FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2008, 10:24 AM   #831
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless View Post
Umm... no. Daniel didn't actually have any "visions" at all, because Daniel is a fictional character in a book written in the 2nd century BC.

But YOU were the one who claimed that "Yes, Susa was an important city circa the time that Daniel was written".

Try again.
Try doing some google searches, Susa if often listed as one of the oldest continuosly inhabited cities on earth.
Who cares? It wasn't a capital in the "third year of Belshazzar", as Daniel tries to put it.

Quote:
It appears all the arguments that the bible is 100% false is based on semantics, not archaelogical evidence,
You're kidding, right? It's the archaeological evidence that shows Daniel is wrong about Susa.

Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus.

Daniel is historically broken because it associates the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, a city which wouldn't become the capital until:

(a) the reign of two other rulers (Cyrus, Cambyses II) had occurred; and
(b) a decade of time had passed.

And Belshazzar was never a king anyhow, so you're kind of dead-ending on your starting assumption as well.

Quote:
for example, "Many Nations = only Nebby," "Belshazzar was was not a King, he was a viceroy of the city of babylon, etc"
All true, and all supported by archaeology.

Quote:
Here is some info on Susa.
Which doesn't help you.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:21 AM   #832
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

Try doing some google searches, Susa if often listed as one of the oldest continuosly inhabited cities on earth.
Who cares? It wasn't a capital in the "third year of Belshazzar", as Daniel tries to put it.


You're kidding, right? It's the archaeological evidence that shows Daniel is wrong about Susa.

Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus.

Daniel is historically broken because it associates the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, a city which wouldn't become the capital until:

(a) the reign of two other rulers (Cyrus, Cambyses II) had occurred; and
(b) a decade of time had passed.

And Belshazzar was never a king anyhow, so you're kind of dead-ending on your starting assumption as well.


All true, and all supported by archaeology.

Quote:
Here is some info on Susa.
Which doesn't help you.
Sorry, Daniel had a vision of Susa which is something you dismiss a priori anyway. Do you know what a vision is? It's something like a dream.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 11:46 AM   #833
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
You're kidding, right? It's the archaeological evidence that shows Daniel is wrong about Susa.

Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus.

Daniel is historically broken because it associates the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, a city which wouldn't become the capital until:

(a) the reign of two other rulers (Cyrus, Cambyses II) had occurred; and
(b) a decade of time had passed.

And Belshazzar was never a king anyhow, so you're kind of dead-ending on your starting assumption as well.
And now we get as a response....

Quote:
Sorry, Daniel had a vision of Susa
Which doesn't fix the broken history. A vision of a mistaken history doesn't solve your problem.

Quote:
Do you know what a vision is?
Yes. it still doesn't fix the broken history.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 12:05 PM   #834
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
You're kidding, right? It's the archaeological evidence that shows Daniel is wrong about Susa.

Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus.

[b]Daniel is historically broken because it associates the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, a city which wouldn't become the capital until:
LAME. Again your only argument is semantics (capital vs citadel).
arnoldo is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 12:40 PM   #835
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
You're kidding, right? It's the archaeological evidence that shows Daniel is wrong about Susa.

Cambyses II moved the capital of the Achamaenid Persian empire from Pasargadae to Susa. But Cambyses' act of moving the capital came long after Nabonidus or Belshazzar. Remember: Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Cambyses II comes after Cyrus.

[b]Daniel is historically broken because it associates the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, a city which wouldn't become the capital until:
LAME. Again your only argument is semantics (capital vs citadel).
It is not semantics. It is a valid and important distinction. Citadels were many; but there was only one capital. As predicted, you handwave away issues you cannot address.

Which means you spend almost all your time waving your hands, by the way. :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 03:15 PM   #836
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 430
Default

Does a capitol have to have a citadel?
Casper is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 04:26 PM   #837
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

LAME. Again your only argument is semantics (capital vs citadel).
It is not semantics. It is a valid and important distinction. Citadels were many; but there was only one capital. As predicted, you handwave away issues you cannot address.

Which means you spend almost all your time waving your hands, by the way. :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
Right..... Daniel 8 is vison describing Alexander the Great *newsflash* Alexander the Great conquered Susa in the year 331 BC. I guess this means that no part of the book of daniel could have been written before the year 331 BC, right?
arnoldo is offline  
Old 02-28-2008, 05:40 PM   #838
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Does a capitol have to have a citadel?
Good question. According to this source, Cyrus the Great at one time declared that 3 capitals existed in the persian empire.

Susa was declared as one of the three capitals of the Persians
arnoldo is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 12:55 PM   #839
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post

It is not semantics. It is a valid and important distinction. Citadels were many; but there was only one capital. As predicted, you handwave away issues you cannot address.

Which means you spend almost all your time waving your hands, by the way. :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
Right..... Daniel 8 is vison describing Alexander the Great *newsflash* Alexander the Great conquered Susa in the year 331 BC. I guess this means that no part of the book of daniel could have been written before the year 331 BC, right?
Who cares about Alexander and when he conquered Susa?

It wasn't a capital during the "third year of Belshazzar" - as Daniel claims.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 02-29-2008, 12:56 PM   #840
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
Does a capitol have to have a citadel?
Good question. According to this source, Cyrus the Great at one time declared that 3 capitals existed in the persian empire.

Susa was declared as one of the three capitals of the Persians
Which doesn't matter since it wasn't a capital during the "third year of Belshazzar" - as Daniel claims.
Sheshonq is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.