Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,332 Excellent

About Steve_S

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 10/29/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Recent Profile Visitors

12,880 profile views
  1. Rom 6:11

    Nope. I'm asking a direct question with a yes or no answer. Are you claiming that statement is the direct revelation of God, which would put it in the area of being having the force of scripture. That is either a yes or a no. That's all. Quite simple.
  2. Rom 6:11

    I had to remove one member from this thread. Please keep it civil. Also, please stick to the topic.
  3. Rom 6:11

    I'm curious as to whether or not you are making the claim that this is a "thus saith the Lord" situation or what?
  4. Cancer.

  5. New Member sign up issues

    Do you have the name he used to try to create an account here?
  6. Was mary "full of grace"?

    I believe this one has ran its course.
  7. Why no Christian is Sinless.

    This one seems to have ran its course.
  8. Is Forum Slower These Days?

    I cleaned up this thread a bit. I didn't remove anyone and hope to not have to. Please be respectful of one another.
  9. The posts were removed yesterday. Sometimes it takes longer than a few minutes after a report for us to get to something, sometimes a lot longer, sometimes less, just depending.
  10. Quantum Effect or "Mandela Effect"

    I have read through this thread fairly intently and I've seen a lot of suppositions about the KJV being changed and not being changed. Has anyone simply thought to check the Masoretic text to see if it has changed? I just looked at it and the underlying word in the Masoretic has it as wolf (I will not even bother to transliterate the hebrew word, as I would be doing so from a position of incompetence). This is translated the same way in the NASB, NKJV, ESV, and YLT. Virtually ever major bible version you will see uses the Masoretic text as the old testament basis for translation. An English Septuagint translation I use also has wolf and the interlinear shows the greek word to have a definition of wolf. I realize that the controversy is over the KJV, but the masoretic text goes back thousands of years and the Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew 2300 years ago... Why does every single version of this have wolf? You can make arguments regarding King James, but we are talking about the root text here. The masoretic text is basically the hebrew bible and the septuagint was quoted in the new testament multiple times by multiple people, including Christ himself. As shiloh pointed out, God promised to preserve His word. This goes way beyond the KJV. The claim here seems to be that God is allowing every single known extant copy of His word to be corrupted through time travel or interdimensional shifts or some such? I'm not buying that.
  11. Not this israel

    This one has ran its course.
  12. I Keep Doing Without

    I cleaned this thread up a little bit. If you'd still like me to lock it, shoot me a PM.
  13. Evolution

