Gay Billboard

[John317]

I haven't listen to any Christian apologists. The Christian pastors I listen to have nothing to apologize for. They love the Lord.

Amen!! I like that, pk. :-)

[John317]

It's going to take me awhile to reply to John's list, but Daniel is easy. Please demonstrate why you think it was written in the 6th century BC.

It is only "easy" if you make certain assumptions, such as that it was written in the first century BC or AD.

However, that is impossible, since the book of Daniel is a part of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, and they were translated in the second century BC. Ancient copies of Daniel in the Hebrew languagge were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and are dated to about 125 BC to 50 AD. The LXX (Septuagint) was completed by 132 BC.

About the Septuagint, this is what wikipedia reports:

Quote:

The Septuagint: A column of uncial text from 1 Esdras in the Codex Vaticanus, the basis of Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's Greek edition and English translation.The Septuagint , or simply "LXX", referred to in critical works by the abbreviation ,[1] is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd century BCE in Alexandria.[2] It was begun by the 3rd century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.[3]

If Daniel was written in the first century BCE, it wouldn't have had time to be accepted as canon and be included in the LXX. Even most modern scholars believe it was written in approximately 165 B.C.

But why do they believe this? The only reason they believe this is that the prophecies are so exactly fulfilled that they can't believe they were true predictions. (See comment below found in the wikipedia article.) I think you'll find that most of the scholars who believe in the late dating of the book of Daniel reject the whole concept of true predictive prophecy. In other words, they simply refuse to believe it could be from the 6th century because they don't believe in genuine prophecy. So one could conclude that they are closed to any evidence which would indicate any other date for the writing. That is hardly good scholarship.

Let us look at some of the information found in the wikipedia:

Quote:

The Book of Daniel is a book in the Hebrew Bible. In the Jewish canon, the book of Daniel is included with the Writings not in the Prophets. The book tells of how Daniel, a Judean exile at the court of Nebuchadnezzar II (605 to 562 BC), the ruler of Babylon, becomes a high government official[1] and delivers various visions. Due to the prophecy content of the book, skeptics argue that the book was probably composed about 165 BC,[2] shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164.[3] Opinions continue to differ, however, in light of apparently early forms of Aramaic language used in the Aramaic portions.[4]

The earliest manuscripts discovered were written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic...

...A total of eight copies of the book of Daniel have been found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.[7] All eight manuscripts have been dated within the space of 175 years ranging from about 125 BC (4QDanc) to about 50 AD (4QDanb).[2] There were at least three versions extant: the twelve-chapter version preserved in the Masoretic text and the two longer Greek versions, the Theodotion version (c. 2nd century AD) and the original Septuagint version ( c. 100 BC; ).[8] Both Greek versions contain the apocryphal chapters (c. 100 BC) not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel. Theodotion's translaton is much closer to the Hebrew/Aramaic Daniel of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, and became so popular that it replaced the original Septuagint version of Daniel in all but two manuscripts of the Septuagint itself.[9][10][11] For its part, the older (pre-Theodotion) Septuagint edition sometimes agrees more with the older Hebrew / Aramaic readings of the text of the Qumran fragments, against the more recent Theodotion / Masoretic version reflected in modern translations.

I would reject a first century composition of the book of Daniel for the simple reason that it wouldn't allow enough time to elapse between the original writing and the acceptance of it as a part of Hebrew canon and inclusion in the Septuagint.

There are other reasons that, but that is the main one.

Other reasons for accepting a 6th century origin is the language. It has been shown from recent discoveries that it is written in a form of the early imperial Armaic.

There's also the fact that if it had been written in the first century as you propose, far more Greek words would be expected. As it is, the only Greek words are those of musical instruments in Daniel 3. Why would these Greek words be in the 6th century BCE book of Daniel? Because there were Greek mercenaries in the Assyrian and Babylonian armies.

