Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 11-18-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

you are missing the point. the fact that he mentions them opens the possibility that they may indeed have been in the region at that time. it is not unheard of that greek culture may have been present there at that time.

But they didn't get there until the 3rd or 2nd century BCE.

So if they are mentioned in the Daniel text, then the text cannot be earlier than 3rd or 2nd century BCE.

In other words, it cannot be a 5th century BCE text - because those instruments wouldn't arrive in the region for another 200 years, at least. A 5th century BCE Daniel would not know about instruments that were still 200 years into the future.

You don't even understand the flow of time and how such items can help date a document, do you?

bfniii · 11-18-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii has convenienty avoided making any posts in my thread that is titled 'It is time to put Daniel and Josh McDowell in their proper places,' but I will bet that he has read it and doesn't want to embarrass himself by replying to it.

didn't know it existed until now. next time, tell me. consider it queued.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I showed that McDowell's own experts admit that much of Daniel was not written by Daniel, and that some of it was written centuries after bfniii claims it was written. Bfniii is notorious for making completely uncorrobated, preposterous assertions.

really, and they would be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

His sole basis for dating the Tyre prophecy is a Wikipedia article by an anonymous author who is probably not a historian. It is interesting to note that the writer of the article DID NOT date the prophecy. He only dated when certain historical characeters lived, not when Ezekiel or whoever else wrote about them. Those are two entirely different unrelated issues. Anyone can write about anything anytime that they want to. It is much easier to estimate when a famous historical character lived than when people wrote about them, and whether or not writings about them were revised in later decades or centuries. Just plain old common sense should tell bfniii that.

already addressed several times over in this thread. even specifically to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even the Bible admits that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warning. Of course, we don't even know what texts constitute "the Bible." The contents of the New Testament Canon were voted on, and the vote was close.

do you feel like this is, to the uninformed reader, a complete picture of the development of canon? i hope your answer is "not even close".

(note to uninformed readers) - this is NOT how biblical canon came into being.

bfniii · 11-19-2005, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

Sheeesh! Sauron, if you're doing this for the lurkers, give up now! It's really boring arguing about argument

i agree. my question to you is why is sauron so shy about his case? most skeptics i have interacted with here are profuse in their criticisms of christianity. don't critics of christianity have the winning hand? they should be all too happy to present their case and get to the point. why would a skeptic even care about the case apologists build? why would skeptics trust the framework of apologists? sauron once lambasted me for citing a christian source for this very reason. don't you find that hypocritical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

and it would be a miracle if anyone else read the whole thread (I certainly didn't).

yup. but i'm certainly not going to get accused of evading or not responding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

You are clearly right about the burden of proof,

no he's not. he can't even answer why a particular person bears the burden. i asked him over and over, he cited a couple of websites that didn't answer the question and then he attempted to explain it but he was off the mark. why in the world would you think he's right? he goes on and on about quality sources and supporting claims and he has failed miserably on this. what value could you possibly see in that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

but is there any point arguning with someone who can't even follow elementary school standards of debate? Kudos for stamina.

that's my point. what standard? who maintains this standard? why is that group (not that there is one) authoritative?

bfniii · 11-19-2005, 06:10 AM

i don't usually read ahead, but i thought this merited a response sooner. i will start working on #99 on monday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

As I read this, a feeling of deja vu settled over me; your game plan had become apparent.

good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Realizing that this is your pattern of behavior, there now exists no good reason to hope that you ever actually had an iota of desire for honest debate.

you are absolutely mistaken. i wouldn't have come here otherwise. let me tell you what i've learned about skeptic's tactics and maybe that will help you understand me a little better.

skeptics don't like having their beliefs questioned. i have found that once a skeptic gets done parroting their favorite anti-christian quote and get asked to explain why it is correct or authoritative, the insults start flying. it's a pattern that i could quote over and over from multiple, specific skeptics. you're a good example. you state the christian bears the burden of proof. i asked you why. you cited a couple of websites that didn't answer the question. i pointed that out to you. you attempted to explain but your explanation was mistaken. all along the way, you're insulting me as if i'm stupid for being skeptical of what you believe. that seems to indicate that you are either unable to adequately articulate your belief or that you're not sure why you really believe that.

i came to these forums to understand objections to christianity. in order for me to accomplish that, i have to know WHY you believe what you believe. why do you consider the information you have read to be authoritative? there's no reason to get upset. just answer the questions without personal insults.

Sauron · 11-19-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

you are absolutely mistaken

Cool. Then submit your affirmative case and your evaluative criteria. We await your response.

Sauron · 11-19-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

i don't usually read ahead, but i thought this merited a response sooner. i will start working on #99 on monday.

