You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!

Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User:	"Claude Latremouille"
Date:	27 Jun 2004 04:16:37 PM
Object:	You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.
*
A useful feature of this gradual transformation has been to show
the odd thinking processes of many regular posters. On the one
hand, they (legitimately) complain about off-topic posts, on the
other, they occupy themselves responding to these very off-topic
articles, thereby feeding the beast they apparently seek to
destroy.
*
People interested in Nostradamus' Prophecies might wish to get a
fresh start by referring to archived articles from this NewsGroup
and dating back to 'the good old days' when Nostradamus *was* the
main topic here.
*
To assist those who might wish to do that, in the Summer and Fall
of 2002, I had re-posted many original (and not so original!)
articles spanning the first three years (December 1994 to January
1998) of my own participation to the group.
*
To make these articles easier to retrieve, their titles all begin
with the mention APNCL# followed with a 4-digit article number.
from 0001 to 0128.
*
Remember, Google is your friend... protecting you from those who
employ the "X-No-Archive: yes" line, so as to fool those they
send on a wild-goose chase of articles they have never written.
*
Another telling feature of this God-forsaken NewsGroup!
*
Have a nice day, ye all!
*
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latrémouille % -- "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' -- %
Le 27 juin 2004 --- % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses,- %
APNCL#1427 -------- % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*
===

===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
--
***

***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.

User: "dreamwalker"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	27 Jun 2004 05:53:04 PM

"Claude Latremouille" <cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:cbndfl$61q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...

===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
--
***

***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Didn't you hear? This has become the hate George Bush newsgroup. Who wants to discuss Nosty. I'm
having too much fun for that crap.
.

User: "TonyZ2001"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	01 Jul 2004 08:54:50 AM

"dreamwalker"

wrote:

Didn't you hear? This has become the >hate George Bush newsgroup.

Yep, a bunch of losers who are frustrated at their people being out of power.

Who wants to discuss Nosty. I'm
having too much fun for that crap.

You are?
Tony
.

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	28 Jun 2004 11:32:40 PM

(Claude Latremouille) wrote in message news:<cbndfl$61q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I originally came here after seeing the Orson Welles movie "The Man
Who Saw Tomorrow." My original posts to this group were Nostradamus
related, but only one guy (whose name I don't even see around here
anymore) bothered to engage me in conversation on the Nostradamus
topic. Then I noticed the political discussions, and jumped in. It's
actually a good mix of political opinions. I like it.
.

User: "Jane"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	29 Jun 2004 07:39:32 AM

"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2b35e99.0406282032.4793efb3@posting.google.com...

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Claude Latremouille) wrote in message

news:<cbndfl$61q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

Me too. I don't think I would have stuck around if it were *only* about
Nosty!
Claude could start a moderated group if he wishes to discuss only
Nostradamus.
Jane
.

User: "TonyZ2001"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	01 Jul 2004 08:57:20 AM

"Jane"

wrote:

Claude could start a moderated group if >he wishes to discuss only

Nostradamus.
Why should he have to?
All the people who only wish to fight about politics can go to any number of
political discussion groups.
Those who just want to express their hatred for President Bush can go to an Al
Qeada group.
Tony
.

User: "Jane"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	01 Jul 2004 02:55:51 PM

(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20040701095720.19313.00000969@mb-m04.aol.com>...

"Jane"

wrote:

Claude could start a moderated group if >he wishes to discuss only

Nostradamus.

Why should he have to?

All the people who only wish to fight about politics can go to any number of
political discussion groups.

Those who just want to express their hatred for President Bush can go to an Al
Qeada group.

Tony

of course he doesn't have to, but you can't expect an 'alt' group to
be exclusively on topic! I admit I never post on topic, only because
i don't know enough about it. I have had a couple Nosty books in my
library for years. Both are doom-and-gloom, but interesting. I first
found this group after 9-11, when there were articles saying this or
that quatrain was about 9-11. I came here to learn what I could. I
just lurked here for the longest time and then started sticking my
nose in...I am not very busy at work right now, as the plant I am in
is closing soon. When I get back to a busier plant, I will likely go
back to lurking, if I even get much chance to do that!
Anyway, I got the impression that you also liked the political
arguements (?)
Jane
.

User: ""
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	02 Jul 2004 08:10:56 AM

On 01 Jul 2004 13:57:20 GMT,

(TonyZ2001) wrote:

"Jane"

wrote:

Claude could start a moderated group if >he wishes to discuss only

Nostradamus.

Why should he have to?

All the people who only wish to fight about politics can go to any number of
political discussion groups.

Those who just want to express their hatred for President Bush can go to an Al
Qeada group.

Tony

No we are here to counter your propoganda *****, when you quit we
will quit.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick with possibilities:truth isin't"
Mark Twain
.

User: "TonyZ2001"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	02 Jul 2004 11:00:16 AM

Zak@home.com

wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:

"Jane"

wrote:

Claude could start a moderated group if >he wishes to discuss only

Nostradamus.

Why should he have to?

All the people who only wish to fight about politics can go to any number of
political discussion groups.

Those who just want to express their hatred for President Bush can go to an

Qeada group.

Tony

No we are here to counter your >propoganda *****, when you quit we
will quit.

You will die first, so just go and shoot yourself you AntiAmerican freak.
Tony
.

User: "Claude Latremouille"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	29 Jun 2004 12:43:13 PM

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:39:32 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote about what
*
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:a2b35e99.0406282032.4793efb3@posting.google.com...

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Claude Latremouille) wrote in message

news:<cbndfl$61q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

Me too. I don't think I would have stuck around if it were *only* about
Nosty!

Claude could start a moderated group if he wishes to discuss only
Nostradamus.