One additional reason for believing it was writen in the 6th century is that Daniel claims to have written it, and he lived in the 6th centruy. If Daniel did not write it, it would of course be a fraud and outright deception. I think we have to at least allow the evidence to show whether there's good reason to believe that Daniel wrote it when he said he did. After all, Christ is quoted as having said that Daniel wrote it. Along with this, there is the Jewish and Christian belief from ancient times that the book is genuine and not a fraud. While these alone by no means prove a sixth century BCE composition, they do give us reason to take the claims seriously.

Finally, there's the fact that there are historical details in the book of Daniel which only a writer of that period (6th century)could have known, since the information was lost and unknown to the people living in the first century BCE. If you are interested in the details and the documentation of this, let me know. But then perhaps you already know about these details since you have studied the issues related to the dating of Daniel.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Show me why you think it was written in the first century BC.

You first.

Igakusei, see the post right above this one.

Can you show valid evidence and reasons why the book of Daniel was first composed by someone in the first century BCE?

Please reply directly to the points I have made in my post.

[John317]

I mean think about it; a text written by an omnipotent God could contain so much to enrich the lives of his people. How about a chapter on Cancer? Mathematics? A chapter like that could have provided thousands of years of fresh insight and discovery.

First of all, the text was not written by an omnipotent God. It was written by men-- men who were inspired by an omnipotent God, yes, but God didn't use his omnipotence in the way that you evidently expect or believe the Bible claims. God gave men dreams and visions and then those men wrote down in their own words what God had shown them.

I think you're forgetting the purpose of the Bible-- to show us who God is and to save us from sin.

Would you really have been impressed with a God who would come down and show you scientific discoveries that would otherwise require mankind thousands of years of hard work to find out? Think what that would make God. He would become like the Yankee in King Arthur's court in Twain's novel by that title. God would be little more than a magician who could do wonderful tricks for us. If men found something difficult, we could just ask God to do a trick, and man wouldn't need to make progress; it would be ready-made for us. Perhaps God would even give us our first plane or car or train or microscope.

But if He did that, He would be interfering with human freedom and the development of human society in a way that God doesn't do.

Besides, the things you mention are not the fundmanetal problems faced by humanity. Our fundamental problems have to do with being alienated from God and from each other. In other words, it's a sin problem. It's sin that causes death. God is not primarily concerned with the first death. It can be "fixed." Far worse is the second death-- that is, eternal death.

What good would it do to fix the problems dealing with cancer and mathematics, but then not take care of the more fundmanental and urgent problems? People who are cured of cancer go on to shoot each other. Intelligent math whizzes rape and murder women. So curing cancer or other illnesses or giving out the answers to math problems are not the most important issues for God to deal with.

God is interested in people being able to live with Him and other holy, sinless beings throughout eternity. Giving them a solution to cancer or teaching them about math doesn't help them be able to live with God in a sinless universe. The only way they can do that is to be changed from within, yet the change must be voluntary. That is the dilemma God is faced with.

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Instead we get a flat Earth, a geocentric universe, pi listed as a round number (centuries after the Egyptians had it estimated to several decimal places), etc. My point is that nothing in there contains knowledge that is outside the realm of human understanding at the time, and much of it in fact was behind human understanding at the time.

It sounds like you want God to provide a science text book about 2000 years ahead of its time. But how would that help mankind with the problems of sin? How would giving man that kind of knoweldge help us with the spiritual problems that are at the bottom of why we are unable to live in heaven and on the new earth? What good would it do to give eternal life to someone with amazing math knowledge, only for him to use his knowledge to hurt someone or himself?

Can you see that man's basic problem is a moral and spiritual one, and not a scientific one?

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

The authors of the NT and Matthew in particular are notorious for writing the stories in a fashion that fulfills prophecies (or what they thought was prophecy). Given the lack of evidence for a 600 BC Daniel, I'm going to conclude the same there.

I don't think you have given enough attention to the evidence for a 600 BCE Daniel. See my previous post, about two in front of this one.

Once you accept the existence of a God who knows the future, I think you can see that prophecy is really not a problem. Why would you be so shocked or surprised that God knows the future and has revealed some key future events to us?

