Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 07:06 AM

Message to arnodo: For your information, I just started a new thread at the MF&P Forum at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235305. The title is 'The morals of the God of the Bible are questionable.' I invite you to participate in the thread.

Sheshonq · 01-25-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You seem to think that if nothing is certain, that somehow means that all possiblities have equal probability. It doesn't work that way.

Nothing is certain. But the overwhelming amount of evidence says that Daniel is false. A few real names and events from history are thrown into a blender, and out popped a fictional account.

Quote:

However there certainly is historical and archaelogical evidence that the events described in the book actually existed.

No. There isn't. That's the problem.

Quote:

Hence, the historical events described in the book of daniel are not myths like "Atlantis"

Everything so far suggests that is *exactly* what they are.

Sheshonq · 01-25-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Daniel is fiction because of the historical and archaeological mistakes that the writer(s) made.

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Daniel is fiction because of the historical and archaeological mistakes that the writer(s) made.

Daniel is true because of the historical accuracy and archaelogical proof that backs up the book of Daniel.

Sheshonq · 01-25-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Daniel is fiction because of the historical and archaeological mistakes that the writer(s) made.

Daniel is true because of the historical accuracy and archaelogical proof that backs up the book of Daniel.

Of which there is almost none, so Daniel is fiction.

spin · 01-25-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Daniel is fiction because of the historical and archaeological mistakes that the writer(s) made.

Daniel is true because of the historical accuracy and archaelogical proof that backs up the book of Daniel.

If you honestly believed that you should have responded critically to the OP. Instead you lay down like a lamb and let it pass.

spin

Sheshonq · 01-25-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Daniel is true because of the historical accuracy and archaelogical proof that backs up the book of Daniel.

If you honestly believed that you should have responded critically to the OP. Instead you lay down like a lamb and let it pass.

spin

However:

1. that would take time and a desire to educate oneself;
2. it would certainly interfere with preaching

Clearly arnoldo has no interest in #1 or #2.

juergen · 01-25-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you honestly believed that you should have responded critically to the OP. Instead you lay down like a lamb and let it pass.

spin

However:

1. that would take time and a desire to educate oneself;
2. it would certainly interfere with preaching

Clearly arnoldo has no interest in #1 or #2.

You were right about it in the other thread, and you're right about it in this one.

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is a clear indication that Daniel was written after the installation of the "abomination" in the Temple (167 BCE) but before the death of Antiochus (164 BCE).

The Book of Daniel prophesized events that happened roughly in 30 AD (the messiah that was cut off). http://www.harvardhouse.com/Gabriel-...ein_Method.htm
Even Josephus acknowledge this.

arnoldo · 01-25-2008, 11:03 AM

I know, we can't trust Josephus,right?

Quote:

When asked by one of his generals why he welcomed this group, Alexander replied: "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honoured him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit [garment], when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is, that having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, chap. 8, sec. 5, William Whiston translation, 1981).

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

01-25-2008, 07:06 AM	#111
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnodo: For your information, I just started a new thread at the MF&P Forum at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235305. The title is 'The morals of the God of the Bible are questionable.' I invite you to participate in the thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.