Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 04-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

In Isaiah we read where exactly Cyrus would come:

You are now contradicting yourself. First you claim it was Media. Remember this?

JER 51:11 Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the LORD hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the LORD, the vengeance of his temple.

And you were sloppy enough to tell us that Media couldn't be the fulfillment since Media wasn't north of Babylon. Except that it is - almost EXACTLY due north.

So now you're in a bind. You've found out that Media is, in fact, north of Bablyon, so you've decided that Persia is supposed to be the fulfillment of prophecy. So much for "Darius the Mede" and all those other historically inaccurate references to Medes.

But you're not out of the woods yet. Cyrus wasn't the Median king; he was the Persian king. So the Jeremiah prophecy about "stirring up the spirit of the kings of the Medes" doesn't apply here. From my research paper disproving this prophecy:

Quote:

The answer is obvious. Obviously, Isaiah expected an independent Media to invade Babylon; Persia wasn’t even on his “radar” at that time. Historically speaking, that expectation was not unreasonable at all. Consider that in Isaiah’s timeframe, Media was unconquered and still a major independent power. The role that Media played in destroying Nineveh and carving up the territorial remains of the Assyrian Empire no doubt left a lasting impression on Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as everyone else.

Contrast Media’s prominence with that of Persia. At that same time, the Persian tribes were transforming themselves from a loose association of invading tribes into a small kingdom, but still under the suzerainty of other, greater powers. Who would have expected them to rise to and become a world empire, less than a century after Nineveh’s fall? Not Isaiah, evidently.

Jeremiah wrote at a time before Cyrus conquered the Medes in 550 BCE; so like Isaiah, the prophet Jeremiah also expected an independent Media to be moving against Babylon, and he gave no thought to Persian tribes. And like Isaiah, he specifically mentions that kingdom as the instrument of Babylon’s destruction – the same terrible destruction that was supposed to make Babylon look as devastated as Sodom.

However, there is no record of an independent Media ever invading Babylon. It is true that the Medes did participate as co-invaders of Babylon in 539 BCE. But in that case, it was Persia, not Media, which headed up the invading army. Media was the junior partner in that event.

And finally, you are still ducking and chickening out from answering the big question. Regardless of who was in charge of the invasion of Babylon, we saw earlier that the invasion was a historical non-event, at least in terms of doing any damage to the city or sending apocalyptic judgment upon its inhabitants. So even if bible literalists want to argue that the Persian invasion is the self-same destruction of the Medes that Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke of, the literalists still have a big problem. Where, exactly, is the evidence of destruction? Where do we see that “bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb”?

No matter how you slice it, the Medes were never involved in any devastating invasion of Babylon - and a devastating invasion would specifically be required, in order to fulfill the prophecy. Not while they were independent kingdom, nor during the brief decades while they were co-regents with the Persians over the Achamaenid Empire. And if we assume that the Old Testament authors meant “Persians” when they wrote “Medes”, that still doesn’t help. The Persians treated Babylon with the utmost care and courtesy - there was no devastation.

So sugarhitman can try to hide behind semantics, but the 800 pound elephant in the room is the problem of a lack of destruction of Babylon, where the prophecy calls for massive devastation by the Persians.

Um you remember what I said of Cyrus? He was both Persian and Median. And no matter how you try he and the combined forces of medes and persians as Isaiah says came from the east...not the north. The kings of the north is Gog and his forces as God makes it crystal clear in Ezekiel that this is who he was referring to in the writings of the prophets......who appeared to be writing of someone else.

800 pound elephant, where?

Sheshonq · 04-12-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Um you remember what I said of Cyrus? He was both Persian and Median.

I remember you saying it.
I just don't remember you ever proving it.

Quote:

And no matter how you try he and the combined forces of medes and persians as Isaiah says came from the east...not the north.

The point is that it was a Persian invasion, regardless of which direction it came from.

You also clearly screwed up by not knowing where Media was - all the while trying to lecture others about not knowing Jeremiah. What a piece of work you are.

ROFLMAO
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing::rolling::rolling:

Quote:

[ The kings of the north

What kings? More nonsense.

You haven't shown that these "kings" are Nordic anyhow. In point of fact, you can't even come up with a non-contradictory list of these "ten kings". You exclude many Germanic tribes, and give no reasons for including others. You even try to include Celts and Slavs in your list of "nordic" countries.

Your list of "ten kings" is a joke - you can't even defend it.

Quote:

800 pound elephant, where?

