IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Organized Religion
Dataika
post Apr 26 2004, 11:51 AM
Post #76


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Apr 26 2004, 04:46 PM)
I've given you plenty of evidence, and all you said was that you'd already responded to it and didn't need to again. THAT, is "silly". I'll post more later, got to go right now.

No, what would be silly is to just dig up my old post and respond to it all over again.

All you did was resort to "what ifs" and "well..s" without any kind of evidence or credentials to back up what you were actually stating. If that's "evidence" for creationism, then the evidence is nonexistant to poor (at best). And thus, still gives absolutely no credence to creationism.

You also did not even ATTEMPT to prove that creationism is true, you only tried to poke holes in the evolutionary theory (which can be done with ANY theory).

This post has been edited by Dataika: Apr 26 2004, 12:30 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Apr 26 2004, 02:26 PM
Post #77


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
All you did was resort to "what ifs" and "well..s" without any kind of evidence or credentials to back up what you were actually stating. If that's "evidence" for creationism, then the evidence is nonexistant to poor (at best). And thus, still gives absolutely no credence to creationism.

You also did not even ATTEMPT to prove that creationism is true, you only tried to poke holes in the evolutionary theory (which can be done with ANY theory).

No, I gave evidence, and you called it a fraud, and when I gave evidence that it wasn't, you didn't even respond. But if you want I can post it again, although I doubt it would get anywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Apr 26 2004, 03:33 PM
Post #78


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Apr 26 2004, 10:26 PM)
No, I gave evidence, and you called it a fraud, and when I gave evidence that it wasn't, you didn't even respond.

What? This is crap.

You stated that ape-like fossils COULD have been "pre-flood" humans. You gave absolutely no evidence. You then claimed that there is no written record, which is true, but that does nothing to prove that creationism is true. It's a "god of the gaps" fallacy.

You then went on and on about how "well it could have been pesticides, it doesn't necessarily HAVE TO BE evolution." You gave, however, NO EVIDENCE that creationism was true. You instead, attempted to either poke holes in evolution or tried to reconcile the evidence with creationism.

If we are talking about Daniel, I responded to EVERY SINGLE point the author made already. I do not feel like going into it again; you even responded to my arguments against them, so I KNOW you KNOW that I argued against that author's (whomever it was, you didn't give a name or anything).

So what else is there?


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Apr 27 2004, 02:48 PM
Post #79


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
If we are talking about Daniel, I responded to EVERY SINGLE point the author made already. I do not feel like going into it again; you even responded to my arguments against them, so I KNOW you KNOW that I argued against that author's (whomever it was, you didn't give a name or anything).


Let me re-phrase. You responded, but your responses were worthless, as they didn't make any new points other than "where is this coming from, is this author reliable?". Of course, this obviously does not come from just one author, it is based on several books and essays that I have at read from. I didn't even directly quote from any book, I just took the facts presented in different books and articles and used that information for my own argument. Let me go back and post our arguments and respond to your points again. Here's what I said...

QUOTE
In the 1850's several cunieform Babylonian tablets were discovered that were written by the Babylonian king Nabonidus that recorded him as having left his son Belshazzar to gaurd the kingship while he was out conquering the world. It is already known that Nabonidus was not in Babylon at the time of its fall, but up until that point no secular histories had given any mention of Belshazzar, only the Bible. Of course this was used as evidence of its historical inaccuracy. However those tablets basically destroyed that claim and added considerable credibility to the Biblical acount, especialy since apparently no one else knew about Belshazzar, which gives you the impression that Daniel must have personally been in Babylon at the time of the writing.

Another still common objection is that Darius the Mede did not exist. Although no discoveries have yet proven his existence, it is known that Cyrus apointed a man named Gubaru as governor of Babylon, and that he in turn appointed many smaller governors or satraps, which Daniel mentions. It was quite common in those days to refer to governors or other political leaders as kings, even though they weren't really kings. So it is very likely that Darius was in fact a title-name for the governor Gubaru. It is also well known that Medea was a powerful ally of Persia, and partly shared in ruling the empire. It is interesting to note how well aquainted the supposed forger of Daniel was with the laws and customs of Babylon and Persia, which were long destroyed by the time of the Macabee wars, when the book was supposedly forged. The contrast between the two legal systems was quite remarkable, and for Daniel to have known how those systems worked would be even more remarkable if he had not been in Babylon at the time of the writing. The laws presented in Daniel are well known today from archeological discoveries, which have therefore also proved that part true, but at the time when it was supposedly forged there was very little knowledge left of the customs of those two kingdoms. Even such famous historians as Herotudus made no mention of Belshazzar and did not have nearly the same knowledge of Babylonian and Persian customs as what Daniel seems to have had

Still another objection to Daniel is that it was partly written in Greek, and Greece was not yet the dominant language in the Middle-East. However, it has turned out recently that many of the supposedly Greek words were in fact Persian, leaving only three Greek words in the entire manuscript. If Greek was really the dominant language at the time of the writing, I think there would have been alot more Greek words in it. And anyway, Greek influence was in fact already starting to spread through the Middle-East, so it's not suprising that three Greek words were in the manuscript. It is also interesting that it was largely written in a form of Aramaic that was no longer used by the time of the supposed forgery.