Jane

*
Claude sometimes discusses different subjects in different
NewsGroups where it is nice to see people interested in the same
topic talk about it. Very few off-topic articles, there. The
issue here is not that there are *some* off-topic articles, but
that there are of late almost no articles about Nostradamus.
*
You seem to consider this situation 'normal'. What would someone
intending to destroy this NewsGroup do? Exactly what has been
done to it.
*
As to discussing politics, there is nothing wrong about that
(some of my best friends do discuss politics a lot... elsewhere),
but I would venture the opinion that if that were tried in some
other groups I know about, the posters would politely be asked to
go fly a kite... elsewhere.
*
As to Orson Welles' movie about Nostradamus, I just saw it again
recently in its French version, and was amazed at the quantity of
stupidities which can be said especially about Nostradamus' life.
*
But a fascinating element of the film (it was made in 1982, its
French version is dated 1994), is that its makers had no idea at
the time about al-Qaida and Ben Laden & Co., but nevertheless
managed to point to an attack against New York by Muslims.
*
The only problem, of course, is that they thought the attack
would be nuclear, whereas we all know that a few boxcutters were
sufficient to allow 19 people to take control of four fully
fuelled commercial planes, and do the damage they eventually did.
*
Which goes to show that one ought not 'mix and match'
Nostradamus' quatrains, as some might lead us to bits and pieces
of the future, while others might lead us astray.
*
In this specific case, quatrains about the nuclear destruction of
Paris (at 48 degrees latitude) were understood to apply to New
York (the new city), hence the incorrect result mentioned in the
film. Both items taken separately were correctly understood, but
lumping them together produced an incorrect result.
*
There is, of course, the matter of these countless morons who
can't quite get it in their thick head that New York *is not* at
45 degrees of latitude, that Paris *is* at 48 degrees of
latitude, and who insist that these indications by Nostradamus
are to be ignored.
*
There is even one King of Disinformation who persisted in
misquoting the Prophecy so as not to write about this 48 degrees
of latitude thingy. Why? Because he would then have had to
concede that Nostradamus was giving the latitude of Paris, after
having repeatedly denied that the destruction of Paris is hidden
absolutely everywhere in Nostradamus' 30 books.
*
Clever, eh, this Nostradamus?!
*
Claude Latrémouille
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
===

===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
--
***

***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.

User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	29 Jun 2004 07:54:00 PM

(Claude Latremouille) wrote in message news:<cbs9nh$hen$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:39:32 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote about what
*
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:a2b35e99.0406282032.4793efb3@posting.google.com...

(Claude Latremouille) wrote in message

news:<cbndfl$61q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

Me too. I don't think I would have stuck around if it were *only* about
Nosty!

Claude could start a moderated group if he wishes to discuss only
Nostradamus.

Jane

bin Laden. Claude bin is a formal usage like Mr. Its how they write
it.
Ben is a name. Bin is not.

but nevertheless
managed to point to an attack against New York by Muslims.

Orson Welles and the makers of the movie were special on that case
alone.
Early 1999 the plot finalized and OK'd by Laden - September 11, 1999
Clinton had the terrorist profile ( On his desk) with mentions of the
WTT ( With Picture) and planes as weapons. Associated Press. He said
he could not believe the source that he ordered on June 29th , 1999.
From Nostradamus 1999 Facts
http://prophet.michaelreport.com/nostradamus/1999/faq.htm
Clinton's comments on this in May 2002, when Washington Post
(Associated Press) released it were, "Well we had hundreds of reports
like these all the time."
He was a liar once again because he ordered this report personally.
*1999 was a special year in history Claude for Nostradamus.
Full 9/11 stories are now hosted here with the 9/11 Commissions (June
2004) main contributions.
http://michaelreport.com/news/archive/063004.html

*
The only problem, of course, is that they thought the attack
would be nuclear, whereas we all know that a few boxcutters were
sufficient to allow 19 people to take control of four fully
fuelled commercial planes, and do the damage they eventually did.

It launched a new era Claude that is sufficient enough for N.

*
Which goes to show that one ought not 'mix and match'

You obviously mix so why are you telling your audience this? Just
translate then make an interpretation.
.

User: "Claude Latremouille"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	17 Sep 2004 11:15:45 AM

Sifting through the garbage left over on 29 Jun 2004 17:54:00 -0700 by
abookoflife@yahoo.com (Michael Johnathan McDonald), and to make Jean Guernon
finally choke to death,

(Claude Latremouille) wrote
in message news:<cbs9nh$hen$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... something which
prompted this sole nugget of truth:
*

*1999 was a special year in history Claude for Nostradamus.

*
Indeed, it was. It is the year the decyphered prophecy became
available to his reading public, courtesy of... yours truly.
*
I know, I know, the clowns here will say that *I* made it happen
that way, so this coincidence is by no means prophetic. Well,
I've got news for them.
*
Those familiar with the vagaries of publishing will no doubt
recall that I was expecting the book to come out in... 1996!
*
Then, an unexpected turn of events happened: my would-be
publisher chickened out and decided not to publish it.
Fortunately for him and for me, it turned out, as I discovered
still unsuspected elements to the decyphered prophecy.
*
In 1997, as I was postponing that publication, one of the
regulars here, Brian Mattys, suggested (jokingly, I thought) that
1999 was an important year for Nostradamus because that would be
the year my book would eventually be published. Although (in
1997) I was then desperately attempting to get the book published
a.s.a.p., it turns out that Brian was absolutely right... about
the year of publication. So, it was not quite unexpected for me
to find, in one of the decyphered versions of X-72, you know, the
quatrain speaking of 1999, a statement to that effect.
*
To demonstrate that 1999 was indeed a very special year in
Nostradamus' eyes, here is again X-72 and that decyphered text:
*
-------------- C E N T V R I E___D I X I E S M E. ------------
------------------ (édition prétendue de 1568) ---------------
*
-------------------------- L X X I I. ------------------------
--------- L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois ----------
--------- Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy deffraieur ------------
--------- Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois. ---------------
--------- Auant apres Mars regner par bon heur. --------------
*
--------- En l'An Mil Neuf Cens Nonante Neuf, mon si ---------
--------- rude Oracle viendra en Grande France luy -----------
--------- annoncer le sort que son si Digne Amy, -------------
--------- le Grand U S, a préparé à Mon Cher Paris. ----------
*
Which, for the gallically challenged, and with the usual
asterisks between words no longer used or spelled thus, reads in
modern English: 'In the Year One Thousand Nine *Hundred* *Ninety*
Nine, my so rude Oracle shall come to Great France, announcing
*her* the fate which her so Worthy *Friend*, the Great US, has
prepared for my so Dear Paris.'
*
And so, in 1999, one of the very first copies of my book crossed
the Atlantic so as to serve as an early warning for the fateful
day of August 13, 2017, in Paris.
*
Have a nice day, ye all!
*
Claude Latrémouille
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
===

===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
--
***

***
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.

User: "Thierry Vigneron"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	18 Sep 2004 03:09:47 AM

you can show the quatrain which speaks about your life, in ways
specifies, not by anagram, because it announces only 4 translators,
who had each one their quatrain!
.

