Sheshonq

I was specific. I repeated your claim back to you -- your specific claim -- and you whined that it was "capricious wording". Apparently you only want specificity when you think you can answer it. When you cannot -- or when you ask for it, but forget that you have done so -- the result is whining.

Whining, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I know far more than you'll ever come to know.

In point of fact, the burden of proof falls with the person making the claim. You do not get to say "I'm correct, unless someone wants to prove me false." You must present an affirmative case for your position. So far you have failed to do so.

Shows how little you know about scientific method. The statement you have above is the statement for falsifiability; not for burden of proof. Burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Moreover, you don't understand falsifiability, either. Your characterization only applies to any scenario with an infinite set. This is not such a scenario.

For example: if I had said "there is no such thing as a white crow", then it's impossible to mount an affirmative defense, since it's impractical to round up every crow in the world and verify its color. But one white crow would be able to invalidate the rule. The crow is an infinite (or nearly infinite) set.

But this is not what you are facing with your claim about Aramaic. You are dealing with a finite set - by your own claim. So if I claimed "No president of the United States ever had a last name beginning with the letter Z", that is a finite set (i.e., the list of US presidents). I would be expected to enumerate the entire list of presidents and show that none of them had a last name starting with "Z". The set is finite, and it does not impose an unreasonable or impossible burden upon the claimant.

This is the scenario that you find yourself in.

1. The amount of Imperial Aramaic is -- according to you -- very limited. So enumeration should not be a problem.
2. You have made claims that these words in Daniel are unique or special in some way.
3. You've also failed to describe how you arrived at the conclusion that they are special, or offered any explanation for why this is the case or what significance you draw from that alleged status.

You should address all three of these questions in your affirmative proof. But until you mount some kind of affirmative proof for this claim, you're simply trying to shift the burden again.

"I'm right, unless someone wants to prove me wrong" hardly flies around here. The fact that you would attempt it only shows how little you understand about how true scholarship is accomplished.

wavy_wonder1

i had to stop drop and roll for a minute there.

ynquirer

Well, yes; I’m not making a positive claim, but a negative one. There is in post-330 BC Aramaic texts no mention of several words denoting in Imperial Persia official posts and dealings, as may be found in Daniel. Whose’s the burden of the proof?

Sheshonq

Right where it always is: on the back of the person making the claim. That obligation doesn't depend on whether the claim is positive or negative.

Search through the professional literature for archaeology, the sciences, etc. You won't find any thesis or published research that consists of just a claim (negative or positive). I mean, *really*; what kind of publication would tolerate just publishing the claim? I can see it now; a quarterly professional journal comprised of nothing but one-page claims, with no support, sourcing or argument behind them. And when the audience of readers asked for proof, the editors just shrug and say, "These are all negative claims. If you disagree, then show why they are wrong."

Who would read such a journal? No one; it is preposterous. Yet that is the scenario that you propose we allow you to operate under.

Claimant has burden; audience does not. It really *is* just that simple.

makerowner

It's a positive claim because your 'positing' a theory. As Sheshbazzar explained above, the burden is on you to look through the corpus of post-330 BC Aramaic text to show that these words don't occur, or to quote from a scholar who says that.

arnoldo

The DSS have several documents written in aramaic which due to linguistic analysis has been dated to the 1st BC era. Dating the Language of the Genesis Apocryphon

arnoldo

That's a great source, I especially liked the following point.

spin

So?

Umm, how do you find out how the writers knew? Doh!




spin

arnoldo

Daniel knew from firsthand experience.
THE GAMES SKEPTICS PLAY/ A.S.A. Jones

spin

Can you answer the question asked of you? No, of course not.

Your source dumbly accepts the notion of "the laws of the Medes and Persians"... from where? Umm, Dan 6, naturally. Doh! Of course, you can't see anything wrong with this.

arnoldo once again throwing a tangent. This time it's post mortem analysis of why he has wasted his time not being able to convince himself that he has been meaningful. It's someone else's fault. Pu-lease.

Now he can go away with his tail between his legs saying "I'm a christian. Who needs evidence? I was right. I have my faith to keep me warm." He can leave knowing that he has avoided analyzing any of the scholarly literature on Daniel. After all, what would they know? Apologetics has all the answers, no matter how lame those answers are.


spin