blt to go

Why not? How many censuses did David take? You know, you could eliminate the entire problem by claiming He took three censuses, bought differing properties from differing Jebusites, in fact it takes care of all the contradictions together!

(And don't fret. They have been doing that with Peter's denial for years.) Do you have any support (other than a desperate wish) that this does not refer to the same census? More to chew on here.....

blt to go

Jack the Bodiless, thank you for even remembering this little conundrum. I have fleshed it out a bit more, and included some of the common apologetics. Sorry for the length:

David taking a census. (To save bandwith, the three accounts of this event are at 2 Samuel 24:1-25, 1 Chronicles 21:1-28 and 1 Chronicles 27:24. Please read at your leisure)

Having read such, I have a few questions. Most are multiple choice to make it easy. (“A�= 2 Sam., “B�= 1 Chron. 21 and “C�=1 Chron. 27)

1. When did God get angry?
A. Before the census
B. Never recorded that God became angry
C. Because of the census

2. Who incited David to take the Census?
A. God
B. Satan
C. Nobody.

3. What human mandated the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Joab.

4. Who protested against the census?
A. Joab and his captains.
B. Joab.
C. Nobody, Joab just did the census.

5. What was wrong with taking a census?
A. Nothing, God mandated it in Numbers 26:2
B. Nothing, God required it for taxes in Exodus 30:12
C. Nothing, They just did one in the preceding 23 verses!

6. How long did it take to do the census?
A. Nine months, 20 days.
B. Not recorded
C. Didn’t complete the census

7. Who all was counted?
A. All tribes
B. All tribes except Levi and Benjamin
C. Didn’t complete the census.

8. What was the number of the census?
A. 1.3 Million
B. 1.57 Million (with LESS tribes counted!)
C. Number was deliberately not recorded.

9. What stopped the census?
A. Done counting
B. Done counting
C. Wrath of God, census not completed.

10. Who took the blame for doing the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Not recorded, but apparently Joab. (COULDN’T be David. 1 Kings 15:5)

11. What was the first threat of punishment of God?
A. 7 years of famine
B. 3 years of famine
C. No threat, it just came!

12. What is the name of the Jebusite where the angel stopped?
A. Araunah
B. Ornan
C. Umm…What Jebusite? They should all be killed on sight. Deut. 20:17

13. What did the Jebusite do when he saw the Angel of Death?
A. Doesn’t say the Jebusite saw the Angel.
B. Just kept working, just kept working…
C. Excuse me? Jebusite? Didn’t David award Joab his position because he fought and killed the Jebusites? 1 Chron. 11:6

14. What did David buy from the Jebusite?
A. The Threshing floor and the oxen.
B. “the place� (just the floor)
C. Are you crazy? THERE IS NO @#%%@ JEBUSITE! David would have killed him!

15. How much did David pay the Jebusite?
A. 50 shekels of silver
B. 600 shekels of gold
C. I’m telling you-- There is no Jebusite!

The test you cannot fail—all answers and no answers are correct. REGARDLESS of what you circled, you get 100% right!

And Now for the Essay portion of our quiz. In your apologetic, discuss the theological implications of God getting so angry He desires to kill 70,000 people, but His nature of Justice mandates someone has to sin first. Also discuss the punishment of David’s sin being 100,000-200,000 OTHER people have to die. Also discuss Satan’s limitation of “tempting� others unless God allows it. Or (in the alternative) discuss the ramifications of Satan and God working together to allow God to kill 70,000 people for David’s sin.

If, in your apologetic, you claim that God and Satan worked together, discuss other areas in which the two entities worked together, and why each of the authors failed to mention the involvement of the entity’s enemy.

If, in your apologetic, you claim David was prideful and wanted to do the census, please give other examples (with citations) as to David’s pride, and explain why 2 Samuel states God was angry first. You should also address why this sin was not listed in David’s transgressions in 1 Kings.

If, in your apologetic, you claim that David bought more than the house, explain your use of the Hebrew word for “place� and why that entails an entire mountain.

If, in your apologetic, you address the differing numbers of the census, please provide archeological verification that in 1000 B.C. there were more than 50,000 people in the land encompassing Canaan. You should also address the ability of a nation with a possible standing army of at least 1.3 Million, as compared to other nations at that time, and why this military strength is non-existent in archeological records.

You may need to discuss the concept of “rounding� especially in light of 1 Chron. 27.









Few points, in response to common apologetics

Israel’s sin angered God enough for Him to release Satanic temptation on David.

See, this is one of those theological implications I was talking about. Note the precipitating cause: God getting Angry. In every other situation (that I am aware) if God is angry at Israel he sent an army to invade, pestilence, famine, floods, a whole variety of items with which to punish them. Why go through the charade of releasing Satan to make David sin, so God can punish Israel? Quite an indirect route for what should have been a simple 1-2 step. Israel Sins, God sends punishment.

This also creates the conflict in David taking responsibility for the sin of the census.

Is Satan beholden to God, in that he cannot act without God allowing it? Why did Satan want David to sin? Again, remember the precipitating cause, God’s anger. We assume Satan is this no-good, mean, rotten entity that wants everyone to sin at every chance. We forget the painted picture of a clever entity. If God was prohibiting Satan from tempting David, then got Angry, and then allowed Satan to tempt David, is it not likely Satan would have wondered why? And perhaps declined. Let God do his own dirty work. (Job is different since God was taunting Satan.)

And again, why the charade? If God could incite David to sin by himself (as 2 Sam. States) and God desired it, why involve Satan at all? If David wanted to do it himself (for pride) why was God angry FIRST and why not let David just do it.

The only apologetic that seems to work is to have God and Satan BOTH desiring David to sin. And this makes God and Satan working together. Do you see the problem?

Obviously God incited David, but not directly. Satan was God’s instrument in this case. He has always used Satan this way. Satan is always pressuring/petitioning God for authorizations to both tempt and destroy mankind…

Again, the problem that this was not Satan asking God to do it, but God wanting it done since he was angry. Further, the word used for incite, “cuwth� is the same word used when God did it in 2 Sam. As when Satan did it in 1 Chron. Most apologists say that God’s involvement was indirect, but Satan’s involvement was direct. The problem is that it is the same word. Are we re-defining the word because it warrants re-definition, or are we re-defining the word because we need to resolve a conflict? I go for the simpler explanation – cuwth means the same when it is used in the same situation with the same types of entities.

David delegated the task to Joab, so both were involved.

O.K., but why would the Author of 1 Chron. 27 leave out the important figure here, the King? ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that Joab protested the Census? Even more importantly, when (if it was the same author) 6 Chapters earlier he was more than happy to lay the blame on David and absolve Joab?

Where I do not buy this apologetic, is the claim that this is inspired Scripture. Between human authors, it seems feasible to have missed out important figures, like God, Satan and David. But if God had his hand in it, why are these most important facts missing?

And while we are on that, let’s talk about 2 Samuel missing Satan, and 1 Chronicles missing God in the story. Most apologists say that BOTH were involved, and this is not necessarily contradictory, as 2 Samuel just failed to mention Satan and 1 Chronicles failed to mention God. Can I say, “Huh?�

First (in explaining away “incite�) we have Satan chomping at the bit to get David to sin. But 2 Samuel fails to mention that important fact. Then we have God getting angry and “releasing� Satan. But 1 Chronicles 21 fails to mention that fact. So we say “incite� means two different things. (1 Chronicles 27 fails to mention EITHER of them!)

Now that we have demonstrated how diametrically opposed Satan and God are, we then claim that the authors failed to mention the involvement of these two enemies!

Facts that apologists feel are important to align the passages, the authors did not!

Look at this analogy. (I know it is not perfect. It is designed to point out that leaving out important details is unacceptable.)

Imagine this week you read in Newsweek that Pres. Bush ordered a sniper to kill Tony Blair. You then pick up Time which says Osama bin Laden ordered a sniper to kill Tony Blair. US News & World Report simply says a sniper killed Tony Blair. Would you look at those three reports and think, “Oh, these are complimentary. Clearly Bush had Osama in his control and then allowed bin Laden to hire a sniper.�?

OR would you more likely determine that somebody screwed up in the News department in each of these magazines? I find it fascinating that apologists hold the inspired word of God to a lesser standard than they do to a Newspaper or a Magazine. What one would NEVER accept in a news agency, one GLADLY accepts in the Bible. I would think the word of God could be held to a greater standard and still sustain the test. Apparently not.

David’s sin was to disobey God’s voice speaking through his conscience.

Where does it state that God was speaking to David through his conscience? The point is that NOWHERE does it state that taking a census is wrong. Since census taking was not only performed before, but ORDERED by Mosaic Law (for taxes) if it is considered a grave sin in this situation, don’t you think it would be important to point out why? More on how grave of a sin later.

The number 7 in the A-passage is reputed to be a copyist error

Oh, good. A copyist error. Then can you show me the copies that had a “3� rather than a “7?� What? There AREN’T ANY? Then how can I possibly say this is a “copyist� error? And which one (2 Sam. Or 1 Chron.) was the “copyist error?� I wonder if apologists ever get tired of trying to explain these situations for God.

Question: How many OTHER copyist errors are in the bible? Apparently there is at least one. (This one.) Since all the copies say “7,� than we can have other portions of the Bible that all the copies say the same thing, yet be a copyist error, right? Since we can’t tell? If this is a copyist error, and I claim that John 3:16 is a copyist error, how can you possibly argue against it?


There seems to have been two different numeric formats involved here, one of them rounding off numbers.

How can I tell the difference between a “rounding� and a copyist error, by the by? The rounding just does not fly. This was a CENSUS. This was not estimation. This was not a guess. This was not an approximation. Joab spent the most part of a year, going through all the land, and he comes back to his King with a “round� number?

And how can we “round� these numbers to get to these two figures (1.3 Million vs 1.57 Million)? Look:

2 Sam. 1 Chron.
Israel – 800,000 1.1 Million
Judah – 470,000 500,000

I get how 1 Chron. Would round up 470,000 to 500,000. (Again, as to the why is questionable) But how can the same “rounding� author round 800,000 to 1.1 Million? That doesn’t make any sense MAYBE if he had rounded to 1 Million, I could see it (although that is a factor of 20%, which would be significant.) But no.

Further, one should address the capabilities of a nation in 1000 BC with a possible army of 1.3 Million men. To say they would be a world-power is Underestimating the capabilities.

Worse, if you are claiming consistency with 1 Chron 27, then there were MORE than 1.57 (or 1.3, I can’t tell which) Million men in this possibly army.

They would have decimated any army that came against them. Yet there are NO archeological remnants of such a world-power. Odd.

He [Jebusite] had a name in each language…. Conversion to Judaism was possible. That’s probably why this Jebusite had both a Hebrew name and a Jebusite name.

Bit of circular reasoning here. We know he converted to Judaism because he had two names. He had two names because he converted to Judaism. What other converts from condemned nations had two names?

First of all, God ordered the elimination (Joshua NIV uses the word “extermination�) of the Jebusites. David was FIGHTING the Jebusites. (And apparently not winning with a 1.57 Million army!) Deut. 20:17 does not allow the possibility of “conversion.� (You raise an interesting issue. If they COULD be converted, why would they be ordered to be eliminated to keep from de-converting the Jews?)

Let’s talk about our Jebusite. Many apologists gloss over this name variation, as little import. But is it?

This Jebusite (as you pointed out) was allowed to live. This makes him singular, if not unique. He owned land near the principal city, good real estate. He was loyal to King David. As pointed out, he could see angels. He owned land worth 600 shekels of gold (according to the apologetic) which some apologists claim would be the size of a mountain. This was one significant Jebusite! In fact, Solomon’s temple was eventually built on his land (according to some apologists). We do know how significant Solomon’s temple was.

Yet they couldn’t get this guy’s Name straight?

Part of my problem with the apologetic of this entire passage, is what is important to resolve a contradiction in one verse is immediately disregarded and contradicted to resolve a contradiction in the next verse. How can this guy be so important, on one hand, yet get his name wrong on the next?

This verse is a copyist error. The next is NOT a copyist error, but a “rounding.�

Why, oh why do christians (and I was as to blame) hold the bible to such a slight standard? A standard we would not accept in a third-grader’s homework?

The Bathsheba-Uriah ordeal was David’s only major sin. Why wasn’t the census a major sin? Because God was primarily angry at Israel, not at David, who sinned principally because Satan put extra pressure on him. Anyone under extra pressure/stress tends to sin. God was mad at Israel for sinning continually WITHOUT extra pressure.

Again, if God was mad, why involve Satan-->David-->Joab?

Who said Uriah was David’s only major sin? (1 Kings only mentions Uriah, not Bathsheba.) In fact, if one measures sin by the punishment, this sin was far, far worse. The Third worst individual sin ever recorded. And somehow the author of 1 Kings missed it. Wonder how.

According to the punishment due on Uriah, there should have been 2 deaths (David and Bathsheba) at the most. According to the punishment on the Census, there should have been 100,000-200,000 deaths! While 1 Kings may have downplayed the census, it is truly bizarre to have missed it.

He paid 50 shekels of silver for the threshing floor and oxen, and then six hundred shekels of gold for the entire land.

Again, the facts that one author missed, but the other caught seem completely out of place. Imagine your spouse comes home and says that they bought a car radio. Would you think it significant that they missed the fact the car radio is in a new car?

As I stated, according to some, 600 shekels of gold would be the equivalent of buying a mountain! The very mountain of the Great Temple! And 2 Sam. And 1 Chron. 27 Missed that?

John A. Broussard

Got it. Christians believe in hell, but hell doesn't matter.

However, I'd appreciate having your further explanation as to just exactly what the point is to having a hell if it doesn't matter.

Why does god have a hell to punish people, if the threat of hell isn't intended to modify they're behavior?

John A. Broussard

Phew! Exhaustive and exhausting. Great commentary.

I especially liked the above paragraphs. It does seem to be a crucial point in any claim to bible inerrancy.

Thanks for the hard work.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, welcome aboard, blt-to-go!

I hadn't got around to revisiting the census issue, for obvious reasons (the struggle to get bfniii to address the other stuff he's been given has been quite time-consuming). I'll gladly hand that issue over to you!

Jack the Bodiless

In my previous reply to this, I forgot to mention that we have lists of Jewish "holy books" which themselves predate the 2nd century BC: and Daniel is conspicuously absent from those lists. Its existence was unknown to the Jews prior to the 2nd century BC.

Sven

The earliest documents known by the EAC are from pre 2nd century BC. Amazing.

Jack the Bodiless

The rise of Christianity was prophesied. That's why EAC operatives planted the Book of...

...Ah. I have said too much. Move along, nothing to see here.

bfniii

i've read through 7-11 and i can't find any part that nebuchadnezzar failed to fulfill. since you cited farrell till's examination, i will address that.

one mistake that till makes is in reference to ezekiel 29:18-19. ezekiel says that used his army to labor (`abodah - labor). notice he doesn't say conquer or defeat or completely destroy or any variation of such. there is no reason to assume that nebuchadnezzar would do something other than labor greatly based on 26:7-11. till states "Ezekiel himself recognized that his prophecy against Tyre had failed." nothing between the two sets of verses or in either verse suggests that ezekiel is making such a concession. he prophesied that nebuchadnezzar would make war with tyre and then acknowledges such again in chapter 28.

another mistake is that till argues that ezekiel should have not included [till's assumption] that the prophecy failed. knowing that ezekiel uses the word "labor" in 29:18, it is logical to assume that ezekiel, being aware of his own prophecy, would indeed have tried to erase such an oversight. however, given the original meaning of the word, it is logical that ezekiel was aware no such contradiction existed. concordantly, there was no reason for ezekiel to have needed to alter either passage.

till states "After destroying the 'daughter villages,' he would 'heap up a siege mound against' Tyre". this is a complete misrepresentation of verse 8. there is absolutely no reason to posit one event after another. the original language of the verse gives no indication of that whatsoever. this is important because it leads to a further error.

till muses "Clearly, the 'daughter villages in the field,' i.e. the villages on the mainland, were not included in the pronoun 'you,' which was a reference to Tyre proper, the island stronghold." this is an utterly unsupported assertion. there is nothing in the text to indicate that "you" refers to any one part of the land. this mistake is repeated throughout. i have pointed out in another post the specific language in those verses that make any such assumption faulty.

that isn't in any of the accounts i have read. however, i haven't read every account ever written so it's possible. regardless, it is irrelevant. even if those people returned, the nation of tyre was no more. if they had banded together and driven out whomever was left on the island (presumably people alexander had brought) and reestablished themselves as a nation, then that might negate the prophecy. that did not happen.

there are at least two problems here. first, God would have to also provide for any people, outside of the descendants that you mention, that the offender affects or provides for in any way. this could include employers, employees, slaves, etc. given that, according to the bible, we are all sinners, eventually everyone would be immune to suffering. the accumulation of offenses against each other would overlap until there would be no suffering at all.