As for certain other so-called mistakes in the manuscript, Sheole and Hell are both the same place, the translation literally being "the grave". The fact that Jeshua Ben Sira did not mention him in his list does not in any way prove that he did not exist, as he also failed to mention other heroes who were already well known and revered by that time. Even Paul in his list of faithful people in the book of Hebrews does not mention some of the most revered heroes, though he does mention Daniel. The person who made your site obviously hasn't studied his points out very carefully, as he accused the book of being false because mentioned the "abomination of desolation" (the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple in 167 BCE) which means it must have been written at the time when it was erected. But if he had really studied the Bible carefully he would have found that this is not referring to the alter of Zeus, as Jesus warned of its future coming long after the alter of Zeus had been destroyed by the Macabee's. And once again that is part of a prophecy that has already been largely fulfilled. His interpretation of that prophecy is grossly of track from accurate interpretations of this vision. By the time he has reached Daniel 11:40-45 the kings of the north and south have changed completely and are no longer referring to the kings of Syria and Egypt. As a matter of fact, contrary to the websites claims, that prophecy does indicate the reign of the Roman Empire. It was a prophecy that was hard to understand at first, but as more parts of it have been fulfilled, so we also understand it much better. On the other hand, many more of the prophecies throughout the Bible have already come true and not only vindicated the Bible, but they have also discredited any ideas of atheism. If there is no God, howcome supernatural occurances have happened throughout history? That in itself doesn't prove the Bible, but it does disprove atheism.

Whoever made that website has done a poor job of proving Daniels prophecies wrong. Now it's true, it isn't his job to prove it true or false, it's the job of those who believe them to prove that they are true. But it's a pretty poor arguments against the Bible to purpously misinterpret the prophecies and then try to say that those misinterpretations prove that it was inaccurate. I also notice that all of your arguments, or those presented on the links you give me, tend to focus on disproving the very worst arguments for what I beleive. Half the time I don't even agree with the creationists they're attacking, and meanwhile you try to disprove my arguments by breaking them into different subjects and refusing to take everything into acount. First you ask me to prove the Bible, then you tell me to stick to evolution, but a debate about evolution alone can't prove the Bible because it focuses on much more than just creation. But by proving the rest of the Bible I can also make a strong argument for creation, unless you simply refuse to even acknowledge those points, in which case I don't really see any point in continuing this debate, cause nothing would ever be enough for you.


Than here's what you said...

QUOTE
QUOTE

However those tablets basically destroyed that claim and added considerable credibility to the Biblical acount, especialy since apparently no one else knew about Belshazzar, which gives you the impression that Daniel must have personally been in Babylon at the time of the writing.




Where is this coming from? What evidence does he have for this assertion? Who wrote this? Is he accredited?


QUOTE
 
As for certain other so-called mistakes in the manuscript, Sheole and Hell are both the same place, the translation literally being "the grave".




The site never made that claim, what is this guy getting at? They claimed that Sheole is "the grave" while Daniel SPEAKS ABOUT BEING JUDGED AND RESURRECTED. This then, gives way to the ideals of hell, not of any mistranslation.


QUOTE

The person who made your site obviously hasn't studied his points out very carefully, as he accused the book of being false because mentioned the "abomination of desolation" (the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple in 167 BCE) which means it must have been written at the time when it was erected. But if he had really studied the Bible carefully he would have found that this is not referring to the alter of Zeus, as Jesus warned of its future coming long after the alter of Zeus had been destroyed by the Macabee's.




The person who made my site? What in blazes? It's called religious tolerance, no one person made it, it was made by a combination of people. The "Abomination of desolation" is only mentioned by Christ because he believed in the book of Daniel and the disciples considered it as prophetic to his messiah ship. WHo knows if Christ actually said that or if the disciples added it in there. Who simply knows? The fact is, that the evidence about the time that Daniel mentions specifically seems to speak to the case of Zeus.


QUOTE

His interpretation of that prophecy is grossly of track from accurate interpretations of this vision.




Oh really, and why are your interpretations so accurate?


QUOTE

By the time he has reached Daniel 11:40-45 the kings of the north and south have changed completely and are no longer referring to the kings of Syria and Egypt. As a matter of fact, contrary to the websites claims, that prophecy does indicate the reign of the Roman Empire. It was a prophecy that was hard to understand at first, but as more parts of it have been fulfilled, so we also understand it much better. On the other hand, many more of the prophecies throughout the Bible have already come true and not only vindicated the Bible, but they have also discredited any ideas of atheism. If there is no God, howcome supernatural occurances have happened throughout history? That in itself doesn't prove the Bible, but it does disprove atheism.




Of course this is nothing more than your opinion.

