FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-13-2001, 06:27 AM   #61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nomad:
You have no idea what I require Michael, and you still refuse to ask. As I said, you find your prejudices more comfortable than learning what someone else may actually believe.

I would advise you not to assume what I accept or believe until I have told you. If you would like to know what that is, just ask.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited June 12, 2001).]
</font>
Great post Nomad, one of your finest. No argument at all.

But if you wish to lecture me on why you believe in people coming back from the dead, virgin births, talking snakes and other supernatural nonsense, go right ahead.

Michael
 
Old 06-13-2001, 08:04 AM   #62
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JamesKrieger:
This is a typical argument put forth by many Christian apologetics that "son" actually may have meant descendant. Babylonian records indicate that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. Nabonidus was not related to to Nebuchadnezzar. So we can throw the grandson or descendant idea out the window. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C. and was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk. Amel-Marduk was assassinated in 560 B.C. during a coup led by his brother-in-law Nergal-Sharezer. So, at this time, the new kings of Babylon were not descendants of Nebuchadnezzar. So no matter how much you distort the meaning of "son", you can't get around the fact that Belshazzar was in no way related to Nebuchadnezzar.</font>
Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and co-regent with him. No argument from me there. I was tracing the relationship through the mother, not the father. I believe Nabonidus was married to Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris, widow of Nergal-Sharezer. A child of Nebuchadnezzar's child would still be his grandchild. Relationships are not only traced through the father.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">While there are problems with the precise Hebrew definitions with *some* of the animals in Leviticus, that is not the case with the hare. The Hebrew word "arnebeth" quite simply means rabbit. There's nothing unknown about this definition.

As far as it "may" have been referring to an animal that has gone extinct, I find this doubtful. There are no scientific records of extinct rabbit-like animals that existed during these times.</font>
All Bible translations I've looked at say that it is not talking of a hare or rabbit. They list this animal as unknown because they do not know the precise definition. The fossil record is not complete either. No scientific record does not mean the animals it coud be speaking of didn't exist.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, the four corners do not refer to nations. In Matthew 4:8 the word Kosmos is translated into world. If we apply that same translation to Mark 16:15, we get "Go into all of Palestine and preach the Gospel..." So, trying to translate Kosmos to mean Palestine presents a problem. Not only that, but Matthew 4:8 states that the devil showed him "ALL the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." Splendor in Palestine? Palestine was a primitive third-world area at the time.</font>
Oh boy...

Revelation 20
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

I didn't say corners meant nations in general. I said it is speaking of specific nations. Gog and Magog are the ancient names of the nations, the other two are Mesech and Tubal, if I remember correctly. The "four corners", I repeat, are not a reference to the earth's shape. It's a reference to specific parts of the world, not the shape of the planet. Maybe when lines are drawn to connect the nations it forms four corners.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Genesis 1:6-7 "Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places... and it was done. So Godmade a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it."

Psalm 104:3, 13 "You stretch the heavens out like a tent, you build your palace on the waters above.... You water the mountains from your palace"</font>
The "dome" is just a space between the water and water vapor and nothing else. It has nothing to do with shape either. Why do you say the NAB and GNB are more accurate? What are those, the Catholic Bibles? The NIV is quite accurate and it also translates it as a circle. Most of the translations including Young's literal translate it to mean a circle. In fact it seems only your Catholic Bibles translate it as a dome, since they believed the earth was flat. (I, for one, don't trust information from anything Catholic)
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now, this would only be possible if the Earth was flat and again covered by a dome which was not that far off the ground. God caused them to speak different languages because he didn't like what they were doing. Of course, this story is obvious mythology. First, I don't see how God could have been threatened by these people. They hardly could have made a tower more than a few hundred feet high. Not only that, but man has now traveled to the moon and God doesn't seem to care.</font>
So are you saying that those who build tall buildings believe in a flat earth? And because the Bible says man wanted to build a high tower that reached the heavens it could only mean it believes in a flat earth? What kind of crap is that? Anyway God was not threatened by people building the tower; he dispesed them for the benefit of mankind. It wasn't just about the tower being built.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Job 38:22 Snow is not stored in a storehouse and hail is not stored in a treasury, but the ancient Hebrews obviously thought that it was and that it was released from the dome that covered the flat earth.</font>
Oh boy... "Treasury" and "storehouse" are metaphors. The treasuries and the storehouses are the clouds. Specific clouds store the rain, and others store the hail or snow in abundance. That's what it's speaking of. The Hebrews believed rain, snow, and hail came from the water vapour in the sky, not a dome. You know the clouds are composed of water, right?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am 27, and I do not know how old you are, but that is irrelevant. Noting the Bible's lack of mention of prehistoric creatures is not childish in any way. This is simply another inconsistency of the Bible with known history.
</font>
It's very childish my friend. The Bible does not speak of the tiger, wolverine, or the elephant either. It is not a book on natural science. It is always better to be brief and concise and stick to the point. The purpose of the Bible is not to give a comprehensive listing of anything. It's purpose is to tell you that there is a creator and you can enter into communion with Him. It also shows man's struggle with God. Personally I like the fact that it is brief and to the point. Dinosaurs are not essential to its message. The non-mention of them doesn't render it inaccurate either.

The Exodus issue:
Evidence has been found that lends a lot of credibility to the story of the Exodus. There is a mountain known as Jabal al Lawz near the city of Al-Bad (ancient Midian, where the Bible says Mt. Sinai actually is), with very peculiar characteristics and interesting archaeological.

1. The mountain is burnt at the top going down the side. It is not a volcanic mountain.
2. The mountain area has been sealed off by the Saudi Arabian government as an archaeological site.
3. There is evidence of a large amount water having washed over the rocks into a huge plain from a particular side of the mountain. (this is the most unexplainable piece of evidence IMO)
4. There are large piles of rocks equidistant from each other going around the mountain in a semicircle.
5. There is an altar made with huge rocks with pertogyphs of a bull.
6. There is a split rock, about forty feet high, with a small area around it that is also burnt.

All this information in one site is highly suspicious. It's even more suspicious that the Saudi government has sealed it off. No matter how hard you try to debunk it, the questions stil remain. Why is all this information there at this one site- information that exactly fits what is in Exodus? Pure coincidence? Nah, doesn't cut it. There is video footage of the site on the VHS cassette, The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai. Order it from www.amazon.com if you've got the guts to view it. I'm sure some of you wil try as hard you can to debunk it prior to viewing it or look for every reason possible not to view it. I suggest you watch it first before you try to debunk. The footage does not lie and it is not a hoax. Would you rather take the word of someone with a Ph.D. who never set foot there, or a regular person who set foot there and documented on video what he had found?




[This message has been edited by TrueThinker (edited June 13, 2001).]
 