User: "Steven Douglas"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	30 Jun 2004 04:41:14 PM

(Claude Latremouille) wrote in message news:<cbs9nh$hen$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:39:32 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote about what
*
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message

news:a2b35e99.0406282032.4793efb3@posting.google.com...

(Claude Latremouille) wrote in message

news:<cbndfl$61q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

Me too. I don't think I would have stuck around if it were *only* about
Nosty!

Claude could start a moderated group if he wishes to discuss only
Nostradamus.

Jane

Yes, and I originally came over here to read some articles about
Nostradamus.

*
You seem to consider this situation 'normal'. What would someone
intending to destroy this NewsGroup do? Exactly what has been
done to it.

I have absolutely no intention to destroy this newsgroup. If that has
happened, it must have happened long before I arrived.

*
As to discussing politics, there is nothing wrong about that
(some of my best friends do discuss politics a lot... elsewhere),
but I would venture the opinion that if that were tried in some
other groups I know about, the posters would politely be asked to
go fly a kite... elsewhere.

True, I have done that on one sports newsgroup where I occasionally
post. Those of us who cared about it managed to keep that sports group
politics free!

*
As to Orson Welles' movie about Nostradamus, I just saw it again
recently in its French version, and was amazed at the quantity of
stupidities which can be said especially about Nostradamus' life.
*
But a fascinating element of the film (it was made in 1982, its
French version is dated 1994), is that its makers had no idea at
the time about al-Qaida and Ben Laden & Co., but nevertheless
managed to point to an attack against New York by Muslims.

That's what fascinated me. I understand they mixed and matched
prophecies. But *somehow* they came up with two flying projectiles,
guided by Islamic terrorists, crashing into the New York City skyline.
Even the timeline was not far off. Whether Nostradamus predicted it or
not, the makers of that movie did (using prophecies of Nostradamus to
do it).

No, the movie makers' prediction wasn't perfect. But for a prediction
made 20 years in advance (and predicted to happen within 20 years), it
was not all that far off.

*
Which goes to show that one ought not 'mix and match'
Nostradamus' quatrains, as some might lead us to bits and pieces
of the future, while others might lead us astray.

Do you have an interpretation for the quatrain(s) the movie used? Is
it still in the future? Or is it just that it never happened?
.

User: "Su Zanne"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	28 Jun 2004 09:04:51 PM

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Claude=A0Latremouille) wrote:
Over the past six years, this NewsGroup
has degenerated from a reasonably
useful discussion group about
Nostradamus' Prophecies to a slow
chatroom about everything but
Nostradamus' Prophecies.

The price of milk at WALMART is over $4.50 a gallon! :-O
We just may be in the END TIMES of milk!
Su Zanne
hey.....don't look at me, I've only been here for 2 of the 6 years of
decline.
.

User: "dreamwalker"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	28 Jun 2004 10:05:10 PM

"Su Zanne" <tugbertswife@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9080-40E0CE43-121@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net...

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Claude Latremouille) wrote:
Over the past six years, this NewsGroup
has degenerated from a reasonably
useful discussion group about
Nostradamus' Prophecies to a slow
chatroom about everything but
Nostradamus' Prophecies.

The price of milk at WALMART is over $4.50 a gallon! :-O
$2.10 a gallon at Piggly Wiggly. But then again, I live in the dairy state.
We just may be in the END TIMES of milk!
Su Zanne
hey.....don't look at me, I've only been here for 2 of the 6 years of
decline.
.

User: "Uncle Wallys World"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	29 Jun 2004 05:14:56 AM

(Su Zanne) wrote in message news:<9080-40E0CE43-121@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net>...

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Claude Latremouille) wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup
has degenerated from a reasonably
useful discussion group about
Nostradamus' Prophecies to a slow
chatroom about everything but
Nostradamus' Prophecies.

The price of milk at WALMART is over $4.50 a gallon! :-O

We just may be in the END TIMES of milk!

Shocking !!!!
It is $1.50 per liter here down under in Melbourne, Oz, Sweetie-puffs ;-)
That's 6 big buckeroos in your language !!!!
and don't start your poor ol' Uncle Wally on the price of petrol ;-)
HOOROO :-)
Uncle Wally ;-) (no use crying over spilt milk ;-)
==========================================================================

Su Zanne

hey.....don't look at me, I've only been here for 2 of the 6 years of
decline.

User: "TonyZ2001"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	01 Jul 2004 08:53:45 AM

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup >has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about >Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but >Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I'm all for bringing back those days when we would argue about prophecy, but
too many people here are unwilling to stand up agains those who have ruined
this group.

A useful feature of this gradual >transformation has been to show
the odd thinking processes of many regular posters. On the one
hand, they (legitimately) complain about off-topic posts, on the
other, they occupy themselves responding to these very off-topic
articles, thereby feeding the beast they >apparently seek to destroy.

The main culprits to this are Amy, Chris, Dani, Zak and other Anti-American
posters
who are more interested in posting things from other newsgroups. They do this
because they are incapable of debating any issues of propehcy or current events
that may be related to prophecy.

People interested in Nostradamus' >Prophecies might wish to get a
fresh start by referring to archived articles >from this NewsGroup
and dating back to 'the good old days' >when Nostradamus *was* the main topic
here.

All well and good, but unless this group unites against these abusers as it did
against Soiled Dog, they we are doomed to see more of the same.
Tony

To assist those who might wish to do that, in the Summer and Fall
of 2002, I had re-posted many original (and not so original!)
articles spanning the first three years (December 1994 to January
1998) of my own participation to the group.
*
To make these articles easier to retrieve, their titles all begin
with the mention APNCL# followed with a 4-digit article number.
from 0001 to 0128.
*
Remember, Google is your friend... protecting you from those who
employ the "X-No-Archive: yes" line, so as to fool those they
send on a wild-goose chase of articles they have never written.
*
Another telling feature of this God-forsaken NewsGroup!
*
Have a nice day, ye all!

User: ""
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	02 Jul 2004 08:06:58 AM

On 01 Jul 2004 13:53:45 GMT,

(TonyZ2001) wrote:

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup >has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about >Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but >Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I'm all for bringing back those days when we would argue about prophecy, but
too many people here are unwilling to stand up agains those who have ruined
this group.

All well and good, but unless this group unites against these abusers as it did
against Soiled Dog, they we are doomed to see more of the same.

Tony

Hahahahah, good luck there pantyboy. Maybe if you quit posting your
idiocy we would talk more about prophecy, but since you insist on
posting all your American propoganda ***** get used to the oppiste
poit of view. As for SlowFog, he still is rearing his ugly head every
once in a while, or didn't your Alien buddies tell you that.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged
to stick with possibilities:truth isin't"
Mark Twain
.

