Sheshonq

It isn't done merely by looking at historical records. By cross-referencing them with other records, archaeology, and various kinds of forensic approaches. It isn't rocket science - it just requires that you know something about the time in question, and you have the ability to distinguish obvious nonsense.

No wonder you have problems.

And of course, I don't have the burden of proof to prove your claims about the bible wrong. The burden of proof is on your back, to prove your own claims are true.

So even if a particular claim of yours could not be proven wrong, that doesn't mean that the claim is automatically true. There is a difference, even though you probably can't grasp it.

And finally:
Let's not forget how this started - although I'm sure you'd love to. If the audience recalls, arnoldo's original claim was that historical records were superior to archaeological or geological records. That is nonsense, for all the reasons stated. Of course, if arnoldo feels otherwise, he is free to demonstrate why his claim is correct.

But that isn't going to happen, and we all know it. :rolling:

Solitary Man

When historical records agree with geological and archaeological records against other historical records?

arnoldo

The following link is an excellent scholarly resource on the book of daniel.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL: A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORICAL QUESTIONS by ROBERT DICK WILSON, PH.D., D. D., WM. H. GREEN PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM, PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 1917[/QUOTE]

Check the bibliography, it uses babylonian historical records to confirm that the book of daniel is 100% correct. Since these historical records are in part written in stone they are also archaelogical confirmation that the book of daniel is 100% correct. I guess we cannot trust archaelogical proof now also, right?

Species8472

Funny, cause already in the introduction the frequent use of "might" and "maybe" in reference to Babylonian texts indicate that nothing is 100% certain here...

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, skimming through, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate fantasy, of the "let's pretend that Gubaru might have been called Darius the Mede" variety (IIRC, he wasn't even a Mede).

It's dated 1917. Nearly a century has passed and it still hasn't been accepted by Biblical scholars. This should tell you something.

arnoldo

Thank you for taking time to read the introduction in reference to Babylonian texts. I guess the other point I'm trying to make is that there is no 100% proof that the Book of Daniel is false. However there certainly is historical and archaelogical evidence that the events described in the book actually existed. Hence, the historical events described in the book of daniel are not myths like "Atlantis"

Jack the Bodiless

Arnoldo, nobody is disputing that (for instance) the Babylonian Captivity happened, or that Nebuchadnezzar was a real person... and so on.

Daniel is fiction based on fact.

arnoldo

Thank you for providing clarification on your point of view. I suppose you are using some kind of historical or archaelogical evidence to make the claim that Daniel is fiction (I won't ask for your sources) ? Or are you arguing that Daniel is fiction because the prophecies have not come true? I'm just trying to understand opposing viewpoints here, thanks.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Consider the following from another thread:

Although you claim that is was the Jews' fault that they did not accept Jesus, if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have prevented any confusion regarding disputes about whether or not Jesus was the messiah. All that he would have needed to do would have been to inspire Old Testament writers to write unmistakable messianic prophecies. For instance, Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." If the writer had said that the ruler would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom, that would have helped a lot. In addition, regarding the Pharisees' claims that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub, if an Old Testament writer had said that the messiah would heal people by the power of God, that would have helped a lot. Further, if an Old Testament writer had said that the messiah's name would be Jesus, and that his mother would be Mary, and that the messiah would be crucified, and rise from the dead, that would have helped a lot.

Now those are just a few of many examples of where God could easily have prevented disputes regarding whether or not Jesus was the messiah. A God would not have any trouble at all preventing disputes about anything, including slavery. Jefferson Davis was President of the Southern Confederacy. He was a Christian. He believed that the Bible endorses slavery, which it does. Even if the Bible did not endorse slavery, God could easily have prevented Davis from believing that the Bible endorses slavery. First of all, he could have inspired Bible writers to write more clearly about slavery. Second of all, he could have appeared to Davis in a dream and told him that slavery is wrong. Third of all, he could have sent a tangible angel to tell Davis that slavery is wrong.

By the way, you still have not reasonably proven that Daniel predicted an event that came true that he knew about in advance that no one else knew about. Even if he did, there is no credible evidence that God's power legitimizes his authority.

spin

The reason why you cite a book from 1917 is because there have been none written recently from universities that would support the sorts of crap in the book you cite. At least that book supports you, so you'll cling to it. You won't realize that so much relevant material has been discovered since then that clarifies the issue.

This thread is aimed at educating you about Daniel. We have seen all the subterfuge before used to justify the christian errors regarding Daniel, so it is unlikely that you'll have anything or find anything new to thrill us with. Now, as this is aimed at you, I posted a brief analysis of chapter 11 for your benefit, though you did not respond at all. The challenge to you is to find a better historical fit than the one I have proposed and outlined in that post linked above. Do try your hardest to find anything that better fits. I believe you will fail dismally, but that won't stop you from believing. As they say, "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink".

If and when you accept the analysis of chapter 11, then I will show you how all four of the visions in chapters 7-12 relate to the one set of circumstances and eventually deal with the same event: the pollution of the temple by Antiochus IV, the stoppage of the daily sacrifice and the persecution of the Jews from 167 to 164 BCE.

So the challenge, arnoldo (and any christians who hold similar beliefs about Daniel), find a better fit of facts to the events described in Dan 11 thqan I supplied here. Or, failing that, explain your reaction to these facts.


spin