Old 06-13-2001, 06:27 PM   #63
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and co-regent with him. No argument from me there. I was tracing the relationship through the mother, not the father. I believe Nabonidus was married to Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris, widow of Nergal-Sharezer. A child of Nebuchadnezzar's child would still be his grandchild. Relationships are not only traced through the father.
</font>

When regarding words such as father and son, it doesn't matter how many meanings these words have. In any good translation, one should use the common meaning unless the context in which the word is written shows a different meaning. For example, when Jesus is referred to as the "son of David", it is obvious from the context that "son" is not in the primary sense because David and Jesus were separated by enough time to conclude this. However, in the book of Daniel, the author goes directly from Nebuchnadezzar's reign in chapter 4 to Belshazzar's reign in chapter 5, skipping 4 kings in between. This shows a definite ignorance of Babylonian history on the author's part and gives further support to the evidence that the author of Daniel truly believed Nebuchnadezzar and Belshazzar were father and son. One can easily determine from the context of the writing that the author meant father and son in the common sense. Here's a long excerpt from Daniel 5:1-23

King Belshazzar made a great festival for a thousand of his lords, and he was drinking wine in the presence of the thousand. Under the influence of the wine, Belshazzar commanded that they bring in the vessels of gold and silver that his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the vessels of gold and silver that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank the wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone.


Immediately the fingers of a human hand appeared and began writing on the plaster of the wall of the royal palace, next to the lampstand. The king was watching the hand as it wrote. Then the king's face turned pale, and his thoughts terrified him. His limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners; and the king said to the wise men of Babylon, "Whoever can read this writing and tell me its interpretation shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around his neck, and rank third in the kingdom." Then all the king's wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king the interpretation. Then King Belshazzar became greatly terrified and his face turned pale, and his lords were perplexed.


The queen, when she heard the discussion of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall. The queen said, "O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts terrify you or your face grow pale. There is a man in your kingdom who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father he was found to have enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and diviners, because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation."


Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, "So you are Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? I have heard of you that a spirit of the gods is in you, and that enlightenment, understanding, and excellent wisdom are found in you. Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and tell me its interpretation, but they were not able to give the interpretation of the matter. But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you are able to read the writing and tell me its interpretation, you shall be clothed in purple, have a chain of gold around your neck, and rank third in the kingdom."


Then Daniel answered in the presence of the king, "Let your gifts be for yourself, or give your rewards to someone else! Nevertheless I will read the writing to the king and let him know the interpretation. O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar kingship, greatness, glory, and majesty. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. He killed those he wanted to kill, kept alive those he wanted to keep alive, honored those he wanted to honor, and degraded those he wanted to degrade. But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he acted proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was stripped from him. He was driven from human society, and his mind was made like that of an animal. His dwelling was with the wild asses, he was fed grass like oxen, and his body was bathed with the dew of heaven, until he learned that the Most High God has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals, and sets over it whomever he will. And you, Belshazzar his son, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this! You have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven! The vessels of his temple have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them. You have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know; but the God in whose power is your very breath, and to whom belong all your ways, you have not honored"


It is obvious from the context that these words are put in that the writer is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as father and son, and there is nothing in the context that would suggest that is it any other relationship.

You also ignored the reference to the apocryphal book of Baruch, written in the 2nd century (about the same time that scholars consider the book of Daniel to have been written):

"They sent this message: The money we are sending you is to be used to buy whole-offerings, sin-offerings, and frankincense, and to provide grain-offerings; you are to offer them on the altar of the Lord our God, with prayers for king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for his son Belshazzar, that their life may last as long as the heavens are above the earth. So the Lord will strengthen us and bring light to our eyes, and we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and of Belshazzar his son; we shall give them service for many a day and find favour with them"

The author claimed to have written this passage at the time that Nebuchadnezzar was still in power (582 B.C.). The author is obviously referring to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's son and not grandson in this passage. This is 26 years before Nabonidus's coup, long before Belshazzar would have even been known to anyone. Since this text was actually written in the 2nd century B.C., and scholars also date Daniel in the 2nd century, this gives further evidence to support the assertion that the writer of Daniel mistakenly believed that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son, just as other people of the time period also believed.

These aren't the only historical problems with Daniel. The Bible claims that Nebuchadnezzar had a seven-year period of insanity and was absent from his duties, but there is no evidence of this in Babylonian records (who kept very meticulous records, I might add). Also, Belshazzar was never actually a king (he was a crown-prince), although the Bible clearly states that he was a king. Belshazzar was also not in command when Babylonia was defeated, even though the Bible says so. Belshazzar also was not assassinated, as the Bible asserts, but instead was defeated in battle when the city of Opis was attacked. Thus, the book of Daniel is horribly wrong regarding a number of historical points (there are still more which I haven't even mentioned here).


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

All Bible translations I've looked at say that it is not talking of a hare or rabbit. They list this animal as unknown because they do not know the precise definition. The fossil record is not complete either. No scientific record does not mean the animals it coud be speaking of didn't exist.
</font>

The New Revised Standard Version says that the "birds identified in verses 13-19 are uncertain." It says nothing about the hare being uncertain. Why should the hare be uncertain when there is a Hebrew word for hare which I already pointed out?

Let's say that the word could not be properly translated. If the Bible really was divinely inspired, don't you think the Holy Spirit would guide the translators to the most appropriate word? To assert that the word is not properly translated is to admit that errors have occurred during the Bible translation, meaning that your Bible cannot be adequately relied on as the Word of God.

Also, your statement that "No scientific record does not mean the animals it could be speaking of didn't exist" is not evidence that these animals did exist. Using this same thought process, I can also make the claim that no scientific record does not mean that trolls, Medusa, gargoyles, or centaurs didn't exist.

The burden of proof always lies on the individual making the positive assertion. If you believe that the verse in Leviticus is referring to an extinct animal, then it is up to you to provide evidence to show this. If you cannot, then you have no argument. If you cannot refute the simple, most probable explanation (with evidence, I might add, not speculation) that the writer of Leviticus believed that rabbits chewed their cud because it looked like they did, then you have no argument.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

Revelation 20
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

I didn't say corners meant nations in general. I said it is speaking of specific nations. Gog and Magog are the ancient names of the nations, the other two are Mesech and Tubal, if I remember correctly. The "four corners", I repeat, are not a reference to the earth's shape. It's a reference to specific parts of the world, not the shape of the planet. Maybe when lines are drawn to connect the nations it forms four corners.
</font>

First, you use a lot of "maybes" in your statements, meaning you have to do a lot of speculation to try to support your beliefs. Also, it seems you know something that professional scholars do not. It is not known what Gog and Magog refer to. To quote Gerald LaRue's "Old Testament Life and Literature":

"Oracles on Gog and Magog picture a climactic battle against Israel. The foe cannot be identified with certainty. Gog may refer to King Gyges of Lydia in Asia Minor who was known as Gugu from Akkadian records, to a Babylonian deity Gaga, to an Armenian people called Gaga, or to some mythological foe. Magog has been said to represent the Scythians. Meshach may refer to Mushku or classical Phrygia in Asia Minor. Tabal may be Tabal of Urartu in the Lake Van area. Gomer may be the Cimmerians.23 All identifications are tentative. These enemies are symbols of people in power as the prophet writes. Their failure to overcome restored Israel will enable Yahweh to demonstrate his power and holiness. Whether this battle was meant to symbolize the close of a time of tribulation and the inauguration of a new era of peace and prosperity is not clear, but it does serve to provide the setting for the introduction of the vision of the new temple and the new Jerusalem."