Don't bother; I won't be reading it.
And given the length of this thread and your characteristic evasion, nobody else will, either. Both cajela and Sparrow were correct about you.

Quote:

You are absolutely mistaken.

Cool. Then submit your affirmative case or your evaluative criteria. We await your response.

Quote:

i wouldn't have come here otherwise. let me tell you what i've learned about skeptic's tactics

No one cares about what you "learned", considering your inability to defend your position. Are you going to submit your affirmative case or your evaluative criteria?

Evilicious · 11-19-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

because it(your burden) is penultimate! I used the word exactly as I intended it. Its later than you think. so long my friend!

If you don't understand the meaning of a word, it might help to use a dictionary to find out what it actually means:

Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

penultimate

• adjective last but one.

— ORIGIN from Latin paene ‘almost’ + ultimus ‘last’.

Merriam-Webster Online

penultimate

Function: adjective
1 : next to the last <the penultimate chapter of a book>
2 : of or relating to a penult <a penultimate accent>

Edited because I posted a response in the wrong thread.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-19-2005, 01:03 PM

bfniii:

Quote:

You have this claim backwards (and you've been corrected on this before IIRC).

The Book of Daniel mentions Greek instruments that were unknown in the region until after Alexander invaded it. This is often cited as evidence that Daniel was written AFTER this period.

you are missing the point. the fact that he mentions them opens the possibility that they may indeed have been in the region at that time. it is not unheard of that greek culture may have been present there at that time.

No, I caught you in an error (again). It is pointless to pretend otherwise.

Here is the entire paragraph:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

arriving at a minimum age is great. but it doesn't tell us when the text was written, which is what the question was. second, you revert to the old "internal clues" flawed criteria. they are interesting, but not conclusive. i'll give you an example; the book of daniel mentions greek instruments from much earlier than the 2nd century bc. also, it is written in a style of aramaic from an earlier period. proponents use this as support for their case of the book being written during the hebrew captivity in babylon. critics claim it is inconclusive. why aren't you critical in this case like other skeptics are in the case of daniel? this is blatant special pleading.

Furthermore, you made the same mistake in this post, in response to "the text knows nothing tangible about sixth century Babylon":

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

there is mention in chap 3 of greek musical instruments that were in vogue at that time.

...Followed by:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

i count six instruments; horn, flute, bagpipe and three kinds of lyre/harp, all of which were around in the 5th or 6th century bc.

After being advised by spin to READ about those musical instruments, you respond by repeating your error:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

great. so we seem to still be at the point that daniel mentions instruments that were in vogue during the 5th century bc.

And, on a previous thread, here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

there are other examples supporting earlier dating such as the musical instruments mentioned in chapter 3.

Followed by:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

the use of the eastern aramaic and the mention of musical instruments in vogue during the 5th-6th century are two other points i have mentioned.

Over and over and over again, you make the SAME blunder. The Greek musical instruments are evidence of a LATE authorship of Daniel.

LATE.

L - A - T - E.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the "Biblical errors..." thread, where you kept reversing the meaning of Biblical verses. And here, of course, where you've sought to reverse the burden of proof.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-23-2005, 05:43 PM

I am still waiting for Christians to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and to provide evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Regarding the first issue, all that bfniii did was to refer to a Wikipedia article that was written by an anonymous author. The article DID NOT accurately date the prophecy. It dated approximately when certain well-known historical characters lived, but the matter of WHEN writings were written about them is another matter entirely. In addition, the author of the article DID NOT claim that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Honest and competent historians DO NOT use Biblical presuppositionalism as a basis for dating prophecy.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-24-2005, 04:04 AM

I would also like to add this:

If any inerrantist would like to claim that it's reasonable to assume that the prophecy was "divinely inspired" (even if this cannot be proved) because "the Bible in general is divinely inspired": please take this to the thread Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired"

11-23-2005, 05:43 PM	#129
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy I am still waiting for Christians to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and to provide evidence that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Regarding the first issue, all that bfniii did was to refer to a Wikipedia article that was written by an anonymous author. The article DID NOT accurately date the prophecy. It dated approximately when certain well-known historical characters lived, but the matter of WHEN writings were written about them is another matter entirely. In addition, the author of the article DID NOT claim that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. Honest and competent historians DO NOT use Biblical presuppositionalism as a basis for dating prophecy.

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

11-24-2005, 04:04 AM	#130
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I would also like to add this: If any inerrantist would like to claim that it's reasonable to assume that the prophecy was "divinely inspired" (even if this cannot be proved) because "the Bible in general is divinely inspired": please take this to the thread Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.