Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Casper · 02-29-2008, 01:17 PM

capitol.

Just sayin....

arnoldo · 02-29-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Right..... Daniel 8 is vison describing Alexander the Great *newsflash* Alexander the Great conquered Susa in the year 331 BC. I guess this means that no part of the book of daniel could have been written before the year 331 BC, right?

Who cares about Alexander and when he conquered Susa?

It wasn't a capital during the "third year of Belshazzar" - as Daniel claims.

Uhh. that's the whole point of Daniel 8... remember Alexander the Great (symbolized by the goat with a large horn) attacks and conquerered the Medes and Persians (Symbolized by the two horned Ram: the longer horn which grew up later was the Persian empire. the shorter horn was the Medes). Point of Fact: Daniel mentions Susa (the citadel) in the vision and Alexander the Great conquered Susa in the year 331 BC.

Sheshonq · 02-29-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Who cares about Alexander and when he conquered Susa?

It wasn't a capital during the "third year of Belshazzar" - as Daniel claims.

Uhh. that's the whole point of Daniel 8... remember Alexander the Great
(symbolized by the goat with a large horn) attacks and conquerered the Medes and Persians (Symbolized by the two horned Ram:

Uh, no he did not. There were no "Medes and Persians". It was a Persian empire.

Quote:

the longer horn which grew up later was the Persian empire.

And spin's already corrected your interpretation.

Quote:

Point of Fact: Daniel mentions Susa (the citadel) in the vision and Alexander the Great conquered Susa in the year 331 BC.

Which doesn't matter since the Daniel claims it was a capital in the "third year of Belshazzar" - which it most certainly was not.

arnoldo · 02-29-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Point of Fact: Daniel mentions Susa (the citadel) in the vision and Alexander the Great conquered Susa in the year 331 BC.

Which doesn't matter since the Daniel claims it was a capital in the "third year of Belshazzar" - which it most certainly was not.

Again, arguing from semantics? Susa was a citadel.

Source: ROBERT DICK WILSON, PH.D. PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES : STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Quote:

It is an assumption, however, that a court is spoken of at all in Daniel 8:2. The Hebrew word Bira is certainly a loan word from the Assyrio–Babylonian, where it does not mean “palace” but “fortress,” and is a synonym for halsu, “fort,” and for karashu, “camp.” It is more probable, therefore, that in Daniel 8:2, the phrase is to be rendered “the fortress of Susa,” rather than “the palace of Susa.” With this translation, the assumption that there is any reference to a court falls to the ground.

arnoldo · 02-29-2008, 07:54 PM

Besides history proves that the conquring army usually tends to exagerate,right? Note the archaelogical evidence that Susa was destroyed in the words of Ashurbanipal;

elam

Quote:

"Susa, the great holy city, abode of their Gods, seat of their mysteries, I conquered. I entered its palaces, I opened their treasuries where silver and gold, goods and wealth were amassed...I destroyed the ziggurat of Susa. I smashed its shining copper horns. I reduced the temples of Elam to naught; their gods and goddesses I scattered to the winds. The tombs of their ancient and recent kings I devastated, I exposed to the sun, and I carried away their bones toward the land of Ashur. I devastated the provinces of Elam and on their lands I sowed salt." (Persians: Masters of Empire, p7-8, ISBN 0-80949104-4)

However the King is exaggerating the amount of destruction he brought on the conquered people, not the following.

Quote:

The devastation was however less complete than Assurbanipal boasted, and Elamite rule was resurrected soon after with Shuttir-Nakhkhunte, son of III (not to be confused with Shuttir-Nakhkhunte, son of Indada, a petty king in the first half of the 6th century). Elamite royalty in the final century preceding the Achaemenids was fragmented among different small kingdoms, The three kings at the close of the 7th century (Shuttir-Nakhkhunte, Khallutush-In-Shushinak and Atta-Khumma-In-Shushinak ) still called themselves "king of Anzan and of Susa" or "enlarger of the kingdom of Anzan and of Susa", at a time when the Achaemenids were already ruling Anshan. Their successors Khumma-Menanu and Shilhak-In-Shushinak II bore the simple title "king," and the final king Tempti-Khumma-In-Shushinak boasted no title altogether. In 539 BC, Achaemenid rule begins in Susa.

Sheshonq · 03-01-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Which doesn't matter since the Daniel claims it was a capital in the "third year of Belshazzar" - which it most certainly was not.

Again, arguing from semantics? Susa was a citadel.

But it wasn't a capital. Which is what Daniel claimed. There is a big difference between "capital" and "citadel".

For a detailed discussion, see the thread which was split off.

Sheshonq · 03-01-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Besides history proves that the conquring army usually tends to exagerate,right? Note the archaelogical evidence that Susa was destroyed in the words of Ashurbanipal;

So?

How does that connect to anything you have argued here?

arnoldo · 03-01-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Besides history proves that the conquring army usually tends to exagerate,right? Note the archaelogical evidence that Susa was destroyed in the words of Ashurbanipal;

So?

How does that connect to anything you have argued here?

Read the archaelogical evidence again of the "destruction" of Susa

Quote:

"Susa, the great holy city, abode of their Gods, seat of their mysteries, I conquered. I entered its palaces, I opened their treasuries where silver and gold, goods and wealth were amassed...I destroyed the ziggurat of Susa. I smashed its shining copper horns. I reduced the temples of Elam to naught; their gods and goddesses I scattered to the winds. The tombs of their ancient and recent kings I devastated, I exposed to the sun, and I carried away their bones toward the land of Ashur. I devastated the provinces of Elam and on their lands I sowed salt." (Persians: Masters of Empire, p7-8, ISBN 0-80949104-4)

From this interpretation Susa was wiped off the map thus the lame argument is that Daniel was written in the 2nd century because of this alleged historical innacuracy. However if you take a look at the original Hebrew you find that Susa wasn't described as a "capital" but merely that "fort" existed in the location of Susa. Thus your argument that Susa wasn't a "capital" during the "third year of King Belshazzar" is irrelevant.

Sheshonq · 03-01-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

So?

How does that connect to anything you have argued here?

Read the archaelogical evidence again of the "destruction" of Susa

I read it. The question still stands: How does that connect to anything you have argued here?

Quote:

"Susa, the great holy city, abode of their Gods, seat of their mysteries, I conquered. I entered its palaces, I opened their treasuries where silver and gold, goods and wealth were amassed...I destroyed the ziggurat of Susa. I smashed its shining copper horns. I reduced the temples of Elam to naught; their gods and goddesses I scattered to the winds. The tombs of their ancient and recent kings I devastated, I exposed to the sun, and I carried away their bones toward the land of Ashur. I devastated the provinces of Elam and on their lands I sowed salt." (Persians: Masters of Empire, p7-8, ISBN 0-80949104-4)

From this interpretation Susa was wiped off the map thus the lame argument is that Daniel was written in the 2nd century because of this alleged historical innacuracy.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Show me any skeptic here who has ever made that busted argument. You can't. No one has ever used that line of reasoning; t's another one of your deliberate straw-men arguments.

Moreover, Susa was constantly rebuilt - three times, in fact. What the hell is wrong with you fundies? Just because a city suffers under a conqueror doesn't prevent it from being rebuilt.

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;

[2]
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.

[3]
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.

arnoldo · 03-06-2008, 10:47 AM

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 the time in the time of Daniel. A person who would write the book of Daniel in the 2nd century would not be aware of an obscure historical figure such as Belshazzar. You lose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

[2]
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.
[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.

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

02-29-2008, 01:17 PM	#841
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	capitol. Just sayin....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.