So, that fact is that nobody knows what Gog and Magog refer to. If they do refer to nations, like you state, that means you've just pointed out an error in the Bible for all of us. The Revelations quote you gave clearly states FOUR corners of the Earth, but only mentions Gog and Magog. These are TWO, not four. So we have a couple possibilities:

1. The writer of Revelations made a mistake
2. Gog and Magog do not refer to these four corners

If #1 is true, then this is another indication that the Bible is not divinely inspired. If #2 is true, then that means your insinuation that they refer to nations is wrong, and that my argument that the 4 corners of the Earth refers to a flat Earth stands. And this would also mean that the Bible is not divinely inspired. Either way, they both point to the fact that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

There is NO evidence in the Bible that the four corners of the Earth refer to nations. This is mere speculation to try to "explain away" what is an obvious problem. The Bible is very clear about the concept of what the Earth is shaped. For a picture of how the Bible depicts what the Earth looks like, go to:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tll/chap2.html

This Hebrew conception of the Earth is consistent with Babylonian and Egyptian (the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews) mythology of the time, and is consistent with the Bible. Thus, this is the most probable explanation, and if you try to state that a less likely explanation is the proper one, then the burden of proof lies upon you.

Even if the 4 corners of the Earth do refer to nations, you still have a problem. These 4 nations weren't the only nations on Earth at the time. So this would mean that the writers thought that the Earth only composed of these 4 nations and no others.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 1:6-7 "Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places... and it was done. So Godmade a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it."
Psalm 104:3, 13 "You stretch the heavens out like a tent, you build your palace on the waters above.... You water the mountains from your palace"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "dome" is just a space between the water and water vapor and nothing else. It has nothing to do with shape either. Why do you say the NAB and GNB are more accurate? What are those, the Catholic Bibles? The NIV is quite accurate and it also translates it as a circle. Most of the translations including Young's literal translate it to mean a circle. In fact it seems only your Catholic Bibles translate it as a dome, since they believed the earth was flat. (I, for one, don't trust information from anything Catholic)
</font>

I have an NIV Bible and it does not translate it as a circle:

Genesis 1:6-7 "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky.""

King James Translation:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven."

New Revised Standard Version:

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky"

Douay-Rheims Latin Vulgate translation:

"And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day."


So there are no mentions of the word "circle" in all of these popular translations.

And a dome has nothing to do with shape? What do you consider a dome, then? Here on Earth we consider a dome a shape.

You also state that you don't trust Catholic Bibles. Obviously, that also must mean the Bible is not divinely inspired, because wouldn't the Holy Spirit be guiding everyone to make the proper translation, if the Bible is truly the Word of God? And how do you know what translation is "proper" or not, anyway?

The Hebrew concept of firmament refers to a dome. Check Eerdmans Bible dictionary if you do not believe this.

And finally, there is no evidence in the Bible that the firmament is a space between water and water vapor. This is just more wild speculation to support your beliefs. Unless you think that the space that divides water and water vapor is also Heaven. "And God called the firmament, Heaven."

Let's say that "firmament" really meant "air." Well, what does this mean as far as the rest of the Bible is concerned?

Genesis 1:14-17 And God said let there be lights in the air of the heavens to separate the day from the night... and let there be lights in the air of the heavens to give light upon the earth.... And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the air of the heavens to give light upon the earth, (Gen. 1:14-17).


So I guess this means that the sun, moon, and stars are all up in the air?


Let's look at Genesis 1:6-7 again, this time with air in replacement for firmament:


"Let there be air in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the air and separated the waters which were under the air from the waters which were above the air. And it was so. And God called the air heaven"


So I guess heaven is really the air all around us? And I guess there is water above the air as well (not in the air...water vapor is in the air, not above the air)?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

So are you saying that those who build tall buildings believe in a flat earth? And because the Bible says man wanted to build a high tower that reached the heavens it could only mean it believes in a flat earth?
</font>

In response to this statement, I am going to quote Adrian Swindler's response to Church of Christ preacher Jerry McDonald. This is in reference to the Tower of Babel story:


"The language and context here clearly shows an anthropomorphic god was afraid that, if he left the people to their own devices, they would reach heaven where his throne was. Yes, Jerry, those writers were just like you were in your childhood, but they had no one to teach them science as you had. The only reason you don't feel the same way about the distance to the stars now is because you have been taught scientific facts. It isn't because you're an adult but because you have been taught that the earth is not flat and that the stars are billions of miles away. Science is your teacher and not the Bible. Hold to the Bible and you, like the Amish and the people of Zion City, Illinois, will believe the earth is flat. We can at least credit them with honesty. They believe this because they believe the Bible, but you are trying to explain these things away."

I will offer another quote, this time from Stephan Van Eck:


"An analysis of their account of the tower reveals some devastating logical and theological problems. According to Genesis 11, God implicitly took offense at the arrogance of man in attempting to build a tower reaching to heaven, and it says he "came down." First of all, this contains the antiquated notion that heaven is literally "up," something no theologian today would assert. This story is the product of an earlier time with a different conceptual universe. Another problem is the fact that even the largest of ziggurats reached only a final height of around 300 feet (very tall buildings were not really possible in Mesopotamia, where only sun-dried bricks were available). The pyramids of Egypt were much taller, yet God did not object to their intruding on his domain and thwart their construction. Today's skyscrapers are taller still, yet neither God nor man has expressed any notion that they impiously infringe on God's sacred realm. Genesis also offers their motive for building the tower: so that they wouldn't get scattered all over the world. As a reason for building, this makes not the slightest bit of sense. What's more, it exhibits a prior awareness of future events, serving as foreshadowing. Hence its literary and mythic basis is apparent."


