arnoldo

Isn't it amazing when archaelogy gives evidence that the bible was correct in placing Belshazar as viceroy of Baylon while Nabonidus was elsewhere? Daniel 5:29 states that Daniel was the third highest ruler in the kindgom; the first being Nabonidus, and the second being Belshazar.

Johnny Skeptic

Isn't it amazing that the Bible and all other religious books contain 100% disputable prophecies? If Pat Robertson predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be an indisputable prophecy, and surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

If a God exists, there are not any doubts whatsoever that he has not attempted to convince people to believe that he can predict the future. If a God wanted people to have faith, he most certainly would not try to strengthen their faith with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. If a God exists, it is a given that he has not attempted to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. That is because the very best way for a God to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact would be to make an indisputable prophecy. No religious book contains an indisputable prophecy. No reasonable motives why the God of the Bible does what he does = no God of the Bible.

Sheshonq

Except the bible doesn't say that. It says that Belshazzar was the king, not Nabonidus. OOPS! :rolling:

It says no such thing and you know it, arnoldo:

DAN 5:29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.

No mention of Nabonidus whatsoever.

Moreover, it says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon, not Nebuchadnezzar:

DAN 5:30 In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
DAN 5:31 And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

arnoldo

Right, Belshazzar was left in charge of the city of Babylon while Nabonius was elsewhere.
Daniel is proclaimed the third highest ruler in the kingdom, who would be the second highest ruler in the kingdom? Belshazzar of course. Who is the first? I grant you that Daniel does not mention the name of Nabonidus. However in the dead sea scrolls Nabonidus is mentioned!
It also says that Daniel was made the THIRD HIGHEST ruler in the kingdom meaning there were two individual higher than him.

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. 100% disputable prophecies in any religious book reasonably proves that the God(s) of that religious book does not exist. If Pat Robertson predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be an indisputable prophecy, and surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

If a God exists, there are not any doubts whatsoever that he has not attempted to convince people to believe that he can predict the future. If a God wanted people to have faith, he most certainly would not try to strengthen their faith with fulfilled prophecy after the fact because that would eliminate the need for faith. If a God exists, it is a given that he has not attempted to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact. That is because the very best way for a God to strengthen the faith of believers with fulfilled prophecy after the fact would be to make an indisputable prophecy. No religious book contains an indisputable prophecy. No reasonable motives why the God of the Bible does what he does = no God of the Bible. No rational man would be able to love a God who always makes disputable prophecies when he could easily make indisputable prophecies.

Consider the following posts from the GRD Forum:

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] So does tangible, firsthand evidence. Consider the following Scriptures:

Item 1

Matthew 4:23-25 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Item 2

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

Item 3

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

Item 4

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

Item 5

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

Item 6

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (KJV)

Item 7

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. (KJV)

Obviously, the writers of Matthew, John, Acts, and Corinthians placed great importance on tangible, firsthand evidence.

Regarding items 2, 3, and 4, Jesus' words alone were not enough to convince those people to accept him, so Jesus willingly provided them with tangible firsthand evidence.

It is suspicious that in spite of all of that tangible, firsthand evidence, Jesus criticized Thomas for wanting tangible, firsthand evidence that he has risen from the dead.

I would never be willing to accept a God who refused to provide an equal quality of evidence to everyone.

If faith pleases God, then why did you say that God used prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews, and that the Partition of Palestine was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy? You can't have it both ways. Either faith pleases God or it doesn't. Since the vast majority of Jews have always rejected Christianity, obviously, God does not use prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews. Ezekiel's failure to mention Alexander certainly did not strengthen the faith of Jews after the fact. If anything, it weakened the faith of Jews after the fact.

End of post

arnoldo

The argument that because the book of Daniel has greek words dates it to 2 BC is lame. The argument that persian words in the book of Daniel dates it after 5 BC is highly questionable.

arnoldo

Newsflash: 100% undisputable prophecies = written after the fact or self fulfilled prophecies.

Sheshonq

No, it's an anachronism that can't be explained by 5th century dating.

Also incorrect.

Sheshonq

Wrong.

100% undisputable are those with clear terms, specific in nature, and not obviously true (i.e., the sun will rise tomorrow).

The bible has none of these, unfortunately.

arnoldo

Belshazzar was ruler of the city of Babylon just like Daniel was made ruler of the city of Babylon in Daniel 2:48 and made the third highest ruler of Babylon in Daniel 5:29