User: "Cuan"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	02 Jul 2004 07:16:31 AM

On 01 Jul 2004 13:53:45 GMT,

(TonyZ2001) wrote:

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup >has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about >Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but >Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I'm all for bringing back those days when we would argue about prophecy, but
too many people here are unwilling to stand up agains those who have ruined
this group.

Yeah yeah, Mr WorldNet "It's OK to Insult Woman" Daily. You post so
much relevant material, I could just....scroll over it.

All well and good, but unless this group unites against these abusers as it did
against Soiled Dog, they we are doomed to see more of the same.

Tony

This group? just who is that? Jean "Megalomaniac" Guernon, TonyZ
"Dumbo" 2001, Michael Johnathan "Ronald" "Ranger Boy" McDonald, Dream
"Kill the Whites" "Kill the Moslems" Walker?
Seems you lot are united already. Are you having the desired effect?
Well, it depends what side of the fence you're on. In your case, no.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	02 Jul 2004 08:12:48 AM

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:16:31 +0200, Cuan <an@nymous.co.za> wrote:

On 01 Jul 2004 13:53:45 GMT,

(TonyZ2001) wrote:

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup >has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about >Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but >Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I'm all for bringing back those days when we would argue about prophecy, but
too many people here are unwilling to stand up agains those who have ruined
this group.

Yeah yeah, Mr WorldNet "It's OK to Insult Woman" Daily. You post so
much relevant material, I could just....scroll over it.

All well and good, but unless this group unites against these abusers as it did
against Soiled Dog, they we are doomed to see more of the same.

Tony

This group? just who is that? Jean "Megalomaniac" Guernon, TonyZ
"Dumbo" 2001, Michael Johnathan "Ronald" "Ranger Boy" McDonald, Dream
"Kill the Whites" "Kill the Moslems" Walker?

Seems you lot are united already. Are you having the desired effect?
Well, it depends what side of the fence you're on. In your case, no.

Hahahaha, so true. Maybe we should unite against the above mentioned
idiots?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick with possibilities:truth isin't"
Mark Twain
.

User: "Absolute Zero"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	02 Jul 2004 05:15:28 PM

TonyZ2001 wrote:

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I'm all for bringing back those days when we would argue about prophecy, but
too many people here are unwilling to stand up agains those who have ruined
this group.

I would rather like to see Claude respond to you here, Tony, because I
was rather under the impression that one of his chief complaints would
be against the cut 'n paste WorldNutDaily "news" that you are chiefly
responsible for.
And spare me the ***** that it's related to prophecy, it isn't, no
more so than Saddam Hussein being the anti-Christ.

A useful feature of this gradual transformation has been to show
the odd thinking processes of many regular posters. On the one
hand, they (legitimately) complain about off-topic posts, on the
other, they occupy themselves responding to these very off-topic
articles, thereby feeding the beast they >apparently seek to

destroy.

The main culprits to this are Amy, Chris, Dani, Zak and other Anti-American
posters

Amy is guilty of exposing my junk peddling perversion.
Dani is guilty of rejecting my sleazy approaches.

who are more interested in posting things from other newsgroups.

That would be me, yes, I oppose degenerate evil wherever I find it.
Whereas you seemed determined to convince everyone that you're insane
by making up hundreds of threads about a girl who had the consumate
good sense to reject you.

They do this
because they are incapable of debating any issues of propehcy or current
events that may be related to prophecy.

Like when I challenged the veracity of Daniel and you ran away?

People interested in Nostradamus' >Prophecies might wish to get a
fresh start by referring to archived articles >from this NewsGroup
and dating back to 'the good old days' >when Nostradamus *was* the

main topic

here.

All well and good, but unless this group unites against these abusers as it
did against Soiled Dog, they we are doomed to see more of the same.

Please help me against those that EXPOSE me, puhleeeeeze.
-A
Tony in alt.drugs.hard
"What is the going price for Oxcodone 40mg tab on the street?"
"That much? I'm sitting on 200 of these jokers. Thanks for the info."
.

User: "Absolute Zero"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	03 Jul 2004 07:32:14 PM

Cuan wrote:

On 2 Jul 2004 15:15:28 -0700,

(Absolute Zero)
wrote:

[...]

Tony in alt.drugs.hard
"What is the going price for Oxcodone 40mg tab on the street?"
"That much? I'm sitting on 200 of these jokers. Thanks for the info."

aah, a potential peddler of contraband. Interesting.

Tony on a street corner, peddling 'roids. What else do you sell,
Toony?

Oxycodone is a highly addictive, heroin derivative; far more serious
than 'roids.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/oxycodone.html
As you can see, Tony was *delighted* to discover his stash was worth
$8,000 (street).
Usually with his pervert posts he pretends that either someone hijacked
his account or that the poster wasn't him. This time however he claims to
be "pulling their legs". Dunno about you but I'm laughing.
-A
.

User: "Cuan"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	04 Jul 2004 04:20:16 AM

On 3 Jul 2004 17:32:14 -0700,

(Absolute Zero)
wrote:

Cuan wrote:

On 2 Jul 2004 15:15:28 -0700,

(Absolute Zero)
wrote:

[...]

Tony in alt.drugs.hard
"What is the going price for Oxcodone 40mg tab on the street?"
"That much? I'm sitting on 200 of these jokers. Thanks for the info."

aah, a potential peddler of contraband. Interesting.

Tony on a street corner, peddling 'roids. What else do you sell,
Toony?

Oxycodone is a highly addictive, heroin derivative; far more serious
than 'roids.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/oxycodone.html

oh I see...

As you can see, Tony was *delighted* to discover his stash was worth
$8,000 (street).

Usually with his pervert posts he pretends that either someone hijacked
his account or that the poster wasn't him. This time however he claims to
be "pulling their legs". Dunno about you but I'm laughing.

same old, same old. Tony the Ironic.
.

User: "Absolute Zero"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	03 Jul 2004 07:39:06 PM

TonyZ2001 wrote:

amycaton@hotmail.com

wrote:

TonyZ2001 wrote:

cj559@FreeNet.Carleton.CA

wrote:

Over the past six years, this NewsGroup has degenerated from a
reasonably useful discussion group about Nostradamus' Prophecies
to a slow chatroom about everything but Nostradamus' Prophecies.

I'm all for bringing back those days when we would argue about

prophecy,

but

too many people here are unwilling to stand up agains those who

have ruined

this group.