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

What kind of crap is that? Anyway God was not threatened by people building the tower; he dispesed them for the benefit of mankind. It wasn't just about the tower being built.
</font>

God was obviously threatened by people trying to reach his throne in heaven with this tower, so that is why he scattered them. He did not do it for their benefit. If anything, he did it so people would not get together to build towers. He makes it very plain with this statement from Gen 11:5

"But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Obviously, God did not do this for their benefit. He did not like men trying to reach his throne, and to prevent communication between them so it wouldn't happen again, he "confused their language."


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job 38:22 Snow is not stored in a storehouse and hail is not stored in a treasury, but the ancient Hebrews obviously thought that it was and that it was released from the dome that covered the flat earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh boy... "Treasury" and "storehouse" are metaphors. The treasuries and the storehouses are the clouds. Specific clouds store the rain, and others store the hail or snow in abundance. That's what it's speaking of. The Hebrews believed rain, snow, and hail came from the water vapour in the sky, not a dome. You know the clouds are composed of water, right?
</font>

By what standard do you determine what is to be interpreted metaphorically and what is not? One person's metaphor is another person's literal statement. There is nothing in the Bible that dictates that this passage is to be interpreted metaphorically. One can get the Bible to say anything they want it to by simply looking at things as metaphors.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:
It's very childish my friend. The Bible does not speak of the tiger, wolverine, or the elephant either.
</font>

The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for millions of years. Man has not been on Earth nearly as long. It is a glaring oversight that the Bible missed millions of years of history in favor of only a few thousand. And why did God put dinosaurs on the Earth first, anyway? Was he just messing around?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

It is not a book on natural science.
</font>
At least you got one thing right.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

It's purpose is to tell you that there is a creator and you can enter into communion with Him. It also shows man's struggle with God.
</font>
Hmmm, that's funny. Isn't that the purpose of every religious text?

And if telling us that there is a God who wants communion with us really is the purpose of the book, why do we even need the Old Testament anyway? The Bible could be condensed to 1 page if that's really what the Bible was intended for.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

There is video footage of the site on the VHS cassette, The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai.
</font>
There's also video footage of an alien autopsy, if you haven't seen that. And how about Roger Patterson's video of the Sasquatch?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

Order it from www.amazon.com if you've got the guts to view it.
</font>
I'd love to view it. I'm up for a good laugh. However, I'm not interested in spending my money on Christian propaganda.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:

debunk. The footage does not lie and it is not a hoax.
</font>

Just like Roger Patterson's video is not a hoax, and just like the alien autopsy video is not a hoax.




[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 13, 2001).]
 
Old 06-13-2001, 06:31 PM   #64
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Relationships are not only traced through the father.</font>
The word translated "son" is a very fluid word, and its meaning has to be determined by context. And in this context, that is the relationship between king and son ben should just mean "son" or at the very least, "son" in a hereditary sense. That means, son through male lineage, since, yes, in a patriarchal society, lineage is traced through the male. The same applies to usage of the word "ab" (father).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The "dome" is just a space between the water and water vapor and nothing else. It has nothing to do with shape either. Why do you say the NAB and GNB are more accurate? What are those, the Catholic Bibles? The NIV is quite accurate and it also translates it as a circle. Most of the translations including Young's literal translate it to mean a circle. In fact it seems only your Catholic Bibles translate it as a dome, since they believed the earth was flat. (I, for one, don't trust information from anything Catholic)</font>
Oh, but it is something else. Even the preposition the writer uses to describe the firmament indicates that it is solid. If it were just a space, the preposition "be" would be more appropriate. But every time a preposition is used to describe something in relation to raquiaa, it implies that raquiaa is solid. e.g. "...fly before the firmament..." (Gen. 1:20). If it's just a space, why aren't they flying in the firmament?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. The mountain is burnt at the top going down the side. It is not a volcanic mountain.</font>
I saw a report of this on Dateline NBC a while back. Has anyone done testing on the rock to see if it is actually "burnt?"
 
Old 06-13-2001, 11:17 PM   #65
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

True Thinker

First, let me say that I did have difficulty with using the Tower of Babel, even stretching the word "face," to help justify a flat earth concept. I award you one of my "ATTABOY's" for that. But then you cancelled it out with:

? What kind of crap is that? Anyway God was not threatened by people building the tower; he dispesed them for the benefit of mankind. It wasn't just about the tower being built.

If your supernatural god was not threatened by humans building a tower, why did he say, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothinhg will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

First, if your supernatural god had nothing to fear, why was ANY action required?

Second, your Sky Daddy was already there. Why does he have to come back? (Gen. 11:5&7)

Third, specifically, who are these "US"?

Fourth, are the 'children of men' not the decendents of his own creation? (If they aren't, then perhaps they are from east of Eden in the land of Nod where they were created by different supernatural gods. (Gen. 4:16&17) Maybe those gods are the "us" to which your supernatural god refers in his own words...or aren't those your god's words?

Fifth, if your supernatural god is an all-loving and knowing god, why would it seek to confound its creation. (Many sub-questions arise from this.) Why didn't it confound language at the beginning if it knew that this was going to happen? (Almost sounds as though he was surprised. Is that possible?)

This whole campfire tale, used to explain to the children why people spoke different languages, is wonderful. Just about any young, uneducated, child would believe it...if told to them by an adult. However, when a grown, modern, educated adult makes the claims you have about these verses/passages, with unsupported personal interpretations and allegations, I have to wonder if you do so from sincere belief or sheer stupidity.

I am now forced to award you my kind of crap. One "AW SHIT"!
 
Old 06-14-2001, 01:02 PM   #66
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

JamesKrieger,

Here's your quote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So, at this time, the new kings of Babylon were not descendants of Nebuchadnezzar. So no matter how much you distort the meaning of "son", you can't get around the fact that Belshazzar was in no way related to Nebuchadnezzar.</font>
Hey, if you have a problem with the Hebrews using only one word for "son" or "g_son" and another for "father" or "g_father", take it up with them. These are the problems you run into with people speaking different languages. But I am sure now you are willing to take your statement back about Belshazzar being related to Nebuchadnezzar in no way. It seems you're switching your argument. Face the facts. The Hebrews had only one word to denote the relationships in a lineage -that's a fact. What can you do about it? Everyone's language is different. As for the Baruch text, if it's even considered a forgery then there must be a reason it's not in the Bible. It really doesn't give support to what you are saying. The fact is this- Hebrews had only one word for ancestor and one for descendant. It does not mean the writer of Daniel mistakenly thought Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son. As I already pointed out to you, they were related by blood. The author is correct in using those words to show the relationship. That was his language.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">These aren't the only historical problems with Daniel. The Bible claims that Nebuchadnezzar had a seven-year period of insanity and was absent from his duties, but there is no evidence of this in Babylonian records (who kept very meticulous records, I might add). Also, Belshazzar was never actually a king (he was a crown-prince), although the Bible clearly states that he was a king. Belshazzar was also not in command when Babylonia was defeated, even though the Bible says so. Belshazzar also was not assassinated, as the Bible asserts, but instead was defeated in battle when the city of Opis was attacked. Thus, the book of Daniel is horribly wrong regarding a number of historical points (there are still more which I haven't even mentioned here).</font>
As far as the records go for Nebuchadnezzar, are they complete? I mentioned to you before that if historical records were complete, archaeologists may as well quit their jobs. There's no reason for them to keep looking for anything. Have all the records of the Babylonians been found? It's best not to make conclusive statements about such things.

Belshazzar was co-regent with his father. "Co" implies that the kingdom was shared. Evidence from historical deeds show people swore by two rulers, during the reign of Nabonidus. That is why it says this in Daniel 5:

29 Then at Belshazzar's command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

Belshazzar could not give Daniel the position of the second highest ruler because he himself held that position. The author does not say Belshazzar was "assasinated", rather that very night of the day he held the banquet he lost his "kingdom" to the Medes and Persians. Darius the Mede began to rule. This Darius was known historically as Gubaru. He was born in 601 B.C. and the governer of Cyrus' province of Gutium at the time the Persians took over Babylon. He was the grandson of Cyaraxes I (known as Ahasuerus in the Bible- it mentions three different ones). He divided Babylon among the 120 satraps. "Darius" is a title given to "the holder of the scepter." "Ahasuerus" is a hereditary name, like Pharaoh.
(You should be careful of quoting too quickly from the secweb; you should be skeptical of the skeptics; you are being fed half-truths).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Let's say that the word could not be properly translated. If the Bible really was divinely inspired, don't you think the Holy Spirit would guide the translators to the most appropriate word? To assert that the word is not properly translated is to admit that errors have occurred during the Bible translation, meaning that your Bible cannot be adequately relied on as the Word of God.</font>
No. It just means that there is a problem with the translation. (You are looking for every excuse possible, aren't you?) A truthful translation would tell you that the definition is not known. All my Bibles do that. I will be first to tell you that I do not believe the KJV of the Bible is all that accurate. A newer translation is usually more accurate because as the years have passed we have gained a better understanding of the Hebrew lexicon to make more accurate translations. A bad translation does not render the Bible "not divinely inspired" because the translators are not the authors- they are translators. If you want to prove that the Bible is not divinely inspired, you need to attack the original language, not the translation.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So, that fact is that nobody knows what Gog and Magog refer to. If they do refer to nations, like you state, that means you've just pointed out an error in the Bible for all of us. The Revelations quote you gave clearly states FOUR corners of the Earth, but only mentions Gog and Magog. These are TWO, not four. So we have a couple possibilities:

1. The writer of Revelations made a mistake
2. Gog and Magog do not refer to these four corners</font>
The writer of Revelations did not make a mistake. You need to explain why two nations cannot make four corners. You haven't shown why. The fact that the author refers to the nations in the four corners and mentions them right after, could mean only one thing- the four corners speak of a specific area of the world (an area that forms four corners) and have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Gog and Magog, as I said before, are the ancient names of these nations, mentioned in Genesis 10:

2 The sons[1] of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.[/quote]

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Even if the 4 corners of the Earth do refer to nations, you still have a problem. These 4 nations weren't the only nations on Earth at the time. So this would mean that the writers thought that the Earth only composed of these 4 nations and no others.</font>
I can't believe you would even argue this. Obviously if only certain specific nations are in the four "corners", it would only mention those nations. The rest of the nations of the world are not in the four "corners".

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I have an NIV Bible and it does not translate it as a circle:</font>
I was referring to what you said about Isaiah 40:22.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You also state that you don't trust Catholic Bibles. Obviously, that also must mean the Bible is not divinely inspired, because wouldn't the Holy Spirit be guiding everyone to make the proper translation, if the Bible is truly the Word of God? And how do you know what translation is "proper" or not, anyway?</font>
Sure the Holy Spirit will be guiding translators. At the same time, the devil is out to spread lies. One must be able to discern what is of the Spirit of God and what is not. Catholicism hasn't done too well with telling the whole truth. Europe underwent a "dark age" because of it. I could go on and on about the damage it has caused. I am very questionable of anything catholic.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">God was obviously threatened by people trying to reach his throne in heaven with this tower, so that is why he scattered them. He did not do it for their benefit. If anything, he did it so people would not get together to build towers. He makes it very plain with this statement from Gen 11:5</font>
Let me break it down for you. God intervened because of direct disobedience. He wasn't threatened by any towers.

Genesis 1
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."

Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth".

Genesis 11
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

They were doing the complete opposite of what God had commanded. God did not have a problem with them building a tower. He had a problem with their reasons. Man is sinful and not committed to the ways of God. Men would cause a lot of evil in a "one world nation"- there is no true peace, rather there is oppression. Which is why the empires never last, why monopolies aren't good for the consumer, etc. Too much damage would be caused by one ruler or a "one world" type government.

Ask yourself, if man had not been scattered over the face of the earth, would he know what he knows about the earth at this point in time? You can't really learn too much about the earth if you're only stuck in one part of it. (For one, you may not possess the knowledge of the dinosaurs you love oh so dearly)

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'd love to view it. I'm up for a good laugh. However, I'm not interested in spending my money on Christian propaganda.</font>
Revealing your bias I see. As long as anything "christian" is attached to it your not going to waste your time. How open-minded is that? I do admit that their re-enacments were kind of funny, but the facts they present speak for themselves. You shouldn't even compare it to an alien autopsy. But you sound like someone who needs every reason possible to believe the Bible is not true, so why watch anything that might lend substantial credibility to it? That's not what you want, right?

[This message has been edited by TrueThinker (edited June 14, 2001).]
 
Old 06-14-2001, 10:10 PM   #67
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:


Hey, if you have a problem with the Hebrews using only one word for "son" or "g_son" and another for "father" or "g_father", take it up with them. These are the problems you run into with people speaking different languages. But I am sure now you are willing to take your statement back about Belshazzar being related to Nebuchadnezzar in no way. It seems you're switching your argument. Face the facts. The Hebrews had only one word to denote the relationships in a lineage -that's a fact. What can you do about it? Everyone's language is different. As for the Baruch text, if it's even considered a forgery then there must be a reason it's not in the Bible. It really doesn't give support to what you are saying. The fact is this- Hebrews had only one word for ancestor and one for descendant. It does not mean the writer of Daniel mistakenly thought Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son. As I already pointed out to you, they were related by blood. The author is correct in using those words to show the relationship. That was his language.

