Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 02-28-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

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.

arnoldo · 02-28-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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.

Sheshonq · 02-28-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

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.

arnoldo · 02-28-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

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).

Sheshonq · 02-28-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

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:

Casper · 02-28-2008, 03:15 PM

Does a capitol have to have a citadel?

arnoldo · 02-28-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

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 · 02-28-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

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

Sheshonq · 02-29-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

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 · 02-29-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

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.

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

02-28-2008, 03:15 PM	#836
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Does a capitol have to have a citadel?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.