Right here.

Still waiting on you to explain why there was no destruction of Babylon, contrary to the prophecy.

-Jay- · 04-12-2008, 06:11 PM

Sugarhitman -

Review this thread.

There's been a lot of discussion on Babylon. If you think you can add anything new, have at it.

I know how I'd bet, though.

regards,

NinJay

Sitamun · 04-12-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Um you remember what I said of Cyrus? He was both Persian and Median. And no matter how you try he and the combined forces of medes and persians as Isaiah says came from the east...not the north. The kings of the north is Gog and his forces as God makes it crystal clear in Ezekiel that this is who he was referring to in the writings of the prophets......who appeared to be writing of someone else.

800 pound elephant, where?

No, for the last time Cyrus was PERSIAN. I honestly don't know or care from which direction they came from, but it was the PERSIAN army. Now your throwing this Gog etc. in the mix? Why now all of a sudden? Oh I see your now falling back on the "God makes it crystal clear, but NOT having it make any rational sense" excuse.

That elephant is STILL in the room. :devil1:

Jack the Bodiless · 04-14-2008, 06:17 AM

Quoting myself, from post #40 on this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

sugarhitman:

If Biblical prophecy is "not vague", then you now agree that Ezekiel's reference to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon as the person who would conquer, sack and depopulate Egypt (in his failed "Egypt prophecy"), IS actually a reference to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and NOT some future conqueror? Because otherwise that would be rather "vague", yes?

Otherwise, if you're still tossing out Biblical names and substituting others at random: all the references to "Israel" could be about Japan, or Sri Lanka, or Paraguay. Who knows? Or maybe the four empires of Daniel's vision were the Olmecs, the Toltecs, the Aztecs and the Spaniards.

...But now we're plunging ever deeper into the vagueness of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

We're now supposed to believe that Jeremiah and Isaiah weren't talking about the real Babylon because some later author (who had apparently used the wrong mushrooms for his experimental pizza recipe) used "Babylon" in a metaphorical context. And the king of the Medes was some sort of ghost.

Whatever happened to those alleged "non-vague" prophecies, sugarhitman?

Sitamun · 04-14-2008, 06:39 AM

Sugarhitman has indeed left the "crystal clear" prophecies for basically mud. Supposedly Daniel was a member of Nebby's court. Wouldn't Daniel have KNOWN, had first hand knowledge of who succeeded to the throne? Daniel says that Nebby's son Belshazzar reigns after him. However, I can find no Kings list for Babylon with Belshazzar listed in the same "dynasty" as Nebby. As someone else mentioned, Nabonidus had a son Belshazzar, but he was never officially king of Babylon.
If someone is writing as though they were witness to the events but even they get the MAIN events wrong what should your conclusion be sugar?

I claim that I was at the court of Queen Victoria. Her rule was followed by that of her son King Charles III. What would be your conclusion??
After your conclusion would you feel that my words are "trustworthy"?

spin · 04-14-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The kings of the north is Gog and his forces as God makes it crystal clear in Ezekiel that this is who he was referring to in the writings of the prophets......who appeared to be writing of someone else.

Oh my geographically challenged one! When a prophecy is made in Judea, the north could as easily have been Damascus. Yet, your total ignorance of the background to Ezekiel just adds joy to an otherwise sane day. What the confused writers of Ezek 38 didn't know was the geographical and political world that they had these scraps for: talk of Meshech and Tubal, of Gog of Magog, Gomer and Beth-Togarmah.

These references are certainly all north of Judea, but of course you know nothing at all about them. For you Gog of Magog is some mystical name whose content is obscure to you, though you feel you can re-use it for your own temerous purposes.

Gog of Magog however is a specific historical reference to a king,

Gyges_of_Lydia, who was known in Akkadian literature as Gugu Mat-Gugu, "Gyges of the country of Gyges", into Hebrew and on into English, Gog of Magog. Lydia of course was in south western Anatolia. Gyges tried to get support from the Assyrians against the marauding Cimmerians (Gomer). Gyges got a bad name in the Assyrian world when he tried to support the Egyptians. One of Gyges' ancestors was Midas of Phrygia, known to the Assyrians as Mida of Mushki (Meshech). Both Til-garimu (Togarmah) and Tabal (Tubal) were post-Hittite realms in northern Syria. But these reports from the north, with their allusions to events well before the time of Ezekiel, got garbled by the writers of Ezekiel.