</font>
First, I checked out your claim that Nabonidus was married to Nicotris, who supposedly was Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. There are no independent historical sources that I could find that could verify this. Only Christian websites make this claim. The information that I gathered is that the ONLY historical reference to Nicotris is in Herodotus's "The Persian Wars", which is a distorted oral account of the fall of Babylon. The name of Nicotris is NOT known from ANY Babylonian records. According to Herodotus, Labynetus was the son of Queen Necrotis and was the last king of Babylon. However, in Book 1:74, Herodotus also makes reference to Nebuchadnezzar as King Labynetus. The only other independent source I could find regarding Nicotris was the online Encylopedia Britannica, which stated that Nicotris was "perhaps" the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. So, historians do not know if Nicotris was Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, and any reference to Nicotris as Nebuchadnezzar's daughter is mere speculation. So who here is really the one being fed "half-truths?" Probably from Christiananswers.net or inerrancy.org, I presume.


Second, whether the apocryphal book of Baruch is a forgery or not is irrelevant, and the fact it is not in the Bible is irrelevant. This book was written in the 2nd century B.C., and it is obvious that the author thought Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son. Since Daniel has also been dated by most scholars at the 2nd century B.C., it gives evidence that there was a common erroneous belief at the time that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son.

Also, like most Christians do, you only respond to certain criticisms that you feel you can respond to and ignore others. First, you have failed to address La pede's point that in patriarchal societies, lineage is traced through the male. Second, you have failed to address the fact that, from the context of the book of Daniel, it is obvious that the author believed a primary father-son relationship and nothing more. If you think otherwise, than you need to show evidence in the Book of Daniel that the author is actually referring to a grandfather-grandson relationship. If you cannot do this, then your assertion that the author is referring to such a relationship is merely your own unsupported personal interpretation.

Two contemporary texts of the period, The Persian Verse Account and the Babylonian Chronicle, mention eccentric behavior by Nabonidus. The later Qumran text also mentions a period of insanity by Nabonidus. Since Nabonidus was gone from Babylonia for 7 years, then something becomes extremely obvious. The writer of Daniel said that Nebuchadnezzar suffered a 7 year period of insanity. Obviously, the writer was confusing Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus. This also gives further evidence to support the assertion that Daniel was using the words father and son to designate a primary relationship. Daniel referred to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as father and son because he thought Nabonidus was actually Nebuchadnezzar. This also explains the radical 30 year jump from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar from chapters 4 to 5, without the mention of the intervening rulers. Daniel thought he was moving from Nabonidus to Belshazzar instead.

Finally, I challenge you to find another place in the Bible where the words father and son are repeatedly used like they are in Daniel, and that they mean something other than a primary father-son relationship.


Looking over my NIV Bible right now, I see here in Genesis 11:31

"Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran..."

Well, well, well! I thought there was no translation for the word "grandson." What's it doing here, then? And why is it not in the book of Daniel yet is present in Genesis?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
As far as the records go for Nebuchadnezzar, are they complete? I mentioned to you before that if historical records were complete, archaeologists may as well quit their jobs. There's no reason for them to keep looking for anything. Have all the records of the Babylonians been found? It's best not to make conclusive statements about such things.
</font>



Like most Christians, in the face of historical evidence that does not support your beliefs, you resort to "any loophole will do hermeneutics" to get out of it. You did this in regards to the hare and cud-chewing regarding the lack of fossil evidence. Basically, you're saying, "Well, archaelogical records are never complete, so what we currently know about Babylon may not be right." Well, maybe centaurs and Medusa existed, too. The fossil record is never complete. So our conclusions that centaurs don't exist might not be right. By your method of arguing, we wouldn't even be able to rule out the existence of Santa Claus. According to you, we shouldn't make conclusive statements about anything because of the even small probability that we might be shown wrong. This is hardly a useful course of action.

To quote Dave Matson:

"Take something pretty basic, for example, such as the physical existence of the earth. How can we prove (with 100% certainty, mind you) that the earth is not an illusion? Perhaps you are just a brain wired up in some alien laboratory, and the earth is just an illusion programmed for your benefit. How do you disprove that model with 100% certainty? As far as I know, nobody has the foggiest idea how to do that. It is just one of an infinite number of logically possible defenses for a nonexistent earth.

Now you may feel that we are in a hopeless quagmire, but that is true only if we insist on 100% certainty. Once we make the reasonable assumption that our collective senses do give meaningful data about the real world, once we understand that every proof must contain an element of uncertainty, then we are back in business. If we err in trusting our collective senses at their most basic level, then we have lost nothing. We have nothing to lose, and, judging by the success of the sciences, everything to gain. This is the only "leap of faith" that science allows itself. It is the bare minimum if we are to understand reality at all.

Truth and error, then, at least in the physical world of atoms and energy, cannot be established with 100% certainty. Outside the realm of mathematics, of abstract reasoning, proof of error is always accompanied by loopholes; no amount of data will ever remove all doubt. To put it another way, in matters of inductive reasoning no one can ever plug the last loophole. There will ALWAYS be loopholes in every theory about the real world. It is how we handle them that marks us as seekers of truth or as wishful dreamers.

THE SIMPLE FACT OF POINTING OUT A LOOPHOLE COUNTS FOR NOTHING IN EVALUATING A CLAIM ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WORLD."


Babylonian history is not complete, but it is complete enough to make reasonable conclusions about who or who was not in power, and who conquered who. If you assert that the facts I stated about known Babylonian history are wrong, then it is up to you to show evidence that they are wrong. Otherwise, you have absolutely no argument, and are simply one of these "wishful dreamers" that Dave Matson refers to.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Belshazzar was co-regent with his father. "Co" implies that the kingdom was shared. Evidence from historical deeds show people swore by two rulers, during the reign of Nabonidus. That is why it says this in Daniel 5:

29 Then at Belshazzar's command, Daniel was clothed in purple, a gold chain was placed around his neck, and he was proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

Belshazzar could not give Daniel the position of the second highest ruler because he himself held that position.

</font>
First, this statement is based on the assumption that Daniel was a real person. There are no records of such a person outside the Bible. Keep in mind that the Babylonians kept very meticulous records of who was in power. If a person named Daniel actually was given such a prominent position, Babylonian records would show it. So, on this alone your argument is invalid.

Second, Belshazzar served as regent in the absence of Nabonidus from 552-545 B.C.E. However, he did NOT serve as king. Contemporary texts of the time say that Babylonians were angry because their New Year Festival was not performed during the period of Belshazzar's reign. Only the king could perform it. Thus, Belshezzar was NOT king, only a crown-prince. This is in complete contradiction with the Bible, where the Bible repeatedly refers to Belshezzar as King.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The author does not say Belshazzar was "assasinated", rather that very night of the day he held the banquet he lost his "kingdom" to the Medes and Persians.
</font>
Read one verse further:

Daniel 5:30 "That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two."

