equal l260 days, they have to be months of 30 days. There's no other way.
So again we find not only in Genesis but clear in Revelation that the Bible is still counting on the same kind of clock, months are 30‑day months."

--same link!

[23] He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [24] Below the rim, gourds encircled itten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. 1 Kings 7:23

The quotation above seems to imply that pi is equal to 3 (circumference of a circle = 2*pi*radius => 30 = 2 * pi * 5) when we know pi is actually something more like 3.14. Should this be proof that the Bible is wrong about pi? No. The writer simply used rounded numbers for their measurements.

No. Seems to me that is unknown. My opinion is that possibly the spiritual was a factor. Once we add the spiritual to the physical, then normal math is out! Why add the spiritual? Because the holy place is where the item was, no less, and the area had a history of spiritual happenings!

Your doubts are unfounded and unsupportable.

In Pslam 89:38, the title "anointed one" does not refer to Jesus. This shows that even a singular use of that term need not refer to Jesus. There's no reason to believe that the term "an [not the] anointed one" in Daniel 9:25 refers to Jesus other than to make the prophecy work.

It is a title of the Messiah. Whether it can and was also used in a lesser way matters not at all. Neither does it change anything.

Please do. Take your time.

Just needed time to pull up the chapter and glance at it for 2 seconds. Here is the simple answer.

The everlasting righeousness etc was to be brought in at the end of the 70 weeks. The last seven year period is the final week, so we would not expect the fulfillment until then, as Gabe said. Hey, don't argue with Gabriel.

Different state past

Gamer and mathematician

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Gamer and mathematician

Newbie

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Gamer and mathematician

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency