Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James Brown · 01-22-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

Quote:

The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT?
Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC! If the prophecies were uttered even ten years before the event, then they constitute 'prophecy proper'. Strictly speaking, all that is therefore necessary to do is to demonstrate that the material/content in the book of Daniel was in existence by the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. We don't even have to show that the book was in its current form at all-if we can even find references or close/obvious allusions to the images/languages in Daniel, we will have ante-dated the events, and hence, have encountered 'real' prophecy.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

If the book can't report the past correctly, why should we trust it to report the future correctly--especially when that prophecy requires interpretation of vague symbols such as 'weeks,' strange animals, and unnamed kings?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-22-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT? Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC!

Ok, please quote a prediction that Daniel made that came true, and state the evidence that you have that it was written before the event came true.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-22-2008, 01:30 PM

If a God exists, there is no way that he wants people to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he would already have made lots of indisputable predictions, such as when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month day, and year. If a God exists, and wants people to believe that he can predict the future, it would be counterproductive for him to inspire prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire prophecies that discourage dissent. That would unnecessarily create doubt and confusion, and limit the number of people who accept him. A God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would not have anything to gain by refusing to make indisputable prophecies, and neither would anyone else. No reasonable motives = no God of the Bible.

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Are you saying it should not be trusted because it is historically inaccurate?

It's certainly not accurate for the period it is set in. See the OP.

spin

Ok, you are stating that the Book of Daniel is not historically accurate and written after the fact, right? Can you just list one or two historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel? Can you also list the source of the historical record you are using to verify the inaccuracy?

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a God exists, there is no way that he wants people to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he would already have made lots of indisputable predictions, such as when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month day, and year. If a God exists, and wants people to believe that he can predict the future, it would be counterproductive for him to inspire prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire prophecies that discourage dissent. That would unnecessarily create doubt and confusion, and limit the number of people who accept him. A God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would not have anything to gain by refusing to make indisputable prophecies, and neither would anyone else. No reasonable motives = no God of the Bible.

Yes, I think I have read that a hundred times, thank you.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-22-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a God exists, there is no way that he wants people to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he would already have made lots of indisputable predictions, such as when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month day, and year. If a God exists, and wants people to believe that he can predict the future, it would be counterproductive for him to inspire prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire prophecies that discourage dissent. That would unnecessarily create doubt and confusion, and limit the number of people who accept him. A God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would not have anything to gain by refusing to make indisputable prophecies, and neither would anyone else. No reasonable motives = no God of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yes, I think I have read that a hundred times, thank you.

Excellent, your refusal to try to successfully refute what I said indicates that you know that you can't. Logically, no God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would make disputable predictions when he could easily make indisputable predictions. If you were able to predict the future, and you wanted people to believe that you could predict the future, you make indisputable predictions because you would want to discourage dissent, not invite dissent. Even if the God of the Bible does exist, I would never accept a God who invited dissent when he could easily discourage dissent, and with no stated or apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-22-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT? Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC!

Ok, please quote a prediction that Daniel made that came true, and state the evidence that you have that it was written before the event came true.

Darklighter · 01-22-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

If the book can't report the past correctly, why should we trust it to report the future correctly--especially when that prophecy requires interpretation of vague symbols such as 'weeks,' strange animals, and unnamed kings?

Excellent point.

Does anyone know when the first mention of "Daniel the Prophet" and his book occured? As much as I've studied Daniel, I've never found that out.

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Here's another sources on the issue.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3x.html

The issue--was it written BEFORE the events or NOT? Notice carefully that our task is much more simple than would first appear. We do NOT have to demonstrate that the Book of Daniel was written according to conservative theories--in the 6th century BC. ALL we have to do (in this first part) is to demonstrate that it was written BEFORE 167 BC!

Ok, please quote a prediction that Daniel made that came true, and state the evidence that you have that it was written before the event came true.

Hyppolytus( 170-236 AD) gave the following interpretation of Daniel

Quote:

"The golden head of the image is identical with the lioness, by which the Babylonians were represented.
The golden shoulders and the arms of silver are the same with the bear, by which the Persians and Medes are meant.
The belly and thighs of brass are the leopard, by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended.
The legs of iron are the dreadful and terrible beast, by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant.
The toes of clay and iron are the ten horns which are to be.
The one other little horn springing up in their midst is the antichrist.
The stone that smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world."

FYI, prophecy was never meant to be a sign for unbelievers. Yeshua himself refused to give a sign to prove anything, only the sign of Jonah. Do you understand the sign of Jonah? He was a man running from God.

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

If the book can't report the past correctly, why should we trust it to report the future correctly--especially when that prophecy requires interpretation of vague symbols such as 'weeks,' strange animals, and unnamed kings?

Excellent point.

Does anyone know when the first mention of "Daniel the Prophet" and his book occured? As much as I've studied Daniel, I've never found that out.

Exactly, the book should of been revised in order to take out the errors. Can you please give a single example of an error in the book of Daniel as well as the source you used to verify this?

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

01-22-2008, 01:30 PM	#13
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	If a God exists, there is no way that he wants people to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, he would already have made lots of indisputable predictions, such as when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month day, and year. If a God exists, and wants people to believe that he can predict the future, it would be counterproductive for him to inspire prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire prophecies that discourage dissent. That would unnecessarily create doubt and confusion, and limit the number of people who accept him. A God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would not have anything to gain by refusing to make indisputable prophecies, and neither would anyone else. No reasonable motives = no God of the Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.