I would rather like to see Claude respond to you here, Tony, because

was rather under the impression that one of his chief complaints

would

be against the cut 'n paste WorldNutDaily "news" that you are

chiefly

responsible for.

What are you talking about?

Reading difficulties? Ask Claude if he supports your agitprop "news"
postings.

You have never offered this group anything other than flame wars.

In your worthless opinion, which maybe three people lend any
credence..
two of whom are Walter Mitty fantasists. What do you call 212 threads
created about Dani? Newsgroup enhancing?

And spare me the ***** that it's related to prophecy, it isn't,

So nothing that happens today is realted to prophecy?

I said YOU post ***** designed to support your deranged agenda.
Like the presentation of pre-1991, 20km missiles as the looooong
awaited discovery of WMD.
And the truth?
=>
Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by
Polish troops did NOT contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman
said Friday....The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad,
Iraq, said in a statement Friday that the 122-millimeter rocket
rounds, which initially showed traces of sarin, "were all empty and
tested negative for any type of chemicals."
<=
Are they even illegal, Goebbels?

Hmmm, that would mean
that there is no prophecy, which is your stance in the first place and why you
would rather not discuss it.

So why do you snip and run every time I mention Daniel, fraud?

no more so than Saddam Hussein being the anti-Christ.

Yeah yeah, and you're going to go into shock when he once again rules over
Iraq.

Tell you what Tone, I will quit APN forever if Saddam rules over
Iraq again. How about you, chicken *****? Will you DARE to accept the
counter bet? Nope, this *IS* your sad little life, isn't it?

Amy is incapable of focusing on subjects within this newsgroup,

So why do you snip and run every time I mention Daniel, fraud?

because if she
did, she wouldn't be able to sling mud in order to try to bolster her all too
weak points.

Who are you talking to? Your imaginary fans or the voices in your
head?
-A
Tony in alt.drugs.hard
"What is the going price for Oxcodone 40mg tab on the street?"
"That much? I'm sitting on 200 of these jokers. Thanks for the info."
.

User: "TonyZ2001"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	04 Jul 2004 08:04:38 AM

amycaton@hotmail.com

wrote:

Tell you what Tone, I will quit APN >forever if Saddam rules over
Iraq again.

No you won't, you'll do what every other clown that has said they were leaving
has done.
But when it happens I'll be able to kick your ***** with it every single day.

So why do you snip and run every time I >mention Daniel, fraud?

As I've told you before, Jesus called Daniel a Prophet, who are you to refute
Jesus?
Tony
.

User: "Absolute Zero"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	06 Jul 2004 04:04:59 AM

Paging the run-away chicken-*****, Mr Zero, your time is up.
TonyZ2001 wrote:

amycaton@hotmail.com

wrote:

Run away snips:
Scared to ask Claude if he supports your WorldNutDaily "news"
service?
Couldn't respond to this?
====================================================================
I said YOU post ***** designed to support your deranged agenda.
Like the presentation of pre-1991, 20km missiles as the looooong
awaited discovery of WMD.
And the truth?
=>
Sixteen rocket warheads found last week in south-central Iraq by
Polish troops did NOT contain deadly chemicals, a coalition spokesman
said Friday....The Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad,
Iraq, said in a statement Friday that the 122-millimeter rocket
rounds, which initially showed traces of sarin, "were all empty and
tested negative for any type of chemicals."
<=
Are they even illegal, Goebbels?
====================================================================

Tell you what Tone, I will quit APN forever if Saddam rules over
Iraq again.

No you won't,

Yes I will, chickenshit.

you'll do what every other clown that has said they were leaving
has done.

No I won't, chickenshit.

But when it happens I'll be able to kick your ***** with it every single day.

Sure, chickenshit.
Why did you snip this, chickenshit?
====================================================================
How about you, chickenshit? Will you DARE to accept the
counter bet? Nope, this *IS* your sad little life, isn't it?
====================================================================
Your turn, chickenshit.
No faith in your predictions, chickenshit?
What are the chances of this being snipped, chickenshit?

So why do you snip and run every time I mention Daniel, fraud?

As I've told you before,

No you haven't, you've always run away.

Jesus called Daniel a Prophet, who are you to refute Jesus?