    I believe this thread has ran its course.
  14. Indeed, me either. That's one of those things that you can read past 100 times. The more I study the scriptures the more I realize that every single detail has value.
  15. Through the years, particularly since the reformation, but even going back to the third century A.D. (at least), there have been several attempts to claim that the book of Daniel was written by either more than one person or by one person in the 2nd century B.C., about 450 years after it was actually written (this is probably the majority viewpoint amongst liberal biblical scholars and secular historians). This particular method of interpretation is generally referred to as "late dating" and also occurs with other prophetic books and prophecies within the bible (liberal scholars and secular historians are notorious in their attempts to late date of parts of Isaiah, for instance). The reason this happens is, of course, the accuracy of the prophecy contained within the scriptures. With regards to the book of Daniel specifically, this seems to have gotten its start with a man named Porphyry who was a secular philosopher from Tyre. He read the book of Daniel and came to the realization that he was reading an incredibly accurate and specific accounting of world history (particularly Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11). The main problem, though, from his perspective, was that the majority of what he was reading was believed to have been written 800 years earlier and anywhere from a few years to several centuries before some of these highly specific events took place. It was written from a purely prophetic perspective, having this history being recounted through dreams and visions of the future, not the past, the meanings of which were then interpreted for the reader in some cases. He decided that such accurate prophecy was impossible and wrote a document entitled "against the Christians", basically making the claim that at least parts of Daniel was written during and/or after the Maccabean period of Israelite history. Fast forward about 1400 years or so and the first liberal theologians of the post reformation era are emerging. Many of them take Porphyry's ideas and run with them. In fact, there are those who claim Christ both then and today who do not believe that the book of Daniel (or at least some of it) was written by Daniel. First of all, there is a pretty significant theological problem with that, as Christ Himself agreed that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel: Mat 24:15 "Therefore when you see the 'ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), Every Christian who may have been or may be under the teaching of one of these types of people or may simply have read some things on the internet and are considering whether or not there is any truth to it, should strongly consider that Christ Himself spoke on this matter and did so in concrete terms. Moving past this very obvious and important fact, I think one interesting person to look at regarding this controversy is Belshazzar. For several decades, amongst those in the more liberal theological circles that were forming in the late 18th and early 19th century in the United States and Europe, Belshazzar was simply a name in the book of Daniel attributed to the king of Babylon at the time of its fall to the Persians. He was the man who ordered the temple articles be used during the party that he was throwing in the "writing on the wall" chapter (Daniel 5). In fact, they did not believe he ever existed - at all. A man named Nabonidus was known to be the king of Babylon according to the historical record and that man was not even present in Babylon when it fell. They believed that whoever wrote Daniel in the 2nd century B.C. was so clueless as to what happened in history, that they simply made up a name for the king of Babylon and concocted the whole writing on the wall story, then used the same person being in his first year for the introductory verse of Daniel 7. In the mid 19th century a Babylonian cylinder was dug out of the ground at Ur in southern Iraq. Cylinders such as these were literal cylinders that were encircled in writing. This particular cylinder is believed to have been buried during a ceremony dedicating a repaired temple in in the early 6th Century B.C. On this cylinder a Babylonian king, Nabonidus, writes a prayer for his first born son... Belshazzar. A clay tablet, the text of which was translated and published in the early 20th century and has been written on several times since, called the Verse Account of Nabonidus, though not actually written by Nabonidus himself, records that he basically entrusted the kingship to his first born son while he was away in Tema. It turns out that Nabonidus spent a majority of the time that he was king away from Babylon, setting up his headquarters elsehwere and leaving Belshazzar as king in Babylon, a common arrangement in antiquity known as a coregency. There is actually what could be considered an allusion to this in Daniel 5. Dan 5:29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. Many expositors believe that the reason he was made third ruler in the kingdom rather than second, is that the top two positions were already taken by father and son. I tend to agree with this, even though it could be considered marginally conjectural. At any rate, one would think that this would have been quite a revelation for those who were late dating Daniel. Here you have the bible being the only known book that mentions that the king of Babylon was Belshazzar. This endured for 2500 years. Not once in any historical record (that I know of) is Belshazzar mentioned and the cylinder that had his name on it in Ur was believed to have remained buried from the time it was written, which would've actually been before the writing of Daniel 5 and Daniel 7. So, since the argument before was that the fake Daniel was uninformed and made up the name Belshazzar, it would be reasonable to assume that the inverse would now be true - nobody in the second century B.C. would've known about Belshazzar, because his name simply was not present in the historical record at the time. It was not present in the historical record outside of the bible until the mid 19th Century A.D. As such, it would stand to reason, that this would be pretty solid proof that Daniel was indeed written when it claims to have been. Only someone present at the time would've known that Belshazzar was acting as king in Babylon while his father was spending the majority of his rule in another city in another region. Unfortunately, of course, these people simply changed their approach. Without going too deeply into that, the discovery of Belshazzar as a historical person did not much change the opinion of anyone on the liberal side of this argument (though I'm sure there are exceptions). What this episode ultimately goes toward proving is that those who wish to reject the legitimacy of scripture are doing so from a position of, at the least, skepticism about the veracity of things like inspiration and prophecy. At most, from a position of being wolves amongst the flock, trying to sow doubt and damage the faith of believers. For us here in this group, it is just one more amongst the many, many pieces of evidence that confirm that God's word is trustworthy. Ultimately, though, our faith is in Christ and this world is most definitely not our home. While finding evidence that substantiates the scriptures is certainly a good thing... even still, had men not dug at Ur and found Belshazzar's name, with our faith being rooted in Christ, we would still have just as much reason to trust the word.