[LifeHiscost]

...while almost everyone outside your sect (and indeed also most of the people in it) are going to be destroyed forever for their alternate points of view.

No one is going to miss out on the kingdom because of a lack of knowledge. While those who do know what do do right and don't do it, if they repent and turn from their wicked ways, trusting in Jesus for their salvation will definitely give them a place in Heaven.

However, "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." He is the one, if he clings to his waywardness, who will miss out on all the future after the second death.

For the one who does not know what is right, Jesus gave this appeal to His Father and I have no reason to believe it will not be answered.

"Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing."Luke 23:34 NLT

And since this request was made while man was doing his best (worst) to obliterate the King of the universe from this earth,

I can't believe anyone could do anything He is unable to forgive, if a person is willing to humble himself before the rightful heir to His creation.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Why do you think that taking a fantasy book at face value is not a neutral position?

No one is ever neutral when it comes to the Kingdom of God.

"But Jesus said...for he who is not against us is on our side.”"Luke 9:50 NKJV

God blesses!

[Sonny]

I see no conflict between God ordering ancient Israel to wipe out pagan cities and his character of love.

Of course you don't....

[Sonny]

I don't think playing games with words helps advance the gospel or justify the character of God.

Playing games with words?....How condescending. You know what advances atheism? The typical view of God that you and others present. You apparently don't want to dig deep, instead you take a superficial reading to the Bible.

Is 53:4

"But he [Jesus] endured the suffering that should have been ours, the pain that we should have borne. All the while [from the human perspective because of human nature] we thought that his suffering was punishment sent by God."

"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted."

[Igakusei]

John,

Your points on the old Daniel are well taken. Most of my (Biblical) research so far has been on the early Christian church and the NT, so I haven't had a chance to get to the OT. I'll have to spend some time analyzing the origin of Daniel, since you clearly know more about it than I do.

I also take your points about the "purpose of the Bible." I understand that the Bible is not a scientific text and isn't intended to be, so I can accept that. However, I still have a serious problem with it being used as a guide to tell us how to live our lives. There are over 30,000 Christian denominations in the world today, and this number continues to grow as groups fracture and split over disagreements in how to interpret the Bible and how it should be used.

Shouldn't a book written directly inspired by God as we understand him be relatively clear on important issues? If it's so clear, why do +30,000 groups of people believe different things about it?

[John317]

Ok, thanks. I am about to hit the hay here because I have to get up in about 3 hours to go to the doctor's. When I get back from the VA, I shall read your posts. It will probably be about noon, Pacific Time. I live near Loma Linda.

[John317]

...Shouldn't a book written directly inspired by God as we understand him be relatively clear on important issues? If it's so clear, why do +30,000 groups of people believe different things about it?

I took a lot of writing classes at the university where I majored in English Composition. In Grad school, we often had to sit in class while the other students read and discussed our papers. It was good discipline and a good way to learn the importance of writing clearly and making sure you wrote exactly what you intended to say. An explanation of what you meant to say was meaningless. All that matters is what is on the paper and what the reader sees. Your intentions are totally irrelvent under those circumstances.

But in those instances, I learned that people don't agree about many things that you might think are obvious. Why? Because people come to texts with many preconceptions and from many different experiences and ideas that color their understanding. Not only that but people have varying abilities to understand language. Sometimes, too, one word in a sentence might take the reader's mind off in a direction that the writer never intended. In this way, the reader may not see the sentence as the writer actually wrote it.

There's also the fact that when it comes to religious subjects in particular, people have different motives. Some people don't even want to know the truth. They prefer to not know because they figure that if they know something, they will be responsible for following what they know to be right. So the motives people have when they read something has a lot to do with how they interpret and understand it. This is shown in the case of lawyers, where the lawyer for the defense is motivated quite differently than the prosecutor. Both are getting paid to say different things and for entirely different objectives. Yet all these differences in interpetation is of a text that was designed to be clear.

If such confusion occurs over the meaning of a law, should anyone be surprised that people disagree over what many of the Bible texts say? Should we assume that the Bible is at fault and that the Bible has no actual meaning simply because many people can't agree on the details? I think the answer is obvious.

