Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 03-15-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

*Sigh*, I guess if the book of Daniel is accurate in naming/alluding to any historical persons, such as Alexander the Great, it is only proof that is was written after the fact, right? :huh:

1. The allusions are your interpretation - you've never proven the allusions are correct, nor have you shown spin's explanation of the typology/imagery to be flawed;

2. You've also failed to deal with the inaccurate history in Daniel. As much as you would like to, you don't get to focus on what Daniel gets right, and ignore what he gets wrong. Fundies may run their religion that way, but it's not how history or archaeology work.

Quote:

The reference to Alexander the Great was given in the following post:

Which doesn't matter. See point #1 above.

arnoldo · 03-15-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

*Sigh*, I guess if the book of Daniel is accurate in naming/alluding to any historical persons, such as Alexander the Great, it is only proof that is was written after the fact, right? :huh:

1. The allusions are your interpretation - you've never proven the allusions are correct, nor have you shown spin's explanation of the typology/imagery to be flawed;

Right, so now the allusion of Alexander the Great in the book of Daniel is not correct, since I've failed to prove it,right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

2. You've also failed to deal with the inaccurate history in Daniel. As much as you would like to, you don't get to focus on what Daniel gets right, and ignore what he gets wrong. Fundies may run their religion that way, but it's not how history or archaeology work.

Right, the inaccurate history which is based on semantics capital vs fortress, king vs viveroy, y-a-w-n.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

The reference to Alexander the Great was given in the following post:

Which doesn't matter. See point #1 above.

Of course, to a minimalist, nothing in the bible matter.

arnoldo · 03-15-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Don't bother;

How cruel! But then the stuff is worth a laugh. Here it is anyway:

Quote:

8. If Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon (Daniel 2:49), then why haven't their names been found in the Babylonian archives?

Till asks this question (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p.1, Column 2), and the answer can be found on a 5-sided clay prism found in Babylon, now on display at the Istanbul Museum. Dr. William Shea has identified these three Jews in this list of more than fifty government officials (W.H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 20 [1982]: pp. 37-50; A. L. Oppenheim's English Translation of the Babylonian text may be found in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J. B. Pritchard, ed, pp. 307-308). Hananiah is Hanunu (“chief of the royal merchants”); Abednego is Aridi-Nabu (“secretary of the crown prince [i.e., Amel- Marduk]”); and Mishael is Mushallim-Marduk (one of the “overseers of the slave girls”).

Everette Hatcher, who was shredded by Farrell Till long ago,

spin

There's two sides to every story

Source: Daniel’s Image of Gold by Everette Hatcher III

Quote:

Did Farrell Till concede the point? No, he just continued for about 30 more emails to insist he was right even though critical scholars agreed that he was wrong on this point. Davies also said in his letter that it was silly to insist that Belshazzar was not acting as King. Yet Till has argued that point along with Matson and Wildish. However, the most silly position by Till is that he still insists that Daniel's Aramaic has a 2nd century linguistic style and then he followed that up with this idea of a knowledgeable forger. In that argument he contends someone could have written Daniel in the 2nd century and just put in the linguistic style of the 6th century. I guess it never occurred to Till that these two arguments cancel each other out.

Sheshonq · 03-15-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. The allusions are your interpretation - you've never proven the allusions are correct, nor have you shown spin's explanation of the typology/imagery to be flawed;

Right, so now the allusion of Alexander the Great in the book of Daniel is not correct, since I've failed to prove it,right?

You're the one making the claim that it's Alexander and that Daniel is historical. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Quote:

Right, the inaccurate history which is based on semantics capital vs fortress, king vs viveroy, y-a-w-n.

It's not semantics. The distinctions are important - but you're utterly ignorant of the history surrounding the capture of Babylon, so it's not surprising that it flies well over your head.

Moreover, it's not just a question of words: it's a question of historical impossibilities: you cannot have a capital in Susa 300 years before it happened. You cannot have a Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Which doesn't matter. See point #1 above.

Of course, to a minimalist, nothing in the bible matter.

A rather clumsy dodge. Your point is still rebutted. Referring to one of your own posts which has a string of refutations following it is rather bad form; did you think that nobody would remember?

Result? PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing:

Sheshonq · 03-15-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There's two sides to every story

That misplaced hope is what keeps you clinging to the idea that Daniel's bad history can somehow be rehabilitated.

Source: Daniel’s Image of Gold by Everette Hatcher III

Quote:

Did Farrell Till concede the point? No, he just continued for about 30 more emails to insist he was right even though critical scholars agreed that he was wrong on this point. Davies also said in his letter that it was silly to insist that Belshazzar was not acting as King. Yet Till has argued that point along with Matson and Wildish. However, the most silly position by Till is that he still insists that Daniel's Aramaic has a 2nd century linguistic style and then he followed that up with this idea of a knowledgeable forger. In that argument he contends someone could have written Daniel in the 2nd century and just put in the linguistic style of the 6th century. I guess it never occurred to Till that these two arguments cancel each other out.

To which Till responded:

Quote:

Before exposing his misrepresentations, I will first address some minor points in his letter. He accused me of wanting "to take away the focus from the fact that Davies basically called [me] an idiot for arguing the point in Daniel 3:1 that the statue the author pictured was a solid gold one, " but if that were my intention, I wouldn't have published Davies' letter in the first place. I am the editor of TSR, so I decide what will and will not be published. If I had wanted to hide that Davies had expressed this opinion, all that I would have had to do was kill his letter. It was sent to Hatcher and Gavin Steingo and not to me, so if I had not published it, no one else but Steingo would ever have known that I had received it. If Hatcher wants to sling accusations, I could accuse him of trying to keep the contents of the letter from me, because it was Steingo, not Hatcher, who forwarded it to me. You can bet that if Davies had expressed agreement with Hatcher's position or had said anything that could have been construed as support for the 6th-century BC authorship of Daniel, Hatcher would have immediately forwarded the letter to me.