Jesus is also "recorded" as telling those around him that they would
witness the end times, they didn't. But seeing as nothing was written
until much later, seeing as there are many contradictions in the
gospels written by MEN, seeing that the books chosen for the official
cannon were CHOSEN... I wouldn't be so confident that I have refuted the
real Yeshua.
Expand your microscopic mind by processing that written below the sig.
Then come back and argue that Daniel is prophecy rather than second-rate
history. You won't, chickenshit.
-A
Tony in alt.drugs.hard
"What is the going price for Oxcodone 40mg tab on the street?"
"Wow!
That much? I'm sitting on 200 of these jokers. Thanks for the info."
Of all the arguments used to justify belief in the divine inspiration of
scripture, the most impressive has always been the argument regarding
biblical prophecy. How, it is asked, could the prophets have predicted
world events in both the near and distant future — supposedly in amazing
detail — if they were not directed by a god in their utterances. Modem
scientists can't predict the weather even two days in advance, whereas
the prophet Daniel, supposedly writing around the year 530 B.C., is
believed to have predicted accurately the political events of the Greek
and Roman world up to the time of Jesus.
It has been said of ordinary mortals that their hindsight is often
20/20, but their foresight is usually dim or lacking altogether. How
different they seem from ancient Hebrew prophets, who allegedly could
see into the future and into the past equally well!
But could they? Or was their "prophecy" actually prophetia ex eventu —
prophecy written after the event? Space does not permit an analysis of
all the prophets of the Bible. But one may learn a great deal about
prophecy in general by examining carefully a specific example: the Book
of Daniel. In particular, one will want to consider whether or not the
book could possibly have been written at the time the prophet Daniel is
supposed to have lived — the period of the Babylonian Captivity or Exile
— or whether it was composed centuries later, after most of the events
"predicted" in the book had already occurred.
Evidence Against Exilic Composition
There is very solid evidence 1 which indicates that the Book of Daniel
was written much later than the Babylonian Captivity (597-538 B.C.). the
"Exile" period to which Christian tradition has assigned the composition
of the work. Scientific scholarship has shown that the Book of Daniel
was actually written around 165 B.C. — long after the Exile — at a time
when the Seleucid king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, was trying to
stamp out the Jewish religion. Daniel was not writing predictive
prophecy, we now know, but rather history — and rather sloppy history at
that!
Error In Verse One
The main line of evidence against composition around the time of the
Babylonian Captivity involves the great number of factual errors in the
book which concern the time of the Exile — errors which are in glaring
contrast to the considerable precision with which the later Greek period
is described (the period allegedly in the future, but actually the
period in which the book was written).
The errors begin with Verse 1:
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah.
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it.
The Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his power, together with
all that was left of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried
them off to the land of Shinar... (Dan. 1:1-2).
Now the third year of Jehoiakim's reign would be 606-605 B.C., 2 and
Nebuchadnezzar was probably not yet the king of Babylon. At any rate,
Jerusalem did not fall to the Babylonians until 597 B.C. By then, of
course, Jehoiakim was no longer king of Judah.
[Jehoiakim] rested with his forefathers, and was succeeded by his
son Jehoiachin.... Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he came to the
throne, and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months.... At that time
the troops of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon advanced on Jerusalem and
besieged the city. Nebuchadnezzar arrived while his troops were
besieging it, and Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his courtiers,
his officers, and his eunuchs, all surrendered to the king of Babylon (2
Kings 24:6-12).
Imagine! A loyal Jew noted for piety and wisdom — and of the ruling
class to boot — unaware that Jehoiakim was dead and there was a new
king! How could anyone who actually lived through the time in question
so totally misdate an event of such importance? The captivity actually
began three months after the end of Jehoiakim's eleven-year reign, and
the author of Daniel supposes it occurred eight years earlier.
If the author of Daniel was writing centuries later, it is
understandable that a three-month reign would have been forgotten and
blended with the preceding one, especially with names as similiar as
Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin. But it is not credible that anyone who
actually lived through those three months would have been unconscious of
the excitement and general atmosphere of expectation which always
surrounds the accession of a new monarch. It is impossible that he
should have forgotten who was the actual king of Judah at the time of
the fall of Jerusalem.
Incidentally, although it has no bearing upon the authenticity of the
Book of Daniel, there is a further contradiction in the Bible concerning
Jehoiachin. As we have seen in the quotation from 2 Kings 24, Jehoiachin
was supposedly eighteen years old when he came to the throne and reigned
three months. This is contradicted by 2 Chronicles:
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he came to the throne, and he
reigned in Jerusalem for three months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:9).
While the ten-day discrepancy may be excused as merely "round-off
error," the difference between eight and eighteen is enough to prove
beyond doubt that the "Holy Scriptures" are far from inerrant.
In concluding this discussion of the Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin problem, we
may note that the author of Daniel was not the only prophet to come to
grief over the facts of Jehoiakim. Even Jeremiah (who actually was alive
at the time of Jehoiakim) made a mistake:
Therefore these are the words of the Lord concerning Jehoiakim son
of Josiah, king of Judah.... He shall be buried like a dead *****, dragged
along and flung out beyond the gates of Jerusalem (Jer. 22: 18-19).
Now, of course, this never actually came to pass. But one may excuse
Jeremiah as one cannot excuse the author of Daniel: Jeremiah was
actually legitimately trying to make a predictive prophecy. Things just
didn't happen to work out the way god told him they would.
King Belshazzar, Son Of Nebuchadnezzar
Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold
and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the
temple in Jerusalem be brought....
Dan. 5:2
There is in your kingdom a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods...
King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, made him chief of the magicians,
enchanters, Chaldeans and astrologers.
Dan. 5:11
0 King, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and
greatness and glory and majesty.
Dan. 5:18
From these and other passages, it is apparent that the author of the
Book of Daniel was laboring under two erroneous impressions: (1) that
Belshazzer was a king and (2) that Nebuchadnezzar was his father. Both
ideas are demonstrably false.
The actual succession of kings was:
Nebuchadnezzar, 606-561 B.C.
Evilmerodach (Avil-Marduk or Amel-Marduk), 561-559 B.C.
Neriglissar (Nergal-ashur-usur), 558-555 B.C.
Laborosoarchod (Labashi-Marduk), 555 B.C. (9 months)
Nabonidus (Nabu-nahid), 555-538 B.C. (Nabonidus was the last king
of Babylon.) 3
While the list alone makes it obvious that Nebuchadnezzar was not the
father of any king Belshazzar, it is further of interest to note that
Nabonidus, the actual last king of Babylon, was not even related to
Nebuchadnezzar. He was an usurper. The Babylonian inscriptions list
Nabu-balatsu-ikbi as the father of Nabonidus. They also reveal that
Nabonidus had a son name Belsharuzur (Belshazzar) Moreover, the
inscriptions show that up to the time that Belshazzar was killed by
Gubaru (one of Cyrus's governors), he was referred to as "The King's
Son." At no time did Babylonian records refer to Belshazzar as a king.
Moreover, he died before his father did. Nabonidus was held captive by