Why can't they agree on the meaning of the Bible? It's often because people are coming to the text with different assumptions. But that doesn't mean the text itself is confusing or unclear. There are many other reasons for this. It may be because of a difference in the translations. It could also be because some readers aren't taking everything in the Bible into account. Maybe they received incorrect information about a topic, and this bad information is influencing their view of what the text is saying. They assume that the text is saying a certain thing when it isn't. Or they might assume that the text is lying.

All these factors come into play when people are reading any given text, whether it is a short story, novel, or poem-- yet, for whatever reasons, never more so than when they are reading the Bible.

And so

[Dr. Shane]

You know what advances atheism? The typical view of God that you and others present.

No. In my work treating those dealing with substance abuse, I often work with atheists looking for answers. They only have problem with Israel's wars when they view it, as you do, that God is forcing people to accept Him or die. When they see it as God judging wicked cities, like Sodom and Gomorrah, it becomes consistent with His character of love. They normally have bigger problems with the exclusivity of Christianity and never-ending torment in hell.

[Dr. Shane]

Shouldn't a book written directly inspired by God as we understand him be relatively clear on important issues? If it's so clear, why do +30,000 groups of people believe different things about it?

Actually, if what the Bible says is true, that there is a devil waring against the church, one should expect that the church would be divided into various sects. Although the actual number of sects is much closer to a handful than 1,000.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

...Shouldn't a book written directly inspired by God as we understand him be relatively clear on important issues? If it's so clear, why do +30,000 groups of people believe different things about it?

I took a lot of writing classes at the university where I majored in English Composition. In Grad school, we often had to sit in class while the other students read and discussed our papers. It was good discipline and a good way to learn the importance of writing clearly and making sure you wrote exactly what you intended to say. An explanation of what you meant to say was meaningless. All that matters is what is on the paper and what the reader sees. Your intentions are totally irrelvent under those circumstances.

But in those instances, I learned that people don't agree about many things that you might think are obvious. Why? Because people come to texts with many preconceptions and from many different experiences and ideas that color their understanding. Not only that but people have varying abilities to understand language. Sometimes, too, one word in a sentence might take the reader's mind off in a direction that the writer never intended. In this way, the reader may not see the sentence as the writer actually wrote it.

There's also the fact that when it comes to religious subjects in particular, people have different motives. Some people don't even want to know the truth. They prefer to not know because they figure that if they know something, they will be responsible for following what they know to be right. So the motives people have when they read something has a lot to do with how they interpret and understand it. This is shown in the case of lawyers, where the lawyer for the defense is motivated quite differently than the prosecutor. Both are getting paid to say different things and for entirely different objectives. Yet all these differences in interpetation is of a text that was designed to be clear.

If such confusion occurs over the meaning of a law, should anyone be surprised that people disagree over what many of the Bible texts say? Should we assume that the Bible is at fault and that the Bible has no actual meaning simply because many people can't agree on the details? I think the answer is obvious.

Why can't they agree on the meaning of the Bible? It's often because people are coming to the text with different assumptions. But that doesn't mean the text itself is confusing or unclear. There are many other reasons for this. It may be because of a difference in the translations. It could also be because some readers aren't taking everything in the Bible into account. Maybe they received incorrect information about a topic, and this bad information is influencing their view of what the text is saying. They assume that the text is saying a certain thing when it isn't. Or they might assume that the text is lying.

All these factors come into play when people are reading any given text, whether it is a short story, novel, or poem-- yet, for whatever reasons, never more so than when they are reading the Bible.

And so

This is a very good argument. I honestly think I would buy it, if it wasn't for the fact that we believe the Holy Spirit helps us understand and interpret the Bible. I know a lot of Christians from other denominations that believe very different things about the method of salvation, for instance (one doctrine that it's very important to understand correctly). Even with their assumptions and prejudices, these are people who are earnestly studying the Bible daily while asking for the guidance of the holy spirit. I really believe that they want nothing more than to be Christlike people, learn what is right, and spread the good news; but yet they still come to all sorts of different conclusions.