Spewing vague rhetoric like saying "supernatural events have occured throughout history" without backing it up is poor debating ability. What prophecies that the Bible made came true? Those vague references about how people will persecute Christians (which was already happening in the Roman empire when the goseple was WRITTEN)? Or those vague prophecies about how everyone will hate each other? You need to be more accurate, instead of just saying "Well I believe in the Bible because I have faith and some evidence points to the Bible's historical accuracy." You still haven't proven that it proves the Bible's accuracy in telling HOW events came about, only that events DID happen. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the authors could have just documented historical happenings and put their own supernatural twist on it to make it seem as if their GOd did something.


QUOTE

Whoever made that website has done a poor job of proving Daniels prophecies wrong. Now it's true, it isn't his job to prove it true or false, it's the job of those who believe them to prove that they are true. But it's a pretty poor arguments against the Bible to purpously misinterpret the prophecies and then try to say that those misinterpretations prove that it was inaccurate. I also notice that all of your arguments, or those presented on the links you give me, tend to focus on disproving the very worst arguments for what I beleive.




The person who made the website did a fairly simplistic view of the objections that liberal christians have to the book of Daniel. It wasn't one person, it was a group of people.


Now I don't know if you'll respond or not, but I'll just go ahead and refute your so-called argument.

QUOTE
QUOTE

However those tablets basically destroyed that claim and added considerable credibility to the Biblical acount, especialy since apparently no one else knew about Belshazzar, which gives you the impression that Daniel must have personally been in Babylon at the time of the writing.




Where is this coming from? What evidence does he have for this assertion? Who wrote this? Is he accredited?


The evidence is that critics claimed that Belshazzar was not even mentioned by other historians from that period, and so he must not have existed, and yet in the mid 1800's, stone tablets were found written by Nabonidus mentioning him by name, and mentioning having left the kingdom under his rule while he was gone. It is already known that he was gone when Babylon was taken, so obviously Belshazzar would've been the one in charge of the kingdom when it was taken by the Medes and the Persians.

You then skipped these two paragraphs...

QUOTE
Another still common objection is that Darius the Mede did not exist. Although no discoveries have yet proven his existence, it is known that Cyrus apointed a man named Gubaru as governor of Babylon, and that he in turn appointed many smaller governors or satraps, which Daniel mentions. It was quite common in those days to refer to governors or other political leaders as kings, even though they weren't really kings. So it is very likely that Darius was in fact a title-name for the governor Gubaru. It is also well known that Medea was a powerful ally of Persia, and partly shared in ruling the empire. It is interesting to note how well aquainted the supposed forger of Daniel was with the laws and customs of Babylon and Persia, which were long destroyed by the time of the Macabee wars, when the book was supposedly forged. The contrast between the two legal systems was quite remarkable, and for Daniel to have known how those systems worked would be even more remarkable if he had not been in Babylon at the time of the writing. The laws presented in Daniel are well known today from archeological discoveries, which have therefore also proved that part true, but at the time when it was supposedly forged there was very little knowledge left of the customs of those two kingdoms. Even such famous historians as Herotudus made no mention of Belshazzar and did not have nearly the same knowledge of Babylonian and Persian customs as what Daniel seems to have had

Still another objection to Daniel is that it was partly written in Greek, and Greece was not yet the dominant language in the Middle-East. However, it has turned out recently that many of the supposedly Greek words were in fact Persian, leaving only three Greek words in the entire manuscript. If Greek was really the dominant language at the time of the writing, I think there would have been alot more Greek words in it. And anyway, Greek influence was in fact already starting to spread through the Middle-East, so it's not suprising that three Greek words were in the manuscript. It is also interesting that it was largely written in a form of Aramaic that was no longer used by the time of the supposed forgery.


But you continued on somewhat with the next paragraphs, with this argument...

QUOTE
QUOTE
 
As for certain other so-called mistakes in the manuscript, Sheole and Hell are both the same place, the translation literally being "the grave".




The site never made that claim, what is this guy getting at? They claimed that Sheole is "the grave" while Daniel SPEAKS ABOUT BEING JUDGED AND RESURRECTED. This then, gives way to the ideals of hell, not of any mistranslation.


Judgement and resurrection are not automatically part of the Hell philosphy. I also believe in a judgement and resurrection, but I don't believe in Hell like you are thinking. That is a final step when the entire world will be resurrected and judged. There is no such thing as an eternal torturous Hell (ie. Hellfire), that is a misinterpretation (although I can see why some people would get that out of it). As I said before, Hell and Sheole are the same thing, the grave.

QUOTE
QUOTE

The person who made your site obviously hasn't studied his points out very carefully, as he accused the book of being false because mentioned the "abomination of desolation" (the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple in 167 BCE) which means it must have been written at the time when it was erected. But if he had really studied the Bible carefully he would have found that this is not referring to the alter of Zeus, as Jesus warned of its future coming long after the alter of Zeus had been destroyed by the Macabee's.




The person who made my site? What in blazes? It's called religious tolerance, no one person made it, it was made by a combination of people. The "Abomination of desolation" is only mentioned by Christ because he believed in the book of Daniel and the disciples considered it as prophetic to his messiah ship. WHo knows if Christ actually said that or if the disciples added it in there. Who simply knows? The fact is, that the evidence about the time that Daniel mentions specifically seems to speak to the case of Zeus.