So Belshazzar was assassinated, according to the Bible. And you cannot claim that he died in battle because Babylon fell to the Persian general Gobyras (Ugbaru) without resistance on October 12, 539 B.C.E.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Darius the Mede began to rule. This Darius was known historically as Gubaru. He was born in 601 B.C. and the governer of Cyrus' province of Gutium at the time the Persians took over Babylon. He was the grandson of Cyaraxes I (known as Ahasuerus in the Bible- it mentions three different ones). He divided Babylon among the 120 satraps. "Darius" is a title given to "the holder of the scepter." "Ahasuerus" is a hereditary name, like Pharaoh.
</font>

First, in Daniel 9:1, the writer describes Darius the Mede as the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes. This is false. Ahasuerus, also known as Xerxes, was the king of Persia from 485-465 B.C.E. Ahasuerus was not a Mede but rather Persian king. His reign didn't begin until 54 years after Daniel claimed that Babylon fell to Darius the Mede. So how can Darius the Mede by the son of Ahasuerus, when Ahaseurus's reign did not begin until 485 B.C.E.? How can Darius be the son of someone who hadn't even been born yet?

This is not the only problem. A Median empire was not present between the Babylonian and Persian monarchies. In 550 B.C.E., Cyrus conquered Medes and made it a satrapy of the Persian Empire. In 539 B.C., Babylon fell to Cyrus, so there was no Media at the time. Thus, no Mede was in power as the writer of Daniel had reported. Cyrus ruled Babylon until 538 B.C. and then moved to Ecbatana, a city that Cyrus had previously conquered when he took over Media. So Daniel was clearly in error. Daniel said that Darius the Mede reigned in Babylon for at least a year before Cyrus the Persian took over. However, Cyrus had already left Babylon for Ecbatana by the time Daniel claims that Darius the Mede supposedly finished his rule.

You also stated that Darius the Mede, or Gubaru, was the governer of Cyrus' province of Gutium at the time the Persians took over Babylon. This completely contradicts the book of Daniel which you are trying to defend. The book of Daniel does not refer to Darius as a subordinate and contemporary ruler with Cyrus. On the contrary, in Daniel 6, Darius is presented as the absolute ruler. He claims that he is limited by only the law that he makes, and that nobody can pray to God or man, only to himself. So he is obviously not a subordinate to Cyrus.

Also, I'm not sure where you got your information as far as Darius being the holder of the sceptre, but there are no references to ANY individual named Darius the Mede outside the book of Daniel. Also, this Darius cannot be the general Ugbaru or Gobyras, for Ugbaru died only a few weeks after entering Babylon. Cyrus II followed Ugbaru into Babylon 17 days after Ugbaru had taken it over peacefully.

Cyrus II actually assumed sovereignty over Babylonia at the age of 62. Surprise, surprise. The Bible says that Darius the Mede took over the kingdom at the age of 62. Obviously, the writer of Daniel was very confused on who took over Babylonia.

The writers of the Bible did not use "Ahasuerus" as a title as you claim. In Ezra 4, the Bible mentions Persian kings in succession by their names: Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes. So, if you think that Ahasuerus refers to a title, why would the Bible writer list 3 names of Kings and then for some reason say, "king" with no name on it? Everywhere in Ezra, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes are mentioned over and over again by name and not by Ahasuerus. Also, at least 25 times, Ezra refers to Ahasuerus as "King Ahasuerus." If "Ahasuerus" meant a title like "king" or "pharoah", this would mean the writer is saying, "King King." This is absolutely absurd.

Finally, I'll leave you with the words of Farrell Till regarding this issue:

"We don't have to wonder if Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, Evil-Merodach, Artaxerxes, Sennacherib, Tilgath-Pileser, and other Gentile kings mentioned in the Bible were actual historical persons, because extrabiblical records confirm that they were real, but we are supposed to believe that a king who conquered Babylon, issued edicts, and made extensive administrative reforms during his reign (Dan. 6) went completely unmentioned in the contemporary records of both Babylon and Persia. It is far more credible to believe that a document that exhibits signs of a later authorship was indeed written well after the fact by someone who was confused about 6th-century B. C. history."


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
No. It just means that there is a problem with the translation. (You are looking for every excuse possible, aren't you?) A truthful translation would tell you that the definition is not known. All my Bibles do that. I will be first to tell you that I do not believe the KJV of the Bible is all that accurate. A newer translation is usually more accurate because as the years have passed we have gained a better understanding of the Hebrew lexicon to make more accurate translations. A bad translation does not render the Bible "not divinely inspired" because the translators are not the authors- they are translators. If you want to prove that the Bible is not divinely inspired, you need to attack the original language, not the translation.
</font>
Like I said, the New Revised Standard Version, which is a newer translation, says that the "birds identified in verses 13-19 are uncertain" and says nothing about the hare.

Not only that, the fact that only the authors were divinely inspired and not the translators represents a problem. If only the original authors are divinely inspired, what use is a Bible translation, then? Why would God only divinely inspire the writers, yet let translators potentially twist around his original Word? There are no "original manuscripts" available of OT texts, anyway. All Bible translations are off of texts that are far removed from any originals. There are likely not only translation errors but manuscript copying errors as well. Your God is very irresponsible regarding his Word if he wouldn't protect it from being altered over many years of copying and translation.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The writer of Revelations did not make a mistake. You need to explain why two nations cannot make four corners. You haven't shown why. The fact that the author refers to the nations in the four corners and mentions them right after, could mean only one thing- the four corners speak of a specific area of the world (an area that forms four corners) and have nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Gog and Magog, as I said before, are the ancient names of these nations, mentioned in Genesis 10:

2 The sons[1] of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.

</font>

You have now contradicted yourself. Here are your exact words from a previous post:

"I said it is speaking of specific nations. Gog and Magog are the ancient names of the nations, the other two are Mesech and Tubal, if I remember correctly."

So first you state that the 4 corners are referring to 4 nations: Gog, Magog, Mesech, and Tubal. Now you turn around and say that the 4 corners only refer to 4 corners of 2 nations.

Not only that, but Genesis 10 does NOT refer to nations. A more complete quote of Genesis 10:

"This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.

The Japhethites

The sons of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras."


Genesis 10 is referring to names of Noah's grandsons, NOT the names of nations. Not only that, but I do not see any "Gog" in this list. So, again, you have no support for your assertion that "Gog and Magog" refer to nations.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Sure the Holy Spirit will be guiding translators. At the same time, the devil is out to spread lies. One must be able to discern what is of the Spirit of God and what is not.
</font>
So are you saying that God lets the Devil interfere with his Word? Now we have some serious problems. And by what criteria do you know that something is in the Spirit of God? And if the Holy Spirit is guiding the translators, why all the different Bible translations? Is the Holy Spirit only guiding some of the translators? If so, which ones?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Catholicism hasn't done too well with telling the whole truth. Europe underwent a "dark age" because of it.
</font>
Protestants haven't done any better. The Salem Witch trials occurred under the reign of Protestants here in this country. And they were simply following what their Bible told them. It is your God that decreed the death penalty for witchcraft:

Leviticus 20:27: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.