second, physical compensation is not the only type of compensation necessary. what about monetary needs? what about emotional needs? what about parenting responsibilities? what about commerce and industry?

it would seem that the compensation proposed is a bit simplistic.

are you proposing no pain or suffering at all in this life? that all punishment occurs in the afterlife?

you gave no explanation whatsoever. all you did was just state that they got punished for something they didn't do. i will repeat my rebuttals:

1. where does the text say that canaan got punished for "what ham did"?
2. where do you get the idea that it occurred "immediately after" ham's faux pas?
3. show the text that explicitly says that canaan wasn't deserving of punishment (regardless of who committed it).
4. show where the text explicitly says that the descendants of amalek got punished for his crime and for no other crimes.

if you cannot provide the explicit text answering these questions, then you are reading into the text. you are making unsupported assumptions.

i've got an idea. how about you show HOW they are false instead of just stating that they are false?

i will quote from your own post (as if you couldn't have just looked back and viewed it for yourself):

"Genocide implies a desire to erase the subject people, and that IS what happened (according to the Bible)."

please explain how this is NOT an example of you claiming that God desired to kill. then, please provide a quote from the text that shows God did desire such.

haven't you ever done something you didn't desire to do? your statement is incorrect. it does not imply He wanted to do it.

then it doesn't belong on your "God says no list". if the application of the statute is human law, then it does not belong on the same list of God's laws. that is the challenge. your list implies God is going against His own laws. laws that are set down for us don't apply to Him, nor should they.

yup. and i have given responses as to why it is. but it appears i will have to do so again.

1. God allows the consequences of our actions to affect other people. He never promised it would be different. nor should it be. why? one reason is that ultimate good can come from it
2. the so called punishment is temporary. it is often a device God uses to remind us this isn't where we want to be. heaven is.
3. we are all guilty of something. therefore it is sophistry to rationalize where the punishment came from or for what. what difference does it make?

because you are misinterpreting those particular verses.

did they?

i have not at any point denied that God would not do so. i realize that is anathema to you, but:

1. ultimate good can come from it. in other words, God has a plan. suffering isn't frivolous.
2. the temporary suffering here does not preclude our spiritual redemption
3. we are all guilty of something so what difference does it make?

i quote you:

"On human sacrifice: the Hebrews originally sacrificed their firstborn children, as was the Caanaite custom (ref. Exodus 22:29, Leviticus 27:28-29)."

that's why.

i will repeat my rebuttal:

1. Exodus 22:29 - the word "give" (nathan) has multiple meanings none of which imply child sacrifice.
2. Leviticus 27:28-29 - no part of these verses refers to human child sacrifice. in fact, there is no specific mention of firstborn or fruit of the body.

your above post has a decidedly different timbre than the quote i provided. please explain.

i will repeat: the miracles have been explained by unusual phenomena caused by normal circumstances. you have already stated you are aware of the explanations. we both agree there are explanations. why are we even pursuing this? the egytians didn't need to invoke some god to perform these not so miraculous stunts. are you asking me to cut and paste some of the explanations here?

your hidden assumption is that the bible provides an example of something happening that God didn't allow. just because God says not to do something doesn't mean that it's not within His ultimate plan for the unfolding of the universe. God may even allow something to happen that He desires not to happen in the short term, but may be for good in the long term.

nice try. you were the one who interpreted the story that way. just because you chose to do so doesn't mean the story is silly. the only thing that is silly is your proposition that we could actually steal something from an omnipotent creator.

what? i was supposed to read it? why didn't you say so earlier? i'll read it now.....

you know what? they stole that fruit from God!

maybe not in the short term

it most certainly does not. God holding us to the consequences of our choices in no way implies that it's not part of His plan.

for the short term. but that does not preclude them from going to heaven, nor does the bible say any such thing. if you think that it does, please provide a quote from the text.

do you not realize you just inserted the word immediately into the verse? you even capitalized it! there is no "immediately" in between the two. therefore, it is an assumption to believe that. i'm just trying to point out how the text can be misinterpreted.

while it may be a reasonable assumption to make that it did occur right after, how do you know that canaan hadn't been a thorn in noah's side? if that were the case, (which is also reasonable given the status of the canaanites later on) he may have deserved punishment well before the one he got. this means that it makes no difference that noah punished him in this case, he deserved punishment, period. it's sophistry. i realize you are going to counter with the fact that canaan wasn't guilty of that particular crime. you can't even show in the text how noah cursed canaan for what ham did. never does noah say "because of what ham did" or "despite the fact that you are innocent". now, in an effort to prevent the impending jackism, please address your following assumptions:

1. where does the bible say that canaan was innocent (of any crime)? this charges you with the sophistry. if he's guilty of other crimes (which is likely based on later characterization), what difference does it make when his sentence is pronounced?