That's still only your opinion, and the evidence does not lead to your conclusion. Just like the website did, you are trying to prove my beliefs wrong by purposefully misinterpreting them. Obviously, that argument is worthless.

QUOTE
QUOTE

By the time he has reached Daniel 11:40-45 the kings of the north and south have changed completely and are no longer referring to the kings of Syria and Egypt. As a matter of fact, contrary to the websites claims, that prophecy does indicate the reign of the Roman Empire. It was a prophecy that was hard to understand at first, but as more parts of it have been fulfilled, so we also understand it much better. On the other hand, many more of the prophecies throughout the Bible have already come true and not only vindicated the Bible, but they have also discredited any ideas of atheism. If there is no God, howcome supernatural occurances have happened throughout history? That in itself doesn't prove the Bible, but it does disprove atheism.




Of course this is nothing more than your opinion.

Spewing vague rhetoric like saying "supernatural events have occured throughout history" without backing it up is poor debating ability. What prophecies that the Bible made came true? Those vague references about how people will persecute Christians (which was already happening in the Roman empire when the goseple was WRITTEN)? Or those vague prophecies about how everyone will hate each other? You need to be more accurate, instead of just saying "Well I believe in the Bible because I have faith and some evidence points to the Bible's historical accuracy." You still haven't proven that it proves the Bible's accuracy in telling HOW events came about, only that events DID happen. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the authors could have just documented historical happenings and put their own supernatural twist on it to make it seem as if their GOd did something.


Well, the evidence points to my conclusion, and either the entire thing was pure chance, or it was set up, or made up, or it was, like I believe, the fulfillment of another prophecy. And I have already shown, again and again, that supernatural events have occured, whether or not you choose to accept it. That fact alone doesn't prove the Bible, but it does give a strong argument for some kind of supernatural being. As for that last point, about putting their own supernatural twist on history, that could apply in certain cases, such as Jesus' miricles, but not in a case where history is predicted hundreds of years beforehand. That can't be made up, it was either forged, which I have given evidence to the contrary, or it is true, and those prophecies really happen.

My argument for the fossils was simply that there are other possibilities, and that they alone don't prove either that evolution did happen, or that creation didn't. When it comes to those kind of things, it's all a matter of opinion and other evidence. You can't prove evolution by simply displaying a few bones and than refusing to consider anyone elses theories. The same goes for creation, which is why I choose to go beyond just the fossils.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Apr 27 2004, 03:51 PM
Post #80


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Apr 27 2004, 10:48 PM)
Now I don't know if you'll respond or not, but I'll just go ahead and refute your so-called argument.

Well then, let's go son.

QUOTE
The evidence is that critics claimed that Belshazzar was not even mentioned by other historians from that period, and so he must not have existed, and yet in the mid 1800's, stone tablets were found written by Nabonidus mentioning him by name, and mentioning having left the kingdom under his rule while he was gone.


Actually no, the critics of the site I gave you never stated that. What most critics state is that there is a historical inaccuracy about who Belshazzar was. Daniel depicts him as the SON of Nebuchanezzer. This is FALSE.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...8/4/984bad.html

QUOTE
You then skipped these two paragraphs...


Because I wasn't advocating any of those objections. It was a STRAWMAN. However, I will get back to you on some of the reasons it claims to be from that era (even though most of it is, well he used laws that weren't well known) or (he used a language that wasn't used anymore), which is circumstantial at best. The first could be said that because it was passed down oraly that the authors were able to use the laws that were put in place during that time.

Of course it is rather interesting that Daniel states that Darius of Mede is the son of the King Xerxes, who didn't even LIVE during that time period. How could he have been the son of someone who was not even ALIVE?

QUOTE
I also believe in a judgement and resurrection, but I don't believe in Hell like you are thinking.


You missed the point. The Hebrews first believed in no one going to heaven or hell, they believed in just the grave. They did not believe in any judgement. It only shows up in Hebrew texts during the Maccabean period, and not prior to it. Thus, hell was end product of judgement (whether it be the grave again, or eternal damnation is not the issue here) that the Hebrews did not believe occured until the Maccabean period.

QUOTE
That's still only your opinion, and the evidence does not lead to your conclusion. Just like the website did, you are trying to prove my beliefs wrong by purposefully misinterpreting them. Obviously, that argument is worthless.


I'm not trying to prove your beliefs are wrong. You are trying to prove atheism is wrong by proving prophecies in the Bible. You have failed to do that miserably.

QUOTE
Well, the evidence points to my conclusion, and either the entire thing was pure chance, or it was set up, or made up, or it was, like I believe, the fulfillment of another prophecy.


No you have not. You showed that he got one extremely vague thing "right" (according to your particular view of it anyway), if you'd like I could show you what he got wrong. The author was sincerely attempting to predict the future, but he fell short on a number of things, for instance: " He prophesizes that a king of the south (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) will attack the Greeks in Palestine, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Palestine where Antiochus will die. The end of history will then occur. The author(s) appeared to be a poor psychic because none of these events actually happened. Antiochus did die in 164 BCE, but it was in Persia."