And:

Quote:

The Aramaic issue: Hatcher made repeated efforts to try to divert the discussion in our debate to issues that I had not mentioned in my affirmative arguments. I just as repeatedly told him that I would not allow him to shift the subject away from errors I had identified in my postings but would gladly reply to his Aramaic article, "co-written" with a Baptist professor at Mid-America Baptist Seminary, when we had finished discussing my affirmative arguments, which had identified errors in the book of Daniel that would surely not have been made by an official in the 6th-century BC Babylonian court. In fact, I have written replies to this article that I will post if Hatcher ever returns to the debate, which he appears to have dropped out of several weeks ago. If he doesn't return to the debate, I will post his article and my reply at the new website; when it is in operation. Everyone will see then that Hatcher's attempt to prove an early authorship of Daniel through appeals to Aramaic (a language he knows nothing about) has failed as miserably as his other arguments.

Reading the rest of this response (which I won't cite here), it's quite clear that Hatcher has lied about what Till said regarding gold statues, and has erected a strawman of Till's actual response on the Aramaic issue.

A lie. Followed by a strawman. This is what you said was "two sides of the story." :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Not surprising at all; lying is a common tool for fundies when they're out of ammunition, followed quickly by armies of strawmen. We've certainly seen both techniques around here enough.

arnoldo · 03-15-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There's two sides to every story

That misplaced hope is what keeps you clinging to the idea that Daniel's bad history can somehow be rehabilitated.

Source: Daniel’s Image of Gold by Everette Hatcher III

To which Till responded:

<edit,brevity>

Reading the rest of this response (which I won't cite here), it's quite clear that Hatcher has lied about what Till said regarding gold statues, and has erected a strawman of Till's actual response on the Aramaic issue.

A lie. Followed by a strawman. This is what you said was "two sides of the story." :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Not surprising at all; lying is a common tool for fundies when they're out of ammunition, followed quickly by armies of strawmen. We've certainly seen both techniques around here enough.

Right. . . the issue is the gold statue in Daniel 3

Quote:

Nebuchadnezzar the king hath made an image of gold, its height sixty cubits, its breadth six cubits; he hath raised it up in the valley of Dura, in the province of Babylon; 2 and Nebuchadnezzar the king hath sent to gather the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the honourable judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the province, to come to the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath raised up.

The base of the statue is alleged to have been located in Dura,Iraq

arnoldo · 03-15-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

You cannot have a Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Result? PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing:

Thanks for reminding me of the other lame argument from semantics that Belshazzar was not a "son" of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact archaeological proof verifies that Nabonidus for the most part was entirely absent from babylon thus Belshazzar would be ruling the city of babylon as stated in Daniel.

Source: The British Museum The chronicle stresses that Nabonidus was absent in Arabia for much of his reign,

Sheshonq · 03-15-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Reading the rest of this response (which I won't cite here), it's quite clear that Hatcher has lied about what Till said regarding gold statues, and has erected a strawman of Till's actual response on the Aramaic issue.

A lie. Followed by a strawman. This is what you said was "two sides of the story." :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Not surprising at all; lying is a common tool for fundies when they're out of ammunition, followed quickly by armies of strawmen. We've certainly seen both techniques around here enough.

Right. . . the issue is the gold statue in Daniel 3

No, the issue is that Hatcher lied about what Till's position was, concerning that gold statue.

Which means that your "other side" is a LIAR.

BWAHAHAAA!

Sheshonq · 03-15-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

You cannot have a Belshazzar as son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Result? PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing:

Thanks for reminding me of the other lame argument from semantics that Belshazzar was not a "son" of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact archaeological proof verifies that Nabonidus for the most part was entirely absent from babylon thus Belshazzar would be ruling the city of babylon as stated in Daniel.

1. Which doesn't solve the problem of Daniel incorrectly calling Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar - which he was not, he was the son of Nabonidus;

2. Even your attempt at distraction is wrong - Belshazzar was viceroy over all the empire of Babylon, not the city as you tried to claim;

3. But the records make it abundantly clear that Belshazzar was not king. So any claim by Daniel that "in the third year of Belshazzar" are flatly wrong, since regnal dating would be attached to the actual king Nabonidus, not the temporary viceroy;

So not only have you failed to rescue your argument - but you opened two other mistakes at the same time.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

arnoldo · 03-15-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Thanks for reminding me of the other lame argument from semantics that Belshazzar was not a "son" of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact archaeological proof verifies that Nabonidus for the most part was entirely absent from babylon thus Belshazzar would be ruling the city of babylon as stated in Daniel.

1. Which doesn't solve the problem of Daniel incorrectly calling Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar - which he was not, he was the son of Nabonidus;

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

. . . Right, since Daniel was written in the second century they named an obscure figure such as Belshazzar as King rather than the more famous Nabonidus. Note the following source which provides information that only 22 years passed from the death of Nebuchadnezzar to the death of Nabonidus . The British Museum
Of course Nabonidus would not want to call Belshazzar his son in order to legitamize his rule, right?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.