Deuteronomy 18:10-12: There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer, for all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD.

It is your Bible that claims the existence of witchcraft, and the Puritans believed it. Such events would never had happened if the Bible didn't exist.

Finally, why don't you trust Catholic Bibles? What is it about a Catholic Bible translation that is responsible for the Dark Ages? Are you saying that the Dark Ages would not have happened had another Bible translation been used? If so, why?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Genesis 11
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

They were doing the complete opposite of what God had commanded. God did not have a problem with them building a tower. He had a problem with their reasons. Man is sinful and not committed to the ways of God. Men would cause a lot of evil in a "one world nation"- there is no true peace, rather there is oppression. Which is why the empires never last, why monopolies aren't good for the consumer, etc. Too much damage would be caused by one ruler or a "one world" type government.
</font>

First, the men did not build a tower to make a "one world nation" and there is no evidence of that in the scripture. If what you claim was true, then they WOULD want to be scattered over the face of the earth...you can't rule the world unless you've got people working for you at all parts of the earth.

The men built a tower because they wanted to "make a name" for themselves. God was threatened by it, which is evident by his comment "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." God was obviously afraid of men getting equal or more power than him by climbing up to his throne.

Monopolies are only bad if they raise prices too high for consumers and don't maintain high quality products. Empires don't last because they try to take over too much territory to where it becomes unmanageable. It has nothing to do with "damage" being caused. Your arguments makes no sense. The U.S. is an extremely large country and hasn't had too much problems being under one government. The people in the story of the Tower of Babel would not nearly have covered as much of an area as the U.S. does.

Despite our languages becoming "confused", man has become VERY powerful and has done a lot of things much more complex than building towers (genetic engineering, medical advancements, space travel). God doesn't seem to care.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Ask yourself, if man had not been scattered over the face of the earth, would he know what he knows about the earth at this point in time? You can't really learn too much about the earth if you're only stuck in one part of it.
</font>

Again, God scattered the people because he was afraid of them becoming too powerful. "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." So, if you believe that the scattering of people over the earth was a good thing, then obviously God's plan backfired, because it's made man more powerful and knowledgeable, when God clearly didn't intend this.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Revealing your bias I see. As long as anything "christian" is attached to it your not going to waste your time. How open-minded is that?
</font>
I told you I'd love to see it, but I'm not interested in spending my limited budget on it. Unless you'd like to buy it for me.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
I do admit that their re-enacments were kind of funny, but the facts they present speak for themselves. You shouldn't even compare it to an alien autopsy.
</font>
Why not? That video clearly shows an alien autopsy. It must be real, then.

What makes this video more legitimate than the famous alien autopsy video? What makes it more legitimate than Roger Patterson's Sasquatch film? What makes it more legitimate than the famous shadow picture of the Loch Ness Monster?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
You should be careful of quoting too quickly from the secweb; you should be skeptical of the skeptics; you are being fed half-truths).
</font>
There is quite a bit of difference between the Secular web and website like inerrancy.org and Christiananswers.net. On the Secular web, you will find links to articles defending the Christian faith. Farrell Till invites Christians to defend the Bible in his "Skeptical Review", and posts their articles side by side with his arguments, so that you may read BOTH arguments and see who has the better one (the skeptics win every time, which is partly why I left Christianity). Christian sites do NOT do this, which tells me that the Christian position is not as strong as apologetics would like you to believe.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
But you sound like someone who needs every reason possible to believe the Bible is not true, so why watch anything that might lend substantial credibility to it? That's not what you want, right?
</font>
As a former Christian, I've already been down the Christian path. My criticism of the Bible has nothing to do with not wanting to believe it. I left Christianity because there was too much evidence staring me in the face that told me that Christianity was a lie, and I would not sacrifice my intellectual integrity to try to defend an indefensible faith.

I simply look at the evidence and draw the best conclusion based upon what evidence is available. You, on the other hand, have already made your conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God, and will contort and twist the evidence around to support the conclusion you have already made. This is very evident in your attempt to pass off Noah's grandsons as nations, or to claim that firmament actually means air. It is also evident because you are unable to respond to all of the criticisms that are levied against you. For example, you failed to respond to my most recent critiques of your attempt to replace firmament with air. You failed to respond to Buffman's questions regarding the Tower of Babel story. Like all other Christians who try to defend their faith, you resort to the following tactics:

1. You ignore criticisms of which you are unable to respond, and/or
2. You resort to far-fetched loopholes as arguments, and/or
3. You distort the meanings of words so badly that you can get the Bible to say anything you want it to.

I fully expect your next response to include more any-loophole-will-do hermeneutics and such other tactics. With each response you make, you dig the hole deeper for yourself.
 
Old 06-14-2001, 10:56 PM   #68
James Still
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Has Nomad heard the Holding/Terkel explanation before?</font>
Nomad did not hear that explanation before because I have never given it until now. When Holding published his rather imaginative version of the events on his website I said nothing, thinking that it was best to let him save face. But he seems to have persisted in repeating the falsehood and allows folks like Nomad to spread it on his behalf which is wrong. I just wanted Nomad and others to hear our side of the story (there are always two sides). I could mention other things too but I don't want to open old wounds. I'd rather wish him well with his new book and it is my sincere hope that his ministry develops into a full-time endeavor.

(Ok, now back to this fascinating discussion between these two fine gentlemen...)
James Still is offline  
Old 06-15-2001, 04:58 AM   #69
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

J.K.

What a cogent and magnifiscent post. It was a pleasure to read. Thank you again.

Bill

This is not so much a request for a reply as it is an airing of some personal concerns ref. the "explanation never having been given until now." Perhaps I am only vaguely remembering tidbits from Holding's post. However, I do seem to remember something about a legal effort made to remove your site from the web via a law suit by Holding that was filed in Denver(?).

I may well have this situation confused with another. Again, only very, very, vaguely do I seem to recall reading about it in the alt. origins/Creationism-Evolution essays a number of years ago. Obviously it was not anything from your folks. But I think it was someone discussing it from the point-of-view of what lengths his ilk will go to attempting to silence effective dissent.

It is on that basis that I made the remark I did above. I hope that I did not create a false impression about the actual level of first hand knowledge that I have about any of this...which is zero.
 
Old 06-15-2001, 07:34 AM   #70
James Still
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
Post

Holding has never brought legal action against II and what you heard was probably a rumor.
James Still is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.