QUOTE
that supernatural events have occured, whether or not you choose to accept it.


You have done NO SUCH THING! All you did was try to prove Daniel as a book of accuracy.

QUOTE
My argument for the fossils was simply that there are other possibilities, and that they alone don't prove either that evolution did happen, or that creation didn't.


Yeah there's also the possibility that those fossils are deformed tiny pink elephants who were born so big that they looked like humans. You are unbelievable. What matters is not "what coulda happened" what matters is what you believe happened and whether or not it is based on evidence. You have given NONE for that possibility. Absolutely NONE.

QUOTE
When it comes to those kind of things, it's all a matter of opinion and other evidence. You can't prove evolution by simply displaying a few bones and than refusing to consider anyone elses theories.


Again, you are acting like Evolutionists are claiming it is a "bullet proof" theory, which it is not. You cannot prove ANYTHING 100% because there is always some sort of other possibility (as shown by Descartes). Again, what people mean when they say a fact is that there is so much evidence that it is silly to believe the contrary. I have shown that evidence none of which you even remotely succeeded in refuting.

God I wish my Biology professor (or any other accredited Biology professor) had the internet so she could come on and show how utterly ignorant you are with regards to evolutionary theory.

QUOTE
The same goes for creation, which is why I choose to go beyond just the fossils.


Yeah, and go right into SUPERSTITIOSU THEOLOGY!

This post has been edited by Dataika: Apr 27 2004, 03:54 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Apr 28 2004, 09:35 AM
Post #81


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
Actually no, the critics of the site I gave you never stated that. What most critics state is that there is a historical inaccuracy about who Belshazzar was. Daniel depicts him as the SON of Nebuchanezzer. This is FALSE.


Nice that you choose, once again, to take the words the wrong way. Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes him a descendent of him. In this way, he is the son of Nebuchadnezzar, just like Jesus was the son of David, and the Isrealites were the sons of Abraham, etc. Why don't you put some thought into your objections before you state them. And yes, critics did once claim that Belshazzar never existed, since no known secular history from that time even mentioned him. This was proven wrong though, and so one of the most frequently used arguments suddenly became worthless.

QUOTE
Of course it is rather interesting that Daniel states that Darius of Mede is the son of the King Xerxes, who didn't even LIVE during that time period. How could he have been the son of someone who was not even ALIVE?


Interesting, especially since the name King Xerxes was never even mentioned in the Bible, let alone the book of Daniel. I've researched that claim, and it's based on weak foundations. This is what that accusation is based on. In the book of Esther, it names Ahaseurus as the king of Persia. Ahaseurus is generally identified as King Xerxes I of Persia. Daniel calls Darius the son of Ahaseurus of the Medes (NOT the king of the Medes, just Ahaseurus of the Medes). Obviously he's not the same person, considering that one is a Persian and the other is a Mede. Aside from that, I guess you would never think about the possibility that they could've both had the same name, which is very common in ANY history. Did you even bother to look into the claims that your website makes?

QUOTE
You missed the point. The Hebrews first believed in no one going to heaven or hell, they believed in just the grave. They did not believe in any judgement. It only shows up in Hebrew texts during the Maccabean period, and not prior to it. Thus, hell was end product of judgement (whether it be the grave again, or eternal damnation is not the issue here) that the Hebrews did not believe occured until the Maccabean period.


Of course, this is assuming that Daniel was written during the Macabean period, and not before. This accusation is worthless, and only shows how extremely skepticle people can get when it comes to these kinds of subjects. Most people never question whether Socrates existed, or whether Plato really lived at the time he supposedly lived in, and yet there is much less evidence for those than there is for Daniel, or for almost any other Biblical figure, including Jesus. That seems a little bit biased, don't you think?

QUOTE
I'm not trying to prove your beliefs are wrong. You are trying to prove atheism is wrong by proving prophecies in the Bible. You have failed to do that miserably.


Hmm, interesting. I guess that's why you kept on claiming that religion is completely unreasonable, that there is no evidence for any of my or any other religious beliefs, etc. And I guess that's also why you keep claiming that evolution (and I mean evolution as in the theory that we all evolved from some germ two-billion years ago) is a fact.

QUOTE
No you have not. You showed that he got one extremely vague thing "right" (according to your particular view of it anyway), if you'd like I could show you what he got wrong. The author was sincerely attempting to predict the future, but he fell short on a number of things, for instance: " He prophesizes that a king of the south (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) will attack the Greeks in Palestine, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Palestine where Antiochus will die. The end of history will then occur. The author(s) appeared to be a poor psychic because none of these events actually happened. Antiochus did die in 164 BCE, but it was in Persia."


The funny thing about this is, I don't even think you've read this prophecy. It never mentions by name any of these people. In fact, they didn't even get the prophecy completely right. I'll give you the actual text:

'And at the time of the end the king of the south shall push at him (the king of the north), and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown, but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. He shall stretch forth his also upon the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt, and the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings from the east and the north shall trouble him, therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away with many. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.'