I've heard answers to these questions ranging from "God sometimes keeps people in the dark temporarily for their own protection, but they'll come into the church when the time is right" to "they don't really have an open mind about these issues." I can't accept either of those answers. What are your thoughts?

[LifeHiscost]

Shouldn't a book written directly inspired by God as we understand him be relatively clear on important issues? If it's so clear, why do +30,000 groups of people believe different things about it?

It is clear on all the essential elements that pertain to our well being, especially if we accept that God is Love, never any less, even when we don't understand and especially if we don't try to manipulate the Word to fit our desire to be fully independent of His control.

We each need to recognize there are two opposing forces in the universe, one that desires to enslave us and the other Whose greatest desire for us is to develop maturity enough to handle the freedom only He knows how to give. For those willing to give allegiance to Him Who created the world and the cosmos, it only seems wise to find out all we can know about Him so we don't innocently throw Him on the dumpster without recognizing His earnest desire for our general welfare.

"Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers."

3 John 1:2 NKJV

"“Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign Lord. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live."Ezekiel 18:23 NLT

God blesses!

[Kevin H]

I was out of town and while I brought my computer with me I forgot the power cord at home.

John, I don't want to go into detail here as this thread had moved away from the issue, however it is not a major issue. I don't think this was the quote I had in mind, and I can't see this quote ruffeling as many feathers as I've seen when when I have heard pastors and teachers read it to their congragations or class, but it's been a while since I've read it so I won't say that it is indeed a different quote. Now it is only natural for prophets to emphessise the warnings, however prophets would not waste their time with these warnings if the case was hopeless. The purpose of the texts for the few are to: 1. Let us know the direction things are heading so that like with Jonah, things might change as we hear the warning. 2. If things don't change to let me individually know so that I can change even if no one else does. 3. If I change and few or no one else does don't worry because most people are heading the wrong direction, I will head for repentance and try to help others change their direction. It is NOT written in stone, but warning us so that we or others, few or many can change. The majority are going down the wrong road. God is doing ALL he can to get as many of us to change directions as need be. His emphessasess would indeed be on where we are heading, but it would not change his message if he were to offer us a line here or there that tells us not to give up hope, and also this deals with the nature of prophecy being given to either encourage us if we are going the right direction to encourage us to stay on track because we could leave it, or warn us if we are going the wrong direction so that it can change. However this is not a big point nor where my feathers were ruffeled.

My issue is that I don't see YOU as one to throw out Mrs. White on an issue that does not immediately make sense to you. At college and graduate school I have seen others who have made discoveries in what to them appered to be contradictions, and would rather hold on to tradition and thus throw out Mrs. White and the Bible when things that did not fit tradition were pointed out. However from what I've seen in your posts here, while you occasionally scare me, you for the most part seem too grounded to have something that does not automatically fit your frame work cause you to throw out Mrs. White. You are one who would study and see how tension can lead us the the message she wants us to get. One way or another you would make sense out of it. I am not upset with your understanding, I am upset with your statement about if she said anything like that you would throw out her writings. I'm sorry but I've been too saddened by seeing others find things in her writings that they thought they needed to throw her out for. It hurt me that you would make a blanket statement like that. There are others here who I could worry about, there are too many others who I have seen throw out her books over things poited out in her writings that did not automatically fit their picture of her, but you don't seem like one of them who would let her go so easilly and you should not make any statement that makes you sound like you would.

[Gerr]

So where is that reference in AA?

[Kevin H]

John, I know that you and I are dealing with these "H" verses from different perspectives. You from someone who is struggling with it and me being a heterosexual who is baffeled with how people can feel that way, but who has come across things pointed out in discussions in our Bible classes, by people on both sides of the issue, where I have no further interest than in learning about the world and history of the Bible.