Cyrus an unspecified length of time after the death of Belshazzar on the
llth of Marchesvan (October), 538 B.C
Now although Belshazzar, according to the ancient cuneiform chronicles,
was killed on the llth of October, Babylon had been captured without a
fight by the Persians on the preceding 16th of Tammuz (June). That is to
say, Nabonidus (and presumably Belshazzar as well) had been held captive
already for four months at the time Belshazzar was murdered. This being
the case, the whole story about the handwriting on the wall becomes
completely incongruous. Working backward from the end of chapter five of
Daniel, one notes first the last two verses:
That very night [after Daniel had explained the meaning of mene
mene tekel u-pharsin] Belshazzar king of the Chaldeans was slain, and
Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being then sixty-two years old (Dan.
5: 30-31).
One must remember that (according to Chapter 5 of Daniel) earlier the
same evening "King" Belshazzar is supposed to have held a banquet for a
thousand of his nobles. (Also remember that according to the cuneiform
inscriptions Babylon had already been held captive for four months at
the time.) Then the hand began to write on the wall and Belshazzar
called loudly for the exorcists, Chaldeans, and diviners to be
brought in; then, addressing the wise men of Babylon, he said, "Whoever
can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be robed in
purple and honoured with a chain of gold round his neck and shall rank
as third in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:7).
Now if Belshazzer was being held captive, not only would he not be
having a party with the temple treasures, he obviously could not be
dispensing honors and the royal purple. If it be supposed that
Belshazzar was not actually being held captive with his father
(Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar) but rather had somehow managed to hold
out (for four months) somewhere in the palace (throwing a party!), he
would have no need for Daniel to tell him at that late date:
Mene. God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to
an end . . u-pharsin: and your kingdom has been divided and given to the
Medes and the Persians (Dan. 5-26-28).
The Persians (not the Medes) by that time had already possessed the
kingdom for four months.
To relate all the foregoing to the authorship of the Book of Daniel: Is
it conceivable that a "wiseman" living in Babylon throughout the
entirety of the Exile would not know that as many as four kings after
Nebuchadrezzar ruled Babylon before its fall? Is it possible that a man
privy to palace politics would not know that Belshazzar not only was the
son of an usurper (and thus not even related to Nebuchadnezzar, let
alone his son), but that he was never a real king? Even if — as some
suppose on the basis of the so-called "Nabonidus Document" — Belshazzar
was ruling as Nabonidus's viceroy, would not a man in Daniel's supposed
position make a careful distinction in this regard and give an
explanation for the startling circumstance of a king's father outliving him?
If, however, the Book of Daniel was written centuries after the Exile,
it is understandable that our author might not have know about four
monarchs of lesser luminosity than Nebuchadnezzar. Evilmerodach,
Neriglissar, and Labashi-Marduk combined only reigned for about six
years (as against Nebuchadnezzar's forty-three and Nabonidus's seventeen
years). Over the course of centuries they would easily be forgotten.
They would not, however, be overlooked by one of their contemporaries.
Before leaving this topic, one may note that Jeremiah (who, unlike the
author of Daniel, actually lived at the time of the Exile) was aware of
the existence of at least Evilmerodach:
In the thirty-seventh year of the Exile of Jehoiachin king of
Judah, on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month, Evil-merodach king
of Babylon in the year of his accession showed favor to Jehoiachin king
of Judah (Jer. 52: 31-32).
This story is given also in 2 Kings, though not without contradiction as
to what day of the month it was:
In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of
Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, Evil-merodach
king of Babylon . . . showed favor to Jehoiachin king of Judah (2 Kings
25: 27).
Darius The Mede
As if it were not astonishing enough that Daniel should be in error as
to who was the last king of Judah and who were the five kings of Babylon
during the Exile, one is further amazed to learn that he also does not
know the correct name or nationality of the liberator of the Jews from
the Babylonian captivity.
That very night Belshazzar was slain, and Darius the Mede took the
kingdom... (Dan. 5:30-31).
It pleased Darius to appoint satraps over the kingdom, a hundred
and twenty in number in charge of the whole kingdom, and over them three
chief ministers, to whom the satraps should send reports so that the
king's interests might not suffer, of these three, Daniel was one (Dan.
6:1-2).
Apart from the fact that every schoolboy knows that Babylon actually
fell to Cyrus the Persian, and the modest inconvenience resulting from
the fact that "Darius the Mede" never existed, the only serious flaw in
the above passage concerns the number of satraps in the Persian Empire.
As one sees in the passages quoted above, the author of Daniel thought
there were 120 satraps in the empire. But according to the Behistun Rock
inscription (Column 1, paragraph 6) which was carved during the reign of
Darius the Great (the Persian king, 522-486 B.C., who actually organized
the Persian Empire into satrapies) there were only twenty-three.
Is it possible that a prophet living through the collapse of the
Babylonian Empire would not know that it was Cyrus, not Darius, a
Persian, not a Mede, who was responsible?
It may be argued, however, that Cyrus did not deal with Babylon
directly, but may have had a Median general named Darius do the job for
him. According to this view, the Book of Daniel reflects the immediate
contact with the conquerors (under "Darius the Mede") and not with the
highest level of imperial government (Cyrus).
The problems with this are several. First of all, the Book of Daniel
gives the impression that "Darius the Mede" is in complete control
(e.g., Dan. 6:25-26). Who but the "King of Kings" would have the
authority to organize an entire empire?
Secondly, the Book of Daniel makes it dear that a sequence of kings, not
a hierarchy of rulers, is intended:
So this Daniel prospered during the reigns of Darius and Cyrus the
Persian (Dan. 6:28).
Since both Isaiah (13:17) and Jeremiah (51:11) had falsely predicted
that Babylon would fall to the Medes, the author of the Book of Daniel
thought that there had been a sequence of four great empires: Chaldean,
Median, Persian, and Greek, and that after the fall of the fourth, a
fifth, an eternal Jewish state, would be inaugurated.
For a believer in prophecy, it is embarrassing enough that a prophet
should not be able to foresee the fact that the Roman Empire would, in
fact, be the fifth (The sequence of kingdoms is represented by Daniel's
interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about the colossus with head of
gold and feet of clay, [Dan 2:31-44]) But how obtuse would a prophet
have to be who did not know that the Chaldean and Median empires were
contemporary, not consecutive, if he was living in one of the two at the
time in question?
Because the author of the Book of Daniel thought the Median kingdom
succeeded the Chaldean, he has Babylon fall to a semi-fictitious "Darius
the Mede" I say "semi-fictitious" because it is apparent that the late
author of the Book of Daniel has confused a real Persian monarch —
Darius Hystaspis, who had to reconquer Babylon in 521 B. C. and again in
515 — with the original conquerer, Cyrus. That the author has a garbled
knowledge of history is further shown by his mistaken notion that Darius
was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), instead of vice versa.
To lay "Darius the Mede" to rest for once and for all, one may observe
that the archeological evidence leaves no space at all for a ruler of
Babylon between Nabonidus and Cyrus. Archeologists have found numerous
contract-tablets from the period in question. The dates of the tablets
pass directly from one dated 10 Marchesvan in the 17th year of
Nabonidus, to one dated 24 Marchesvan in the accession year of Cyrus the
Persian.
Reading The Scriptures
In the first year of the reign of Darius... I, Daniel, was reading