But sugar, if you really wanna believe that Gog is zat big bad guy comin' at de end, then you keep right on sayin' it to you sel'. Make you feel better, den go f'rit, ma man. You don'' need no reality check. You don'' mine makin' you sel' look like a jackass.

spin

spin · 04-15-2008, 06:40 AM

What, sugarhitman hasn't been back to show how mindnumbingly irrelevant his thoughts are to Daniel and how unrelated his lunatic "Medo-Persia" is to reality?

Hmmm, well, let's add yet another nail to his coffin. While sugar has himself convinced that the Medes and the Persians were so buddy-buddy they shared everything, Darius tells us of a Phraortes, a Mede who rebelled against Persia and set himself up as king of the Medes in Ecbatana in 522 BCE. Darius invaded Media and put an end to the rebellion. The Persian took care of Phraortes himself eventually having him crucified.

Here's a part of what Darius says:

Says Darius the king: One man Phraortes [by name, a Mede], he rose up in Media; thus he said to the people; [I am Khshathrita] of the family of Cyaxares; afterwards the Median people which [were in the palace] became estranged from me (and) went over to that Phraortes; he became [king] in Media.

...there (was) one Phraortes by name, a Mede; he lied; thus he said; I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares; he made Media rebellious;... *

Oh, the Medes and the Persians were just so lovey-dovey. And yet again sugarhitman's crock of shite is seen for what it is <edit>

(Yet again.)

spin

Sheshonq · 04-17-2008, 12:12 PM

Bumping this thread, just in case sugarhitman comes back. We wouldn't want him to have a problem finding it, now would we? :rolling:

WVIncagold · 04-18-2008, 09:04 AM

Shesong
your not thinking that maybe a theist would start a thread and not finish it would you? that would be seen as disingenuous.

04-15-2008, 06:40 AM	#218
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	What, sugarhitman hasn't been back to show how mindnumbingly irrelevant his thoughts are to Daniel and how unrelated his lunatic "Medo-Persia" is to reality? Hmmm, well, let's add yet another nail to his coffin. While sugar has himself convinced that the Medes and the Persians were so buddy-buddy they shared everything, Darius tells us of a Phraortes, a Mede who rebelled against Persia and set himself up as king of the Medes in Ecbatana in 522 BCE. Darius invaded Media and put an end to the rebellion. The Persian took care of Phraortes himself eventually having him crucified. Here's a part of what Darius says: Says Darius the king: One man Phraortes [by name, a Mede], he rose up in Media; thus he said to the people; [I am Khshathrita] of the family of Cyaxares; afterwards the Median people which [were in the palace] became estranged from me (and) went over to that Phraortes; he became [king] in Media. ...there (was) one Phraortes by name, a Mede; he lied; thus he said; I am Khshathrita, of the family of Cyaxares; he made Media rebellious;... * Oh, the Medes and the Persians were just so lovey-dovey. And yet again sugarhitman's crock of shite is seen for what it is <edit> (Yet again.) spin

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

04-12-2008, 06:11 PM	#213
-Jay- Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 4,157	Sugarhitman - Review this thread. There's been a lot of discussion on Babylon. If you think you can add anything new, have at it. I know how I'd bet, though. regards, NinJay

04-14-2008, 06:39 AM	#216
Sitamun Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 48	Sugarhitman has indeed left the "crystal clear" prophecies for basically mud. Supposedly Daniel was a member of Nebby's court. Wouldn't Daniel have KNOWN, had first hand knowledge of who succeeded to the throne? Daniel says that Nebby's son Belshazzar reigns after him. However, I can find no Kings list for Babylon with Belshazzar listed in the same "dynasty" as Nebby. As someone else mentioned, Nabonidus had a son Belshazzar, but he was never officially king of Babylon. If someone is writing as though they were witness to the events but even they get the MAIN events wrong what should your conclusion be sugar? I claim that I was at the court of Queen Victoria. Her rule was followed by that of her son King Charles III. What would be your conclusion?? After your conclusion would you feel that my words are "trustworthy"?

04-17-2008, 12:12 PM	#219
Sheshonq Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis Posts: 1,484	Bumping this thread, just in case sugarhitman comes back. We wouldn't want him to have a problem finding it, now would we? :rolling:

04-18-2008, 09:04 AM	#220
WVIncagold Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: West Virginina Posts: 4,349	Shesong your not thinking that maybe a theist would start a thread and not finish it would you? that would be seen as disingenuous.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.