It is one thing when professors who are saying that the church needs to change it's views on homosexuality try to present these ideas. It is something else when those professors who feel that the church needs to defend the traditional view against homosexuality say "I will have to conceed that the text really does say..." Or "I have to admit that the context of the text really does not support this but we still have to apply it to a wider context than what the text is applying it to" etc.

My background and interest is no more than repeting these things that come from both sides of the debate so that we can either choose to study this or choose to leave this alone and study something else. Maybe you want to pretend that our scholars don't discuss this topic, if so pretend that I'm not being a tattle tale on them.

[Kevin H]

So where is that reference in AA?

My copy of AA is not on the bookshelf where I thought it was. Maybe it was the quote that John said. I've only heard the uproar when the quote was read, and have come across it when I'd read through/listen to tape through the conflect series. I recognize the points in what John said and how some who would be upset with the speakers would say "Well maybe if you also count the angels and the idea that even one person with God is a majority..." to keep from getting too upset. I need to either find where I put my copy or find another to see if it was the quote John found or not. I don't see the quote John found to be one that I can see upsetting people like I've seen them upset when it was read, but then again with a bunch like us who knows?

[Kevin H]

Sky: I really appreciate your testimony!!!!

[Kevin H]

Kevin, thanks for letting us know how God does His killing. And thanks for letting us know the true meaning of Sodomy.

But I was just wondering what God used to kill the first born males who refused to obey what God said at the first Passover? Hmmm?

1. I am uncomfortable to hear you say "How God does His killing" I want to limit what I wrote in that important post to the SECOND death, not to the first death. I believe that God does indeed kill in both the first and second death. In the first death he may be more active and the recipiant more passive, but the second death is a oneness of active and passive on both sides. If God did not want to kill he did not need to reveal himself to those who would be distroyed by his glory. However Hell fire is not the divine spanking that the other side tends to believe. We do not have the traditional Catholic-Baptist hell only shorter. God treats us all the same at the end, but we have two different resutls for the exact same treatment. He himself, his beauty, love and glory is the consuming fire killing the wicked and which is heaven and eternal life for the saved.

2. With all the frogs and bugs and death from the other plagues, there were germs around, however instead of them killing people randomly God caused them to only affect the first born showing that he has control over them.

3. The blood on the doorposts invited God to pass over their place, to stop over in his travels, to welcome God as a guest. The houses where the first born died were those who did not welcome God to passover their place, but but since he was not welcomed there he would just pass right on through that household and not stay there and it was only those places where God passed through without stopping over, where death came.

[John317]

Actually, if what the Bible says is true, that there is a devil waring against the church, one should expect that the church would be divided into various sects. Although the actual number of sects is much closer to a handful than 1,000.

You make an important point, Shane. I think we have to take into account the existence of the a war between powers of good and evil, and it includes people taking one side or the other, even when they don't know it. I think history shows that there is more involved in the problems of the world and of human society than simply mankind.

If we ignore this struggle between the forces of good and evil, I don't think our picture of what's happening in the world will be realistic. As you mention, it explains why the church is divided into various groups and also partially explains why people interpret the Bible to mean different and often contradictory ways.

The Bible is very clear that people can only understand and accept the truth if their minds are illuminated by the Holy Spirit. And Jesus said that whether we recieve what He said depends not on our intellectual capacity but on the spiritual condition of our minds and hearts. He said:

If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. John 7: 17

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." John 8: 47

Daniel 12:10

Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

1 Cor. 2:13-16

And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

[14] The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

[Kevin H]

I find much more evidence in the Bible that it is NOT the word of God than evidence that it is. I challenge anyone to find a single passage in the entire Bible that couldn't have been written by uninspired people living in the first century.

I can't find it now, but someplace else you were talking about Daniel, and I'd like to concure with the posts John has written you about Daniel. I hope that John does not get too upset that there are scholars that Daniel as a book was put together by Daniel's disciples shortly after his death, and that the arguments that liberal scholars have given that Daniel could not have been written by Daniel in the 6th century can be answered by not moving it way down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but that the language, while later than Daniel, is earlier than Antiochus and would support Daniel's disciples who would not have all the knowlege of Bablylon that Daniel himself would have, but would still have the words of Daniel himself ringing in their ears and knowlege of Babylon that would have been forgotten by Antiochus' day, and the earlier form of the language.