the scriptures and reflecting on the seventy years which, according to
the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah, were to pass while
Jerusalem lay in ruins (Dan. 9:1-2)
The feeling one gets from this passage is that Daniel is looking back to
a worthy of the distant past, rather than to a senior contemporary. One
wonders also why Daniel was reading the words of Jeremiah. One would
have expected a firsthand report of what the prophet had said, since
both should have been in Jerusalem at the same time and Daniel would
have heard in person what Jeremiah had to say:
The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah,
in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that
was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar [sic] king of Babylon), which
Jeremiah the prophet spoke to all the people of Judah and all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jer 25:1-2)
(One may merely note in passing that this is dated in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim's reign, whereas Daniel 1:1 ends Jehoiakim's reign in its
third year, which would appear to be one year before Nebuchadnezzar
became king.)
Most revealing in the passage just quoted from Daniel is the implication
that the writings of Jeremiah had already been incorporated into a
scriptural collection of canonic significance. While one does not in
fact know exactly when the Book of Jeremiah was accepted into the Old
Testament canon, one can be absolutely certain that this did not occur
during Jeremiah's lifetime.
Now just what had Jeremiah prophesied?
For seventy years this whole country shall be a scandal and a
horror, these nations shall be in subjection to the king of Babylon.
When those seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of
Babylon and his people, says the Lord, for all their misdeeds and make
the land of the Chaldeans a waste for ever (Jer 25:11-12)
Once again, Jeremiah's record for predictive accuracy falls somewhat
short of divine accuracy. Even if one reckons from the time of
Jehoiachin's captivity (598 B.C.) instead of from the date of the fall
and destruction of Jerusalem (587-6 B.C.), the captivity lasted only
fifty nine years (Babylon fell in 539 B.C.) The fact of the matter is
that less than seventy years had elapsed at the time of the return to
Jerusalem, although the chronicler seems to think that Jeremiah's
prophecy came true.
Those who escaped the sword he [Nebuchadnezzar] took captive to
Babylon . . . until the sovereignty passed to the Persians, while the
land of Israel ran the full term of its sabbaths. All the time that it
lay desolate it kept the sabbath rest, to complete the seventy years in
fulfillment of the word of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah.
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, so that the word of
the Lord spoken through Jeremiah might be fulfilled ... Cyrus issued a
proclamation to this effect:
"the Lord the God of heaven has charged me to build him a house at
Jerusalem in Judah. To every man of his people now among you I say, the
Lord his God be with him, and let him 90 up" (2 Chron 36 20 23)
Perhaps it was this error in chronology that was bothering the author of
the Book of Daniel. Just as there is said to be honor among thieves, so
too, apparently, the prophets looked after their own kind. Our author
tries to rescue Jeremiah by pretending that Jeremiah didn't really mean
seventy years (even though that's exactly what Jeremiah said!) and that
he wasn't referring to the trivial question of the release from
captivity. What Jeremiah really had in mind was the establishment of an
ideal Jewish state centuries after his time.
So Gabriel comes to the rescue and explains to Daniel that Jeremiah
really meant that:
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 annoint a most holy place (Dan. 9:24).
Seventy weeks of years, of course, would be 490 years. Reckoning from
the time of Jehoiachin's captivity (598 B.C.) this would bring one to
108 B.C. Counting from the time of destruction of the first temple (586
B.C.) this would take one up to 96 B.C. Both dates, one may note, are
well in the future of the author of Daniel (writing about 165 B.C.).
Unfortunately, this rare instance of our author trying to predict the
future (rather than rewrite the past) is a glaring example of prophetic
inadequacy. Neither 108 nor 96 B.C. corresponds to anything significant
in Jewish history — let alone marks the establishment of the ideal
Jewish state. If Daniel lived today, he'd surely be a weatherman.
The reader has, by now, doubtless seen enough evidence to prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the Book of Daniel could not have been written at
the time of the Exile and is, therefore, a forgery. But when, in fact,
was it written? Why have I throughout assumed a date of composition ca.
165 B.C.?
Unlike the evidence proving Daniel wasn't written during the Captivity,
the arguments dating the story to ca. 165 B.C. are much more subtle and
require more space than is available. Interested readers are referred to
the book of S. R. Driver noted previously, and to the The Anchor Bible:
The Book of Daniel, by Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. DiLella
(Doubleday, 1978).
In the above-mentioned works, readers can find evidence that Daniel's
"abomination of desolation" or "abomination which makes desolate" (Dan.
9:27) refers to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. In
168 B.C. he prohibited the practice of the Jewish religion. The
Temple-worship was suspended and on 15 Chisleu, a heathen altar (the
abomination) was erected on the altar of Burnt-offering, and swine were
sacrificed (which "makes desolate"). Just slightly over three years
later (25 Chisleu, 165 B.C.) the Temple was again purified and worship
reestablished
Isaac Asimov 4 sums up the Daniel-dating problem very well:
Where Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel make no anachronistic mistakes
concerning the times supposed to be theirs, the Book of Daniel is
replete with anachronisms as far as it deals with the period of the
Exile. It treats, however, of the Greek period with easy correctness and
while this might be explained by those dedicated to the literal
acceptance of the Bible as a case of prophetic insight, it is odd that
Daniel should be so correct in his view on what was to him the "future"
and so hazy about his view of what was to him the "present." It is
easier to believe that the writer was a man of Greek times, to whom the
Exile was an event that had taken place four centuries earlier and
concerning the fine details of which he was a bit uncertain.
Implications Of The Fraud
The Book of Daniel has, since ancient times, been considered to be an
important Old Testament source of Messianic doctrines. The use of the
expression "Son of Man," the prediction of "an anointed one" (priest or
messiah) who will be "cut off (Dan 9:26), and other passages have been
thought by many to presage the coming of Jesus. How embarrassing for
true believers, therefore, is the fact that Jesus himself seems to have
been unaware of the fraudulent nature of the book. On at least one
occasion — when forecasting the end of his world -- he referred to the
Book of Daniel:
So when you see "the abomination of desolation," of which the
prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the holy place ... then those who are
in Judea must take to the hills (Matt. 24: 15-16).
Footnotes:
1 For details, see Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament, Meridian Books, NY, 1957. [back]
2 Due to technical problems in chronology for this period of history,
all dates cited in this article have a possible error of minus or plus
one year. [back]
3 Since I have not had access to the cuneiform records, I have had to
draw upon the work of S. R. Driver mentioned above. [back]
4 Asimov's Guide to the Bible, Vol. 1, Old Testament, N.Y.: Avon, 1968,
pp. 497-8. [back]
.

User: "Absolute Zero"
Title: Re: You don't like it? Don't feed it and let it die!	04 Jul 2004 07:18:13 PM

TonyZ2001 wrote:

amycaton@hotmail.com

wrote:

Tell you what Tone, I will quit APN forever if Saddam rules over
Iraq again.

No you won't,

Yes I will, chickenshit.

you'll do what every other clown that has said they were leaving
has done.

No I won't, chickenshit.

But when it happens I'll be able to kick your ***** with it every single day.

So why do you snip and run every time I mention Daniel, fraud?

As I've told you before,

No you haven't, you've always run away.

Jesus called Daniel a Prophet, who are you to refute Jesus?