The prophecy, by that point, has long left behind the Ptolemies and Seleucids, so this person, has no idea what he's talking about. The entire thing is symbolic, and by this point has nothing to do with those two kingdoms (the Seleucids and Ptolemies).

QUOTE
You have done NO SUCH THING! All you did was try to prove Daniel as a book of accuracy.


If it was really written at the time it claims to have been, than that proves that he prophesied what would happen hundreds of years beforehand. Even if it was written in the macabean period, he still prophesied the exact timing of when Jesus would be born, and he was right. So this still leaves you with the problem of supernatural predictions.

QUOTE
Yeah there's also the possibility that those fossils are deformed tiny pink elephants who were born so big that they looked like humans. You are unbelievable. What matters is not "what coulda happened" what matters is what you believe happened and whether or not it is based on evidence. You have given NONE for that possibility. Absolutely NONE.


You seem to forget that there is no more evidence for the evolution theory than for my own possible theory. The only difference between my theory and yours, is that yours is also believed by most scientists (who are evolutionists anyway), while mine is not so popular, since most scientists believe in evolution, while only a few believe in creation. But there is no way you can prove, even by your definition, that we are descended from those animals.

QUOTE
Again, you are acting like Evolutionists are claiming it is a "bullet proof" theory, which it is not. You cannot prove ANYTHING 100% because there is always some sort of other possibility (as shown by Descartes). Again, what people mean when they say a fact is that there is so much evidence that it is silly to believe the contrary. I have shown that evidence none of which you even remotely succeeded in refuting.


You haven't shown me ANY EVIDENCE that we are descended from them. The only argument you have, is that, since we look alike in certain aspects, we MUST be descended from them. That's just like sayin, "we must be descended from orangutans, since we're both primates". There's no backing for it.

If that's what you call an argument, you'd better take a debate class or something, or change your rediculous theory, cause you haven't shown any evidence, for theory, or against mine. So far the best you can do is misinterpret words and attempt to ridicule me, which is a really good sign of your desperation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Apr 28 2004, 12:36 PM
Post #82


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Apr 28 2004, 05:35 PM)
Nice that you choose, once again, to take the words the wrong way. Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes him a descendent of him. In this way, he is the son of Nebuchadnezzar, just like Jesus was the son of David, and the Isrealites were the sons of Abraham, etc.

Since I could refute this, it would take me much longer to do it. From the link I already gave you:.. "Hatcher no doubt will parrot the inerrantist line and contend that the words father and son were not being used literally in this story but only figuratively in the sense of "ancestor" and "descendant," as when Abraham was referred to as the "father" of all Jews (Isaiah 51:2), and as Jesus was called the "son of David" (Matt. 1:1). The examples are hardly parallel, however, because Abraham was separated by centuries from the Jews of Isaiah's time, as Jesus was separated in time from David sufficiently for readers of such texts as these to know beyond reasonable doubt that father and son were being used figuratively. In the book of Daniel, however, the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are related in consecutive chapters. The account of Nebuchadnezzar's seven years of madness in fulfillment of a second dream that Daniel had interpreted ends the 4th chapter, where Nebuchadnezzar praised Daniel's god after he had regained his sanity: "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are truth, and his ways are justice; and he is able to bring low those who walk in pride" (5:37). Then immediately the next chapter opens with an account of the feast that King Belshazzar held to honor a thousand of his lords, so the writer went directly from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Belshazzar without mentioning any of the four kings who reigned between them. This within itself would indicate an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history, because it at least implies that the writer thought that Belshazzar's reign followed Nebuchadnezzar's. That would be an understandable mistake for someone living centuries later, who thought that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son, but it would be very unlikely that the ruler of the entire province of Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar's reign would have been so badly informed.

That Belshazzar wasn't Nebuchadnezzar's son has been established by the discovery of Babylonian records. Information from these records, which can be found in almost any general Bible dictionary, commentary, or encyclopedia, show that Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B. C. and was succeeded by his son, but that son was Amel-Marduk, who was known as "Evil-merodach" in the Old Testament: "In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, king Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the year he began to reign, showed favor to King Jehoiachin of Judah and brought him out of prison" (Jer. 52:31; 2 Kings 25:27). So even the Bible itself acknowledges the reign of Amel-Marduk, who was assassinated in 560 B. C. during a coup led by his brother-in-law Nergal-Sharezer. As I noted in my previous reply to Hatcher, this coup and the subsequent reign of Nergal-Sharezer ended the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar and his predecessor kings. So beginning with the reign of Nergal-Sharezer the "sons" (descendants) of Nebuchadnezzar were no longer kings in Babylon. Nergal-Sharezer reigned until 556 B. C., at which time he was succeeded by his son Labsi-Marduk, who very shortly was deposed by Nabonidus. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, who moved his capital to Tema (on the Arabian peninsula) and apparently left Belshazzar in charge of Babylon. Thus, from 560 B. C. until its fall to Persia in 539 B. C., Babylon was ruled by kings who were not "sons" or descendants of Belshazzar. The fact that the writer of Daniel leaped from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar, passing over completely the reigns of four intervening kings, certainly indicates a fuzzy knowledge of the history of this period. That lack of knowledge provides the best explanation for why the writer would have called Nebuchadnezzar the "father" of Belshazzar and Belshazzar the "son" of Nebuchadnezzar when the two were not related. He called them father and son because he thought that they were."

