Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 03-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

The actual skeptic argument about Susa is as follows:

[1]
Belshazzar was never king; so Dan 8 claiming that such-and-such happened during "the third year of Belshazzar" is a historical mistake;

Lame argument since Belshazzar was a historical figure who ruled Babylon blah blah

Incorrect. He was left in charge as viceroy, but the regnal dating is still done by indicating the actual ruler (Nabonidus), not the temporary one.

You lose as usual.

Quote:

Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus. The mistake is in associating the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, which wouldn't become the capital until

(a) the reign of two other rulers had occurred; and
(b) a decade of time had passed.

Lame argument from semantics, Susa wasn't a capital. You lose.

Sorry; you're still wrong, for three reasons:

1. The difference between "capital" and "citadel" is not semantics - merely because you're permanently clueless doesn't mean that it's a semantic difference;

2. Contrary to your uninformed musings, Susa WAS a capital - did you not read what I said? Cambyses moved the capital of Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa <-- did you get it that time? Did it sink in yet? and

3. The chronological problem doesn't go away - Susa wouldn't become a capital until a decade after the conquest of Babylon by Persia. So it was never a capital during the time of Belshazzar - yet Daniel makes this mistake of saying that it was.
BWAHAHAHAAH!!!!!

[3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

And of course, this doesn't begin to touch the other historical mistakes in Daniel. For example, this from my list to ynquirer:

Daniel 5:30 and 5:31

* No mention of Cyrus II, the actual conqueror of Babylon;
* No mention of Cambyses II, who ruled after Cyrus;
* No mention of the almost two decades that intervened between (a) the fall of the Chaldeans and (b) the reign of Darius I (539 to 522);
* No "Darius the Mede" in any case;
* No conquest, no uprisings by spurious "Nebuchadnezzars", no revolt in Babylon against the Persians, no protracted military engagement to re-take Babylon - NOTHING

Dan 5:30 slides right into 5:31 and misses all these things.

You have a good straw man argument there, nothing more.

1. No, what I have is a list of the failures of this prophecy.

2. You don't even know what the term "straw man" means, as evidenced by your childish misuse of the term above.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

arnoldo · 03-06-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Lame argument since Belshazzar was a historical figure who ruled Babylon blah blah

Incorrect. He was left in charge as viceroy, but the regnal dating is still done by indicating the actual ruler (Nabonidus), not the temporary one.

You lose as usual.

Sorry; you're still wrong, for three reasons:

1. The difference between "capital" and "citadel" is not semantics - merely because you're permanently clueless doesn't mean that it's a semantic difference;

2. Contrary to your uninformed musings, Susa WAS a capital - did you not read what I said? Cambyses moved the capital of Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa <-- did you get it that time? Did it sink in yet? and

3. The chronological problem doesn't go away - Susa wouldn't become a capital until a decade after the conquest of Babylon by Persia. So it was never a capital during the time of Belshazzar - yet Daniel makes this mistake of saying that it was.
BWAHAHAHAAH!!!!!

[3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

And of course, this doesn't begin to touch the other historical mistakes in Daniel. For example, this from my list to ynquirer:

Daniel 5:30 and 5:31

* No mention of Cyrus II, the actual conqueror of Babylon;
* No mention of Cambyses II, who ruled after Cyrus;
* No mention of the almost two decades that intervened between (a) the fall of the Chaldeans and (b) the reign of Darius I (539 to 522);
* No "Darius the Mede" in any case;
* No conquest, no uprisings by spurious "Nebuchadnezzars", no revolt in Babylon against the Persians, no protracted military engagement to re-take Babylon - NOTHING

Dan 5:30 slides right into 5:31 and misses all these things.

You have a good straw man argument there, nothing more.

1. No, what I have is a list of the failures of this prophecy.

2. You don't even know what the term "straw man" means, as evidenced by your childish misuse of the term above.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
:rolling::rolling

Quote:

::rolling::rolling::rolling

:

Wow, I guess you now have changed your mind and believe the Daniel was written in the 5th century BC in order for prophecy to "fail.' Sorry your lame argument is that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC thus it was only bad history,not failed prophecy, try again.

arnoldo · 03-06-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

2. You don't even know what the term "straw man" means, as evidenced by your childish misuse of the term above.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

And you're wasting your time again. Your man has no argument. He's wrong about BYRH. Unwittingly, he's supplying a Greek translation not for BYRH ("fortress") but for MDYNH ("province") as his source for polews kefalis. The Greek is clearly wrong and he is apparently aware of this.

Please flog your straw man elsewhere, sir.

Quote:

Fiddling with what translations have made of BYRH in Dan 8 doesn't get either of you closer to the Hebrew which is relatively straightforward.

Not the way you'd wish. You're just ignoring Josephus - which is not surprising, as seen from your lack of original sources and relying in empty tit-for-tat remarks.

Yup.

gregor · 03-06-2008, 08:41 PM

Arnie
Can you refrain from posting unless you have a relevant argument with support - seeing the thread bumped just to see your empty flashback or a "says you" retort is a bit of a waste.

arnoldo · 03-06-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Strange thing, I remember the story of the lions den and the furnace being fairly popular in sunday school, but never heard anything about Esther.

I may have been too busy coloring Jesus pictures and gluing macaroni onto paper crosses to have noticed though.

Funny, ain't it, that the babylonians would use fire to execute prisoners?

