Ark~Magic wrote:Fortigurn, you've been refuted:
Well no, all we have here is the usual bluster by 'Holding'.
Is this referring to MY article? It sounds very little like it -
> He offers no justification for selecting Vespasian as
> the 11th horn in the series
I offer a huge justification for making Vespasian the 11th horn. Just
whining that I don't provide it isn't an answer....
No he doesn't offer 'huge' justification for it. He presented what he considers to be a 'huge justification' for identifying the actions of the little horn to be the actions of Vespasian. That does not actually address the issue of selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the first place.
I note also that he has completely truncated my original sentence here, taking it out of context and ignoring the argument I made along with it. This is typical 'Holding' behaviour.
Here's my original sentence:
He offers no justification for selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the series he arbitrarily counts the triumverate as an imperial rule, acknowledging that Suetonius, from whom he borrows the rest of his list, doesn't even mention the triumverate in his list of imperial rulers)
That does not constitute 'justification' for selecting Vespasian as the 11th horn in the series. It is completely arbitrary, as I pointed out, and it also contradicts the list of Suetonius, as 'Holding' himself acknowledges.
> Vespasian did not 'persecute the saints' for time,
> times and half a time ('Holding' acknowledges that the
> saints here are the Christians), and the suggestion
> 'Holding' offers to get around this is palpably weak.
It's too bad he/she never actually explains why it is weak. So I'll just say
his response is "dead" and then he/she can go outside and play.
It is palpably weak to suggest that the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews constitutes three and a half years of persecution of Christians.
> * They all appear on the beast together (I realise
> that the 7 heads in Revelation do also, but the 7
> heads are specifically referred to as sequential,
> whereas the horns are not)
What a silly statement. Any set of items that is in a row is in some sort of interpretable sequence. He just blew his own argument by admitting that
in his apparent scheme he plays by the same rules.
He didn't read what I wrote. The 10 horns appear together, they do not appear 'in a row', or as a sequence. I have pointed out that the seven heads are to be understood as sequential
not because they appear together, but because they are specifically identified as sequential (he didn't actually address my argument).
> * Wherever Daniel refers to horns appearing on a
> beast, the horns are always contemporaneous unless
> specified otherwise (other horns are always described
> as arriving after the former horns)
And who made up that rule? It's not in the text. It's nowhere in
history. It's just a begged question.
It isn't a begged question, it is demonstrable from the text. Look for yourself at all the other instances of horns in Daniel (check Daniel 7 and
. It doesn't take long to verity this fact.
At least I have the ancient understanding
of present orientation (
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/timpret.html) on my
side to say why the horns can all be there at the same time but still
represent a consecutive order.
He is wasting time here, because I am not arguing that the fact that the horns all appear together means they
cannot represent a consecutive order. In fact I agreed that it is possible for them to do so, and gave an example from Revelation. This just shows he's not reading what I wrote (typical 'Holding', I'm afraid).
> * A horn on a beast represents a power - a number of
> horns on a beast represents a divided power, so this
> is Rome divided, Rome after 476 AD
Oh I see. He's one of those people out to gig Catholics.
Ok, so no reply to this point at all.
> So can you refute it?
What's to refute? He/she said nothing of substance to refute my huge
article. They just made up a rule and ran with it.
In other words, he doesn't want to address what I wrote. That is typical of 'Holding'. As you can see from the eschatology debate to which I referred, it is also typical of Warren.
So, do you want to discuss Praeterism yourself?