Maybe now, you wont be so quick to dismiss objections that you deem as hasty, while possessing no real knowledge of them yourself (which you have most certainly done so, with regards ot answering objections that were never even STATED).

QUOTE
And yes, critics did once claim that Belshazzar never existed, since no known secular history from that time even mentioned him. This was proven wrong though, and so one of the most frequently used arguments suddenly became worthless.


Maybe you should look up what a strawman fallacy is. Answering an objection which I never even gave is a strawman tactic.

QUOTE
Daniel calls Darius the son of Ahaseurus of the Medes (NOT the king of the Medes, just Ahaseurus of the Medes). Obviously he's not the same person, considering that one is a Persian and the other is a Mede.


This is blatantly false and ignores the historical ramifications. During the time of Xerxes birth, the Mede empire was PERSIAN as it was captured in 539 B.C.

From the site again: "The Son of Ahasuerus: In 9:1, the writer of Daniel described the mysterious "Darius the Mede" as the "son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes," but Ahasuerus (better known as Xerxes) was the king of Persia from 485-465 B.C., so it isn't at all possible that "Darius the Mede," who allegedly reigned in Babylon in 539 B. C., was the son of someone who had not yet been born. Ahasuerus was the Persian king who allegedly made Esther his queen in the book named after this Jewish heroine. Since his father was Darius the Great, the writer of Daniel may have confused his Dariuses and anachronistically made a son of Darius the Great the king who had captured Babylon. At any rate, he made a historical mistake that would be understandable for an author writing four centuries later, but it is not a mistake that we could reasonably expect an important contemporary official of Babylon to make.

The Reign of Darius the Mede: The writer's confusion in matters like those discussed above is one reason why many biblical scholars reject the tradition that Daniel was written by an important Jewish official in the 6th-century Babylonian empire, but it is, of course, his mistake in thinking that a Median empire intervened between the Babylonian and Persian kingdoms that presents the most compelling reason why so many scholars think that this book could not have been written by an official who was party to most of the events recorded in it. Although "liberal" scholars whom biblical inerrantists deplore may disagree on minor points concerning the dating of the book, they are in general agreement that this mistake was a major blunder that would not have been made by someone who had been an important official in 6th-century Babylon. Since this mistake has already been discussed in my previous responses to Hatcher, I will only summarize the major points: (1) In 550 B. C., Cyrus conquered the kingdom of the Medes and made it a province or satrapy of the Persian empire. (2) In 539 B. C., Babylon fell to Cyrus, so by this time Media no longer existed. (3) Cyrus ruled in Babylon from 539-538 B. C. and then moved his residence to Ecbatana, a city in territory that Cyrus had taken in his conquest of Media. (4) The writer of Daniel clearly indicated that a "Darius the Mede" reigned in Babylon for at least one year between the reigns of Belshazzar and Cyrus the Persian, but by the time Daniel's mysterious "Darius the Mede" had finished his reign in Babylon and Cyrus had begun his, Cyrus (according to contemporary Persian records) had left Babylon and moved his official residence to Ecbatana. Who can believe that a high government official living in those times could have written a book that contained such historical inaccuracies as these?"

QUOTE
Of course, this is assuming that Daniel was written during the Macabean period, and not before.


NO IT ISN'T. This a sign that it was written during the Macabean period. There is no other writings that even indicate this PRIOR TO THE MACABEAN PERIOD. If you think Daniel was written prior then that is a whopping ONE. It is unreasonable to think that some writer named Daniel pioneered this system of thought with one book.

QUOTE
Hmm, interesting. I guess that's why you kept on claiming that religion is completely unreasonable, that there is no evidence for any of my or any other religious beliefs, etc. And I guess that's also why you keep claiming that evolution (and I mean evolution as in the theory that we all evolved from some germ two-billion years ago) is a fact.


I claimed religion was oppressive and there is no real reason to believe in God. That's not claiming it's "unreasonable" for superstitious folks such as yourself, but we arenot discussing God in and of itslef. We are discussing the belief in Yahweh which you are trying to prove atheism wrong by pointing to Daniel. Go back and read the prior posts.

QUOTE
The funny thing about this is, I don't even think you've read this prophecy. It never mentions by name any of these people. In fact, they didn't even get the prophecy completely right. I'll give you the actual text:


I know the actual text, you just didn't bother to read the site which mentions why it interprets it the way it does. Oh well though, that's your style of debate. Strawman after Strawman after Strawman.

