Larsguy47

I'M STILL WAITING. Just give me your three favorite all time BIG BIBLE MISTAKES. I want to know what they are. There is usually an explanation that escapes most people or they've made an error. Just wanted to see what you're talking about. Seems to me you should pull out 30 or 40 right out of the hat from memory. I'll just take three.

Thanks.

LG47

Sauron

None is necessary, because your chronology has already-identified holes in it. Until you address those holes, you are dead in the water.

Apparently the Messiah can't read.

1. As I said before: you aren't going to get anywhere arguing your homemade chronology with me, until you fix the holes already identified in it.

2. Your tried to claim that you were not using Newton as a historical source. The citation above (in red) proves that you were.

1. It makes plenty of mistakes. So do you.

2. You're dodging my point: Josephus' recapitulation of the Old Testament is not an independent source.

1. Didn't your mommy tell you not to ask for more food until you've finished what's on your plate already? You've already opened up a half-dozen issues that you haven't been able to defend so far. As soon as you do that, then you'll be in a position to discuss other items.

2. In addition, it's been established that instead of sticking to the discussion and defending your points, you prefer to start new threads on unrelated topics. There's no way I'm going to enable that type of ducking and evasion, by opening up even more topics for you to hide behind.

3. Gee - a self-proclaimed messiah who rearranges history and ignores physical/ archaeological evidence. If you can't find a contradiction in the bible is evidence more of the sheer intensity of your delusions than any thing else.

Another of your historical fairy tales that has already been dispensed with. As I said: you aren't going to be allowed to introduce your homemade chronology as long as there are outstanding questions and massive holes in it.

1. Who cares if he was, or wasn't? I think I know where you're going with that question; it's not going to work for you.

2. Astyages as Cyrus' grandfather is questionable anyhow; just another legendary point in the grand Cyrus legend. Britannica:

Akkadian Ishtumegu the last king of the Median empire (reigned 585–550 BC). According to Herodotus, the Achaemenian Cyrus the Great was Astyages' grandson through his daughter Mandane, but this relationship is probably legendary. According to Babylonian inscriptions, Cyrus, king of Anshan (in southwestern Iran), began war against Astyages in 553 BC; in 550 the Median troops rebelled, and Astyages was taken prisoner. Then Cyrus occupied and plundered Ecbatana, the Median capital. A somewhat different account of these events is given by the Greek writer Ctesias.

On the contrary, Messiah O'<edit>. You're the one who tried to make it sound like the ordering of those two nationalities somehow indicated which one was senior and which one was junior. Recognize these words in blue? You should; they're yours:

When conquering Babylon, the dual-empire are listed as the "MEDES and the Persians" not the other way around.

Didn't I tell you not to be sloppy or dishonest with me?

There are dozens of mistakes. We are working through five or six right now.

1. I have no evidence that the bible is inspired in the first place, considering its mistakes;
2. It is an official part of the bible, as far as the *overwhelming* majority of the Christian world is concerned - so the complaints from a black transvestite messiah don't exactly worry me;
3. Given that reality, Esther is as much a historic document as any other bible text is. You can't have it both ways.

Already told you -- when you plug the holes in your current claims, then -- and only then -- will you be in a position to open up new discussions with me.

Sauron

"Still waiting"? What the fuck are you talking about?

Your previous post was at 6:48pm. You post where you are STILL WAITING was made at 6:50pm. I'm supposed to jump up and respond to you within a two-minute timeframe? Give me a break.

Besides, you've already been told quite clearly: until you defend your already-existing claims and plug the holes in those arguments, you're in a sorry position to be taking on any more work. Nor am I going to enable your dodging and evasion by deliberately opening up the topic of more bible mistakes.

So if you want to discuss those mistakes, you're going to have to fix your current busted-ass arguments first.

Nanocyborg

According only to Daniel.

You're confusing the Babylonian Empire with the Assyrian Empire.

Larsguy47

What? The Persians didn't conquer Babylon? The Persians conquered Assyria?

I don't think so.

LG47

RED DAVE

Larsguy47:

How about one citation by a contemporary historian that affirms that Darius the Mede was a real person?

In the absence of this, like your Hebrews' Exodus and Aristotle hot nights with Socrates, you got nothing but your usual bullshit.

One contemporary source. Prediction: you got nothin'.

RED DAVE

Sauron

Yeah, but what you think almost always turns out to be wrong, so who cares?

You failed to read carefully. Nanocyborg was correcting you on your earlier claim that (a) the Medes were involved in the conquest of Babylon as (b) the senior partner. Both (a) and (b) are wrong.

The Medes did, however, share conquest of Assyria with the Chaldean (neo-Babylonian) empire, but that was back in 612 BCE -- seven decades earlier.

Larsguy47

As I said, this position cannot be stated emphatically since the Bible lists the "MEDES and Persians" in that order. At the least they were equals and then Persia rose to be the more dominant. But where order is considered to be more significant, the fact that the Medes are listed first is inself a suggestion that the Medes where the greater empire. This is particularly apparent when Darius the Mede became ruler of Babylon making him in charge of that new addition to the Medo-Persian empire, whereas Cyrus remained king of what had already been his kingdom over the Persians.

Further, until Babylon was conquered, the Medes were a great ally of the Babylonians, as you know, the MEDES (not the Persians) assisting in the conquering of Nineveh. This likely was the basis for a state marriage between the Medes and the Babylonians, resulting in the birth of Darius the Mede to the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and the king of the Medes, Cyaxares the father of Astyages, thus Darius the Mede was the younger half-brother of Astyages.

And as noted, the Greeks often referred to the Persians as "Medes" as well.

LG47

Larsguy47

This went right over your head. A citation by Sir Isaac Newton is more pertinent here since it proves the records and concepts available to him at that time, some of which may have vanished or disappeared by now led him to some specific historical presumptions about Darius the Mede and what he did, even clearly understanding the Jews were not released until Cyrus specifically began to rule. Thus though he only gives Darius the Mede a 2-year rule over Babylon, the Jews are still in exile under this 2-year rule. So he was definitely considered to be real in the time of Sir Isaac Newton, which is my only point.

If you think a modern scholar's impression that there was no such person in existence would preempt the fact that people during the time of Sir Isaac Newton seemed to have no question that he was, then that's an interesting theory. My only point was that Sir Isaac Newton seemed to think he was a real character, so does Josephus and so does the Bible.

LG47

Jack the Bodiless

The reason why "Darius the Mede" was invented is simple: both Isaiah and Jeremiah had falsely prophesied that Babylon would be conquered and destroyed by the Medes. Neither anticipated the rise of the Persians, their conquest of the Medes, and their subsequent apparently bloodless capture of Babylon (which wasn't destroyed).

This was an unsuccessful attempt to partially rescue the Bible from a failed prophecy.