Freethought & Rationalism Archive

funinspace · 04-02-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Roman peoples destroyed the Roman empire...history (Gibbons) has it that Rome fell from internal conflicts.

Ok name me one non european people who have conquered the Roman Empire. What non european nation has ever conquered Western Europe since the collaspe of Rome? I bet you cant find any. And certainly it can be said that the Europeans have indeed "Devoured the whole earth" that is they have subjugated all peoples....they hold most all the nuclear warheads...they control the U.N., and America's (a European power) power reach everywhere. The Europeans have dominated ever since the days of Rome.

Oh good grief…you know Zecharia Sitchin wrote better fiction in The Twelfth Planet, than this rubbish. Europe isn’t a people. Second the Vandals of North Africa sacked Rome. They were not part of the Roman subjects. Most empires crumble due to internal issues. Outside powers just exploit their weakening state. Either way, this point is irrelevant until you deal with my point (4)

Ok now you have fantasized the US, as the Roman empire, and the nuclear weapons as the tool by which it controls the whole planet. Yet, we can’t control little itty bitty nations like Iraq and Vietnam. You ignore the reality that Russia and China can equally start the blowing up of the world. The construct of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has stalemated the idea that nuclear weapons can make one country ruler of all.

And you still ignore my point (4) If you claim these other empires are just a subset of the Roman empire, then logically the Roman empire is just a subset of the Greek empire. Therefore you do not have your proclaimed 4 kingdoms.

So no your claims are still empty and crash on their own twisted arguments.

makerowner · 04-02-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

I said before today that Daniel was vague, but going through Biblegateway.com I found this piece which is certainly not vague:

Quote:

26 “After this period of sixty-two sets of seven,[f] the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end.

... and certainly not a TOTAL miss. Nevertheless, there was no flood. That would make it equal in precision to one of those modern day clairvoyants whose predictions are impressive but not 100% "there". What would the Xpian interpretation of the flood mentioned be, Sugarhitman? There was none, and an omniscient God wouldn't have the record of a mere medium, wouldn't you think?

Actually no, this passage refers to Onias III who was killed by Antiochus IV, and is actually a prophecy after the fact.

Jehanne · 04-02-2008, 04:13 PM

Moving to BC&H.

Jeremy D · 04-02-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Not shot down mr. ex.....rejected

Nope, God is not a baby. He would've said "This nation in year X will defeat X and X will happen and the leaders will be person x and x and x and x."

Weren't you arguing in previous threads that Jesus was intentionally vague or omitted details on purpose because nobody would believe him if he was specific?

sy2502 · 04-02-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

2. It would be divided. Rome divided into east and west Rome then into the separate powers of Europe (America too is a European power, currently the strongest nation on earth. The world wars today have been between these separate competeing European powers. Daniel foretold that the unity between them would be brittle)
3. Would endure until the coming of the Messiah...or rather His return. (see Daniel 2 44-45)

So you are lumping together the iron kingdom and the iron/clay kingdom? One is the Roman Empire at one point in history and the other is the same empire at a different point in history? That's a hell of a stretch!
Also, if each material is one empire, why for the iron/clay one you just throw in a whole bunch of unrelated empires (European powers) which were most definitely NOT one single entity but battled for many centuries, rose and fell, conquered each other, etc? That's a big big generalization that does not conform to history.
Another problem is that Daniel tells that Babylon would be the greatest empire of all (being made of gold) when, in fact, that's ridiculous. The French emperor used to say "The sun never sets over my domain" because it had colonies all over the world. Could Babylon say that? The British empire was even bigger!! What, god forgot to mention them?
And what about now? There aren't that many kings and empires anymore, and yet your Jesus has not shown up, so methinks that prophecy has failed the mark quite a bit. So no, sorry, I am not impressed.

badger3k · 04-02-2008, 07:08 PM

Just tagging this to keep track of another train wreck. I can't wait to see what the Medo-Persian bs attracts.

All we need now is another thread saying that Tyre sank beneath the waves.

ughaibu · 04-02-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ughaibu

My challenge still stands

As you've ignored both my posts, I'll take it that you decline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Even losers laugh in their defeat.

You have failed to serve god by refusing to demonstrate prophesy. You lose.

ChairmanMeow · 04-02-2008, 09:13 PM

This thread is currently almost the exact same topic as this one, over in GRD.

This Medo-Persian nonsense has recieved a thorough beatdown over there.

Newfie · 04-03-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics have gone from saying that biblical prophecy are written afterwards, failures, to even being vague. But are prophecies vague?....certainly not.

If Bible prophesy is not as vague as you suggest then why does it always necessitate long and involved illustrations to prove specific interpretations of what they mean? If these prophesies were as clear as you seem to believe then why do we need your, or anyone else’s, expertise simply to understand it?

Quote:

The Roman-European powers are the 4th kingdom.

Again, I really don’t get where you get modern-day Europe out of the Roman Empire. Do you include European countries that were never part of the Roman Empire and why do you exclude all non-European parts of the Empire like Israel and northern Africa?

Jack the Bodiless · 04-03-2008, 08:30 AM

sugarhitman:

If Biblical prophecy is "not vague", then you now agree that Ezekiel's reference to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon as the person who would conquer, sack and depopulate Egypt (in his failed "Egypt prophecy"), IS actually a reference to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and NOT some future conqueror? Because otherwise that would be rather "vague", yes?

Otherwise, if you're still tossing out Biblical names and substituting others at random: all the references to "Israel" could be about Japan, or Sri Lanka, or Paraguay. Who knows? Or maybe the four empires of Daniel's vision were the Olmecs, the Toltecs, the Aztecs and the Spaniards.

04-02-2008, 04:13 PM	#33
Jehanne Veteran Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 2,567	Mod note. Moving to BC&H.

04-02-2008, 07:08 PM	#36
badger3k Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Killeen, TX Posts: 1,388	Nothing to see here... Just tagging this to keep track of another train wreck. I can't wait to see what the Medo-Persian bs attracts. All we need now is another thread saying that Tyre sank beneath the waves.

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

04-02-2008, 09:13 PM	#38
ChairmanMeow Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 47	This thread is currently almost the exact same topic as this one, over in GRD. This Medo-Persian nonsense has recieved a thorough beatdown over there.

04-03-2008, 08:30 AM	#40
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	sugarhitman: If Biblical prophecy is "not vague", then you now agree that Ezekiel's reference to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon as the person who would conquer, sack and depopulate Egypt (in his failed "Egypt prophecy"), IS actually a reference to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and NOT some future conqueror? Because otherwise that would be rather "vague", yes? Otherwise, if you're still tossing out Biblical names and substituting others at random: all the references to "Israel" could be about Japan, or Sri Lanka, or Paraguay. Who knows? Or maybe the four empires of Daniel's vision were the Olmecs, the Toltecs, the Aztecs and the Spaniards.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.