arnoldo

After Alexander's death wasn't his empire divided into 4 parts.
Wasn't Alexander's army swift like a leopard?

- Alexander the Great (Greek/Macedonian empire)?

arnoldo

Did Alexander the Great conquer 4 geographical areas (Asia Minor, Greece, Persia and Egypt)?

Johnny Skeptic

Some obviously were, but even if they weren't, what would God or anyone else have to gain by him making predictions that he knows billions of people will dispute when he could easily make predictions that people would not dispute. Disputable predictions undermine the credibility of the Bible because they needlessly encourage dissent instead of discouraging dissent. No loving, rational God would ever do that.

But any follower of any religion could use your own argument against you. If a Hindu prophecy had predicted that a temple would be rebuilt, and it was rebuilt, you most certainly would not consider that to be a fulfilled prophecy. You would be using the same kinds of objections that I have used regarding the Partition of Palestine.

You used that invalid argument at the Moral Foundations and Principles Forum. Consider the following posts from a thread at that forum:

If a God exists, it is reasonable to assume that he is a higher dimensional being, but that does not help your arguments because no matter how strange his ways were, it is virtually impossible that he would mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby encouraging dissent instead of discouraging dissent, which would needlessly undermine his attempt to try to convince people to believe that he exists, or at the very least, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise based upon the evidence that we have at this time.

There is excellent evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

Is the spread the Gospel message more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God believe that?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would expect to find that what people believe would be determined primarily or solely by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I have added time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able to reasonably predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it would be easy to predict the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he shows favoritism towards younger skeptics.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against younger Christians.

The preceding arguments are easily explained secularly because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would also expect to find that food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that. That would needlessly invite dissent instead of discouraging dissent.

James says that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Since millions of people have died because God refused to give them enough food to eat, I find what James said to be quite odd. Why do Christians suppose that God inspired James to write that?

It is much too convenient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.

If Old Testament Jews invented the God of the Bible, that explains why news of the God of the Bible started in a single place instead of simultaneously all over the world. False religions by necessity must start in only one place. If a God existed who wanted to communicate with humans partly in tangible ways, it is logical to assume that he would simultaneously start a religion in many parts of the world at the same time. If instead of one only begotten Son of God there had been 1,000 only begotten sons of God who lived in many parts of the world, and had performed many miracles, and had risen from the dead on the same day, and had appeared to hundreds of people in each one of the 1,000 locations, the Christian church would surely be much larger than it is today. I am not aware of any good reasons why a God who wanted to reveal himself to people would use ways that invite dissent when he could easily use ways that discourage dissent.

In summary, if a God exists, it is virtually impossible that it would be possible to frequently predict WHERE he reveals himself to people (more so in countries that have high percentages of Christians), and WHICH SEX he prefers to reveal himself to year after year (female), and WHICH AGE groups he prefers to reveal himself to (younger people). No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly encouraging dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and unnecessarily undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists, or at the very least, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise based upon the evidence that we have at this time.

Why must a three-dimensional being necessarily be good? A three dimensional being might be good, evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who botched his attempts to create a much better world than the world that he created. Paul says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Paul was obviously not aware that it is just as likely that it is God who masquerades as an angel of light. If God is masquerading as an angel of light, you wouldn't be able to know that because as you said, "his ways are higher than our ways." That obviously includes all possibly Gods no matter what they might be like.

Regardless of who a God might be, what makes it appropriate for him to rule the universe? It is your position that power legitimizes authority.

If the God of the Bible exists, and wants skeptics to believe that he exists, he certainly has the option of increasing their abilities to believe that he exists. First Corinthians 13:9-12 say "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

I am not aware of any good reasons why God should not give skeptics the abilities to have that kind of discernment now.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you most certainly would not have mentioned anything about a three-dimensional being, and that God's ways are higher than our ways are. There is not any doubt whatsoever that you are not nearly as interested in what the evidence IS as you are in what the evidence PROMISES.

makerowner

Greece was already part of the Macedonian realm when Alexander took the throne. And your divisions are kind of arbitrary.

Sheshonq

Conveniently arbitrary. How typical of a fundamentalist to design the map so that it maps the prophecy, instead of checking if the prophecy matches the map.

I could make an equal argument that Alexander conquered SIX areas.

Asia Minor
The Levant
Egypt
Mesopotamia
Persia
Bactria

arnoldo

Point taken. Maybe Alexander the Great (without any prophecy issues) can be discussed in a historical thread? Anyway the book of Daniel obviously had to be written after Alexander's death on June 10, 323 BCE.

Sheshonq

No, it wasn't. It was divided into three parts.

I have no evidence that his army was any "swifter" than any other army.
If you think that is the case, then present the evidence.

This is a trick question, by the way.


No.

Sheshonq

The problem with that idea is that you keep referring to history while trying to prop up your interpretation of these verses. So if you can't stop twisting history in your posts, then it's probably not possible to avoid discussing it here as well.

Why obviously?
You are aware that dates in BCE format are in reverse of AD dates, right? The bigger the number in BCE, the more distant in the past it is?

makerowner

OK, so you want to work with chapter 7. This is the description of the fourth beast:

spin will tell you that this beast is an elephant, often used by the Seleucid empire. I don't know one way or the other, but what I do know is that the 'little horn' recurs throughout the book, and it seems like it refers to the same person throughout. So this is what ch. 7 has on the little horn:

There are several important parallels with the Greek Seleucids here:

• Alexander's empire was the biggest ever known ("it shall devour the whole earth")
• he "spoke words against the most High" by claiming to be 'God revealed'
• he "[thought] to change the times" by changing to a lunar calendar
• he though to "change [...] the law" by outlawing circumcision, forcing the Jews to adopt foreign gods, etc.

There are other parallels with the 'little horn' in other chapters, but for now, can you explain to what Roman leader these attributes of the little horn refer, and why is that explanation better than the connection with Antiochus?

makerowner

Well you're claiming that it's all a prophecy anyway, so it could have been written in 10 000 BC by your logic. In any case, the scholarly dating is well after Alexander's death, so this is irrelevant.