2. where does the bible say canaan got punished for ham's crime? there is no "immediately" or "right after that". there is no "for ham's crime".

possibly. what's wrong with that? people frequently wake up and take action after they "slept on it".

now this is just plain out of context. the way you worded your last sentence is not the way the events unfolded in the text. this is what is so hilarious. you have accused me of reading into the text and here you egregiously insert the phrase "because he knew" to apply to canaan when clearly, it does not. please explain why you did this?

no, i pointed out that finkelstein's methods have been criticized. i am not saying that. archaeologists are. if you don't believe it, look it up for yourself.

if you want to believe that, go right ahead. what the majority believes today will not always be the case. BTW, you failed to show how just being in the minority makes one wrong.

i see you quote verses, but you don't back up your interpretation with the original language. here is a good example:

"Nope. The prophecy is quite specific: "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction." This never happened, and Caananite is now a dead language."

to which i responded:

i responded by asking you why you feel it is necessary to render "language of canaan" so literally. Most prophecies are figurative.

do you notice how you tend to just quote a verse, interpret it however you feel and when asked to support your interpretation, you just repeat your original assertion? if you need more examples, i can provide them.

btw, the question i posed in post #7 never got an answer.

your ability to quote the passages is not in question. what is in question is your ability to analyze the verse based on the original language thus supporting your assertion.

it has already been suggested that if you would stop just repeating your original statement when presented with critique, this thread would be much more efficient.

i already have. isaiah 53 is one of the reasons.

there are jews that are not just called jews. they're called jews for Jesus. there are still other jews who just call themselves christians.

you have a real penchant for missing the point so i will ask again. why is it ok for you to insult christians by bringing up a topic that doesn't belong in this forum, and then state if i want to respond to the charge, to do so elsewhere? in debate, this is referred to as a double standard.

goodness. re-quoting it was not what you were asked. you were asked what in the text gives you that idea. it means you provide some words or phrases with the original meaning to support your belief/opinion. so, what specific words in the text gives you the impression God was worried, jealous, concerned, etc?

how is it that when i ask you a question to better understand your ideas, you claim i'm evading?

here is the crux of the point. you were the one to bring up the "god-like" description. just because we didn't have it before and God did, does not make it god-like. what word(s) in the text do you base your assumption on?

you are correct. i lost track of the thread. it must have been one of those nights i stayed up until 4a. i am sorry i upset you.

i take that as a no that you won't provide any quotes, thus backing up your claim. i'm sorry i have trouble believing you just because you type it.

according to some people.

that's one factor, yes.

if that were the only cosideration to be accounted for, then "some" might have a point.

again i say, is it an invented apologetic tactic because you happen to believe it is that way or because some book you read claimed that is the case? how about backing up what you say with some facts?

really? if i had a nickel for everytime i've asked you to support your assertions and all you do is requote the text.....

a curious statement. do you consider it acceptable to continually just repeat statements when faced with critique?

the first problem with this response is that you have put God (mr. smith) on the same existential ground/level as the neighbors. do you see a problem here? this what i was trying to point out earlier in reference to deut 24:16. so is it appropriate to make smith the equivalent of God? wouldn't it be more accurate to at least start with the judge being God?

i am certainly not getting through. you make a statement. i ask you why you believe succeed means that nebuchadnezzar will be the ultimate downfall of tyre and this is how you respond, by restating your original assertion.

what is meant by the term succeed in specific reference to nebuchadnezzar in his siege of tyre?

bfniii

in regards to daniel:

all too familiar. so instead of responding to the individual points i cited, you just proclaim your jackism. how about telling everyone why the response was incorrect instead of just saying it was.

and the reason you think it's fantasy?