Quote:

Jeremiah 29) And of them shall be taken up a curse by all the captivity of Judah which are in Babylon, saying, The LORD make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire

Whereas the medes-perisians wouldn't, because fire was sacred to them,

Source: Herodotus

Quote:

When Cambyses had entered the palace of Amasis, he gave command to take the corpse of Amasis out of his burial-place. When this had been done, he ordered [his courtiers] to scourge it and pluck out the hair and stab it, and to dishonor it in every other possible way. When they had done this too, they were wearied out, for the corpse was embalmed and held out against the violence and did not fall to pieces. Cambyses gave command to consume it with fire, a thing that was not permitted by his own religion. The Persians hold fire to be a god and to consume corpses with fire is by no means according to the Persian or Egyptian custom. [Herodotus, Histories 3.16]

Johnny Skeptic · 03-06-2008, 10:52 PM

Message to arnoldo: You are wasting your time since no rational God would make 100% disputable prophecies when he could easily make 100% indisputable prophecies. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much 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.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

Sheshonq · 03-07-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Incorrect. He was left in charge as viceroy, but the regnal dating is still done by indicating the actual ruler (Nabonidus), not the temporary one.

You lose as usual.

Sorry; you're still wrong, for three reasons:

1. The difference between "capital" and "citadel" is not semantics - merely because you're permanently clueless doesn't mean that it's a semantic difference;

2. Contrary to your uninformed musings, Susa WAS a capital - did you not read what I said? Cambyses moved the capital of Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa <-- did you get it that time? Did it sink in yet? and

3. The chronological problem doesn't go away - Susa wouldn't become a capital until a decade after the conquest of Babylon by Persia. So it was never a capital during the time of Belshazzar - yet Daniel makes this mistake of saying that it was.
BWAHAHAHAAH!!!!!

[3]

1. No, what I have is a list of the failures of this prophecy.

2. You don't even know what the term "straw man" means, as evidenced by your childish misuse of the term above.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
:rolling::rolling:

Wow, I guess you now have changed your mind and believe the Daniel was written in the 5th century BC in order for prophecy to "fail.'

Already answered that. Several times, in fact. As usual, you can't get a point unless it's drilled into your head a minimum of 20 times.

Susa was indeed a capital in the actual time of Daniel (mid 160s BCE). But at the alleged time of the writing (during the so-called 3rd year of Belshazzar) it was not a capital yet.

Had Daniel actually been written in the 5th century, he would not have identified Susa as a capital, because at that time in history the capital was in Pasagardae instead.

And of course, there was no "year of Belshazzar" since the regnal year was dated using Nabonidus, not the viceroy.

Quote:

Sorry your lame argument is that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC thus it was only bad history,not failed prophecy, try again.

No need to try again - I succeeded the first time I posted it.

And all the 62 times I've had to repost it since then have only been to remove wiggle room from your lame arguments and to drill obvious points into your head.

Sheshonq · 03-07-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Funny, ain't it, that the babylonians would use fire to execute prisoners?

Not really.

Quote:

Whereas the medes-perisians wouldn't, because fire was sacred to them,

Notice that:

1. your source does not say "medes-persians", only Persians - your attempt to put words into Herodotus' mouth didn't work;

2. by the mid-160s, Persian customs would have been well-known, so Daniel gets no points for being aware of information readily available at that time anyhow

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:

arnoldo · 03-07-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wow, I guess you now have changed your mind and believe the Daniel was written in the 5th century BC in order for prophecy to "fail.'

Already answered that. Several times, in fact. As usual, you can't get a point unless it's drilled into your head a minimum of 20 times.

Susa was indeed a capital in the actual time of Daniel (mid 160s BCE). But at the alleged time of the writing (during the so-called 3rd year of Belshazzar) it was not a capital yet.

Had Daniel actually been written in the 5th century, he would not have identified Susa as a capital, because at that time in history the capital was in Pasagardae instead.

Quote:

Daniel 8 >>
Young's Literal Translation

1 'In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision hath appeared unto me -- I Daniel -- after that which had appeared unto me at the beginning. 2 And I see in a vision, and it cometh to pass, in my seeing, and I am in Shushan the palace that is in Elam the province, and I see in a vision, and I have been by the stream Ulai. 3 And I lift up mine eyes, and look, and lo, a certain ram is standing before the stream, and it hath two horns, and the two horns are high; and the one is higher than the other, and the high one is coming up last. 4 I have seen the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, and no living creatures do stand before it, and there is none delivering out of its hand, and it hath done according to its pleasure, and hath exerted itself.

Source: Shushan The Palace

Quote:

The Palaces at Susa and Persepolis
When Cyrus the Great founded his empire, many customs from the Elam province became part of the Persian Empire. Susa was declared as one of the three capitals of the Persians covering the southern regions.

arnoldo · 03-07-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Funny, ain't it, that the babylonians would use fire to execute prisoners?

Quote:

Jeremiah 29) And of them shall be taken up a curse by all the captivity of Judah which are in Babylon, saying, The LORD make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire

Not really.

Quote:

Whereas the medes-perisians wouldn't, because fire was sacred to them,

Notice that:

1. your source does not say "medes-persians", only Persians - your attempt to put words into Herodotus' mouth didn't work;

2. by the mid-160s, Persian customs would have been well-known, so Daniel gets no points for being aware of information readily available at that time anyhow

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling::rolling: :rolling:

Quote:

Says Darius the king: Afterwards I sent forth the Persian and the Median army which was by me

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

03-06-2008, 08:41 PM	#854
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Arnie Can you refrain from posting unless you have a relevant argument with support - seeing the thread bumped just to see your empty flashback or a "says you" retort is a bit of a waste.

03-06-2008, 10:52 PM	#856
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: You are wasting your time since no rational God would make 100% disputable prophecies when he could easily make 100% indisputable prophecies. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much 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. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.