ughaibu

Sugarhitman:
You seem to be keen to demonstrate the existence of god by means of prophesy. I have a challenge for you. I'll select three horse races to be run in the UK tomorrow, you pray to god for guidance and I'll study form. Let's see if god can perform better than I can.

Self-Mutation

Besides, good old Danny boy says he received his "vision" while sleeping. Nothing like trusting a sleeping man on matters like this! I know tons of people who say they received visions today. I keep telling them Goddoesn't interfere in the natural world but they refuse to listen to me.

I am still waiting for the exact date, time, and names of the people who would do these things.

Funny how it's not mentioned. Yet, you STILL claim God knows all despite admitting in your post that "Daniel doesn't really mention it by name BUT BUT we get a hint from Gabriel so there!!!!" :Cheeky:

I ask again, PLEASE STOP making God look foolish. God doesn't need to give out "hints" or "clues" like he's a baby. He would know exactly what to say. :notworthy:

sugarhitman

Self-mutation what is your belief? Are you a christian or some sort of deist? And why are you so hostile towards the bible?

Self-Mutation

Because God is not an idiot or a bafoon. He would SAY WHAT HE MEANS.

He wouldn't cause people to fall asleep and have some stupid vision that anyone can have. He wouldn't have bothered with a statue description. He would've said the names of the kingdoms right down to a tee and the dates all this happen from. He would've given the names of all the rulers of these kingdoms and the birthdates and deaths of these people. This surely would've left NO DOUBT in anyone's mind, which you can admit.

God is BEYOND PROPHECY. The fact that YOU can't see this shows me you have been deceived by other men.

funinspace

First it’s not my argument, it’s an argument by a large segment of Christian theologians. Second you have not established that the 4th kingdom was the Roman empire. Third, since you have not shown any evidence to support that Daniel was written in circa 600 BCE, all history prior to circa 200 BCE can be assumed to be pseudo prophecy. Some Christians think that Greece represents the fourth kingdom most accurately in the historical context. However, neither Greece nor Rome fit the requirements of the fourth kingdom. And if it is supposed to be Rome, then it fails due to Daniel 7:23
Daniel 7:23 He answered me thus: "The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, different from all the others; It shall devour the whole earth, beat it down, and crush it. 24 The ten horns shall be ten kings rising out of that kingdom; another shall rise up after them, Different from those before him, who shall lay low three kings.

You have nothing but your vacuous shouting from the roof tops “It’s true because my Bible tells me so”, regardless of historical analysis. The oldest copies of Daniel are from the Dead Sea scrolls, from the second century BC.

Lógos Sokratikós

Specific? Where in the prophecy does it say Greeks? Where does it say Romans? That would be specific. Let me tell you what would make the prophecy specific, stuff like:

"The men of the she-wolf's seven hills will conquer Judea" (Rome was built on seven hills and they believed the city's founder was raised by a she wolf).

"The commander of men will break the knot and his word will be followed in Asia" (Aléxandros [Alexander in Greek] means "commander of men").

"The temple will fall when the virgin's lamb is given to sacrifice, the people will be scattered until the nineteen hundred depart" (Israel founded in 19 hundred and something).


Now THAT is specific! Boulders breaking statue parts is ambiguous as seeing a man or a bunny in the dark spots of the moon. Nostradamus, now that is a prophet, Daniel is a bad joke.

Lazarus Long

You actually think that bible stories were written down immediately? You think those people had a scribe following them everywhere, writing down everything they said?? The book of Daniel is not conclusively dated, and some scholars think it may have been written about 300 to 400 years after Daniel supposedly lived. How is that any more accurate than any Hadith about Muhammad?



It is added to a single quote to provide context which is not present in the quote but which was present in the preceding or following passages.


And the fact remains that they were Islamic, followers of the ideas and beliefs of Muhammad. Their ethnic nationality does not make on whit of difference to the intention of that quote.

LL

sugarhitman

Wow did God tell you this? Or are you assuming this. What proof do you have that God would not do this?

WVIncagold

irony meter just exploded nuclear!

ChairmanMeow

Your arguments have been proven to be nonsense over and over in this thread. The book of daniel is filled with horrible false prophecies and historical inaccuracies.

For example, the book of daniel was not written during the babylonian exile; evidence in the book itself points to it being written closer to the 2nd century BC, rather than the 6th.

Reasons for this, from here:

(1) It is listed in the Writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 BCE).

(2) Parts of the book (2:4-7:28) were written in Aramaic, which suggests a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.

(3) The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents of Babylon in the 6th century BCE.

(4) The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with 6th century BCE Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official in the employ of King Nebuchadnezzar.

(5) Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8:16 and 9:21 and Michael in 10:13, 10:21, and 12:1 ). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.

(6) The absence of Daniel's name in the list of Israel's great men in Ecclesiasticus.

(7) Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king's name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.

(8) In 2:2 the king's wise men are called "Chaldeans". But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, "Chaldean" would have referred to a nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer.

In addition, Nebuchadnezzar never suffered from a mental illness, rather it was a gentleman named Nabonidus.

From here: According to Daniel's story, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar suffers from a mental illness, and lives isolated for seven years, until he acknowledges the power of the one God. From cuneiform texts, nothing is known about Nebuchadnezzar's mental health. The original story must have centered on another royal patient: Nabonidus, about whom rumors like this did circulate. Moreover, several details return in the Prayer [of Nabonidus], where Nabonidus is the sad hero: the period of seven years, the isolation, the ultimate recognition of the power of the supreme God. Since the authors of Daniel consistently avoid mentioning Nabonidus, it is likely that one of them is responsible for the change of names.

And I'm not even going to mention Darius, "king of the Medes," which you probably already know is nonsense.


As for false prophecy, the book of daniel is full of that, too!
This is in reference to Ptolemy and Antiochus "the beast." As you can probably guess, this never happened. The book of daniel is a conglomeration of historically inaccurate ideas and myths. This is only one example of pages upon pages of false prophecy contained in the bible.

Turkish_people
The Turks are not Europeans. Though they are a candidate country for the EU, this does not make them European as a culture. 97% of the land area of Turkey lies in asia minor -- the culture of the Turks is a combination of Oğuz Turkic, Anatolian, Ottoman, and lastly, western cultures. The Turks are a predominantly secular muslim people that originated in central asia.

Stop shifting the goalposts. Shoehorning, special pleading, ad hominem, and red herrings are not valid debate tactics.