One argument is that Bellshazzar did not exist, and scholars debating if the 2300 evenings-mornings should refer to 2300 days as in Evenings and morings in Genesis, or if it should be the morning and evening sacrifices and thus 1150 days. They felt that 1155 days fit Antiochus better than 2300, however neither fit too well and they conclude that either was wishful thinking.

Well, Bellshazzar did exist, he was the second in the kingdom (thus able to offer the tird spot to someone) and Daniel happened to receive the vision of Daniel 8 in the same year that happened to include 2300 days from the fall of Babylon.

Since we can not explain the forgotten parts of history if Daniel was at the towards the end of the prophecys than it had to be written at the begining of the time predicted and before the predictions came true.

Another problem is that Daniel predicted, well first 4 kings, but later expanded to kingdoms, followed by the 4th kingdom becoming divided. This did not happen until after the fall of Rome. If Daniel was writing in the first century or so why would he stop at 4 kingdoms then have it divided instead of predicting a 5th beast? Daniel was already in the Bible when most but not all of his prophecy came true, and when we got the the next step of his prophecy a few centeries later sure enough Daniel was right.

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Shouldn't a book written directly inspired by God as we understand him be relatively clear on important issues? If it's so clear, why do +30,000 groups of people believe different things about it?

Actually, if what the Bible says is true, that there is a devil waring against the church, one should expect that the church would be divided into various sects. Although the actual number of sects is much closer to a handful than 1,000.

I would like to agree with Shane, but also point out that Jesus works with us where we are and we are all growing. God does not force the will. There is a very unassuming nature of God. We find Jesus asking a lot of questions to make people think rather than a lot of demands of what people should think. When Jesus asked "Who do people say that I am and who do you say that I am" and Peter answered "You are the Christ..." Jesus congratulated him because it was NOT flesh and blood that told him that-- in other words it was not a person, even Jesus himself as a person, who grabbed Peter's collar telling hime just what to believe. But through the disciples listening to Jesus, discussing the evidence and throught that the Holy Spirit lead them.

It sounds too much like you want God to be a clear demander instead of someone who has an unassuming nature and wants to lead us through study and questins and discussions, and even occasional dissagreements where we study deeper and come closer and closer to the truth.

[John317]

Hey, Kevin, you read me right here. I'm certainly not the type to quickly jettison either the Bible or Ellen White because of something that seems to be a contradiction or a "problem," and I definitely study things out-- or sometimes put things on a "back burner"-- in order to, if possible, make sense of them.

What I was really expressing there was that I don't believe Ellen White ever made the statement, or even implied, that there will be more people saved than lost. So I was only showing my confidence that she doesn't say it anywhere in her writings. As it turns out, the quote in AA doesn't mean that the majority of humanity will ultimately be saved. She is saying that with God on the side of the saved, the saved will be in a majority because God Himself is a majority. But notice that she says also that the saved in the city will be a small group compared to the unnumbered millions on the outside.

I don't at all see the prophecies by Jesus or John the Beloved or by Ellen White about the number lost vs. the number saved as something that is intended to discourage us. It is certainly not intended to make us feel we shouldn't tell the gospel to other people. I believe that God simply wants us to realize that we shouldn't expect all the world to be converted and to follow Christ. That is not going to happen.

It is also proof that being saved is not a matter of merely making a profession of faith in Christ or of being baptized or of having one's name on the church books. It's not even enouph to claim to believe the right doctrines. See Matt. 7: 21-23.

I also don't see the predictions about the many who will be lost as meaning God is limiting the number of people who can be saved. He wants everyone saved and He has done everything He can do to save all of us. The prophecies certainly don'spell doom for anyone. God simply knows in advance that the majority of humanity will follow Satan and that it will be a "little flock" who will be saved at last in Christ's kingdom. This won't be because it's hard to be saved, but because too many people refuse to die to sin and surrender their will to God.