Here's the link again: http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel.htm

"Many Liberal Christians point to the actual foreign countries which occupied Palestine between the 6th century and 2nd century BCE:
Babylon (represented by the lion/eagle symbol and gold). They attacked the Southern Kingdom in the 580's BCE
The Median empire under (bear and silver). Daniel 5-31 records how "Darius the Mede" conquered Babylon and killed king Belshazzar. This belief probably arose out of many predictions in Isaiah and Jeremiah that Babylon would fall to the Medes. In reality, the Median and Babylonian kingdoms coexisted until the Medians were conquered about 550 BCE and the Babylonians were conquered in 539, both by the Persians. Darius was not a Median king. Apparently the later Persian king "Darius the Great" was confused by the author(s) with Astyages, the last Median king.
The Persian empire (symbolized by a leopard and bronze)
The Greek empire (terrible beast and iron). They conquered Judeah in 332 BCE. Daniel 2:41 and 11:3 described it as a kingdom ruled by a warrior king that is divided into 4 sections after his death. None of the 4 sections will be ruled by his descendents. This fits precisely with the structure of the Macedonian-Greek empire of Alexander the Great. After his death, it was divided among four of his generals, none of whom were his sons. Daniel 2:43 refers to the mixing of families by intermarriage, and mentions that these arrangements would not be stable. Again, this fits well with the attempts that the Seleucid (the King of the North in Daniel 11:7) and Ptolemaic (the King of the South in Daniel 11:5) dynasties to achieve peace and stability through intermarriage. The attempts were unsuccessful.
At the time of the writing of the book of Daniel, circa 164 BCE, the Greek empire occupied Palestine. Since the book was written after the rise of the final empire, the author had the advantage of hindsight. The book is mainly a history of past events, not a prophecy of the future. The author wrote the book almost a century before the Roman Empire invaded Palestine. Since he had no knowledge or expectation of this invasion, it was not mentioned in the book.

In the final chapter of Daniel, the author describes the "end of history" - a resurrection of the dead, judgment and transfer the resurrected dead to heaven or hell. According to Daniel 12:12, these events would happen during approximately three years following the "abomination of desolation" (the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple in 167 BCE). Some Bible scholars have interpreted this period of time as occupying many millennia. But this is clearly not a valid interpretation, because Daniel 12:12 refers to people who "wait and live to see the completion of the interval."


If the author(s) could have accurately predicted the future after 164 BCE, he would have prophesized some additional earthly empires which controlled Palestine:

5. The Roman Empire (from 63 BCE)
6. Byzantine Empire (from 313 CE)
7. Arab conquest; control of Palestine by Muslim groups (from 636 CE)
8. Christian Crusaders from Europe (from 1099 CE)
9. Mamluks under Saladin reinstate Muslim rule (from 1291 CE)
10. Ottoman rule (from 1517 CE)
11. British Empire rule (from 1917 CE)
12. The State of Israel (1948 CE to the present time)

From the time of Daniel to the present day, Palestine has been controlled by 11 foreign empires until Israel finally attained independence in 1948 CE. The author(s) of the book of Daniel, apparently writing about 166 CE, was unable to predict his future.

Many religious liberals classify this book as apocalyptic literature. This writing style was quite common in Israel from the 2nd century BCE to the 2nd century CE. The book of Revelation in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is perhaps the best known example. The writings are often attributed to a famous historical hero in order to give them credibility."

QUOTE
If it was really written at the time it claims to have been, than that proves that he prophesied what would happen hundreds of years beforehand. Even if it was written in the macabean period, he still prophesied the exact timing of when Jesus would be born, and he was right. So this still leaves you with the problem of supernatural predictions.


What? How does it do this? This is very interesting, considering that most Jews don't even give credence to it. But I forgot, you know more about their scriptures THAN THEY DO!!

QUOTE
You seem to forget that there is no more evidence for the evolution theory than for my own possible theory.


This is bull. I've provided you with an entire website filled with fossil proof, natural proof and theoretical proof. How many have you provided for your own weird, twisted theory? How much proof have you actually provided? None?! Okay.

QUOTE
But there is no way you can prove, even by your definition, that we are descended from those animals.


Of course just ignoring a website full of evidence gives you some sort of credential claim to do right? This is just hilarious now. You can't be being serious.

QUOTE
only argument you have, is that, since we look alike in certain aspects, we MUST be descended from them. That's just like sayin, "we must be descended from orangutans, since we're both primates". There's no backing for it.


Once again, this is false. Good grief, you act like that's what the scientists rest their case on. You act as if science is just looking at things and saying "well we came from there." Good fucking grief man. You are young, so I'll wait until you get into a university of sorts. We'll see if your arguments are still the way they were today.

QUOTE
If that's what you call an argument, you'd better take a debate class or something, or change your rediculous theory, cause you haven't shown any evidence, for theory, or against mine. So far the best you can do is misinterpret words and attempt to ridicule me, which is a really good sign of your desperation.


I ridiculed YOU? What the hell? You were the one that said I was being a moron, that called my arguments nothing worthy of your time, that claimed I was too stupid to actually read the arguments. Don't play like your some sort of victim here; I have evidence, you do not. It's as simple as that.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Apr 28 2004, 12:37 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2020 - 01:16 PM