Sven

I might add that it was actually creationists who originally discovered that Noah's flood did not happen. This was 200 years ago; up to today, geologists still have not found a shred of evidence for it.

bfniii

and you take this to mean what? what is the significance of 4qdanc?

i had read the article prior to making my post. it provides very little in the way of dating authorship of daniel. not the best source to quote.

also, i was the one who proposed the impact of the dead sea scrolls on the dating of daniel authorship. therefore, it would seem that i have been educated on the issue.

Jack the Bodiless

4qdanc dates from the late 2nd century BC. So it's a copy that's maybe half a century younger than the scholarly date for the original Daniel.

And this proves... ?

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, I find it rather ironic that some of the same Christian fundamentalists who accept a 2nd-century-BC date for 4qdanc (albeit a late 2nd-century-BC date) will summarily reject the dating of all those fossils and artifacts that contradict Genesis.

This, also, seems rather ironic (from the Wikipedia article):
Perhaps these guys should have a chat with the apologists who say that half a century is "too soon" for a Maccabean Daniel to be incorporated into the DSS.

John A. Broussard

I realize you have your hands full dealing with other posters, but could you take time to answer my latest post?

I'm repeating here so you won't have to search for it:

1. Slaves have the option of either obeying or not obeying their master.

2. If they obey, they are rewarded.

3. If they do not obey, they are punished.

4. God desires us "to have a loving relationship with him," i.e., obey her/him/it by having that loving relationship.

5. Those who have a loving relationship are rewarded.

6. Those who do not are punished.

Please explain to me where my argument is erroneous. I've numbered my statements to facilitate your explanation.

Sven

:huh: You asked what he means by "range of ages", I explained it, using a reference. About what exactly do you complain here?

Since I wasn't addressing the dating of daniel, only the question of "range of ages", it's obviously a good source.

I acknowledge that you've apparently read the article.

bfniii

"many nations".

he is referred to as "king" not "many nations" as i have already pointed out using the original language. instead of responding to that, you jackism.

once again, where does the text say that nebuchadnezzar will be the ultimate downfall of tyre?

first, i see you concede the point about the damage alexander did in tyre. good move. maybe you did read the accounts after all. however, next time you might want to avoid quoting a point that you don't respond to.

second, they escaped how? as slaves! alexander imported people to begin the rebuilding process. some of the slaves returning later does not the nation of tyre make. nor does it restore the 2000 compatriots crucified on the beach or the ~8000 killed in battle.

i sincerely hope that continually repeating this phrase makes you feel better. ever seen the movie "rain man"? i wonder if you have a macro programmed for that phrase. if you show me the macro, i could alter it to say he did and then we could macro each other to death.

alright. what kind of punishment would you recommend? keep in mind we need a punishment that affects ONLY the perpetrator and IN NO WAY affects anyone else.

verses please! please provide the ACTUAL TEXT where you get this conclusion from. forget about the original language. i'll supply that. you just provide the quotes.

how long will you avoid the challenge? how long will you jackism? crack open that hated book the bible and quote where i'm wrong.

as long as you maintain jackisms.

WHOA! you were asked to provide where the text uses the word desire. this above response fails to do so.

you had this on your no list of God punishing someone for someone else's crimes. i pointed out that this passage is enumerating human law. your response fails to meet the challenge.

sigh. instead of addressing your oversight, your response fails to meet the challenge. it is prophectic. that is why i referred you to verse 31. it is eschatological (that means "end times"). it doesn't belong on your list.

are you admitting you truncated?

care to elaborate with some quotes from the text?

later.

please explain what you mean by "taken together".

show where in the text of exodus 22:29 that you see the word or words meaning child sacrifice.

show where in the text of leviticus 27:28, 29 child sacrifice is alluded to.

first, not all jews participated in that ritual which eludicidates a dichotomy of religious code. second, you won't respond when i ask you to show specifically in the verses you provide that child sacrifice is intmated, much less endorsed.

explanations for the plagues have been well documented. all except the last one of course, which pharaoh's priests weren't able to duplicate.

quote #1 - the Bible says that we DO have the ability to "know good and evil"
quote #2 - Hardly surprising that he didn't want us to have that ability (morality)!

we have morality. where did it come from? ultimately, God. this implies He wanted us to have it. your second statement says God didn't want us to have the ability. these two statements are contradictory. explain

:rolling: HA HA HA. we stole from God. boy that's a good one. how did we accomplish that? did we distract Him with a female blow up doll? or "hey God, look over there". or the jedi mind trick "you want us to have that fruit". i know, it was a covert night operation while God was sleeping.

all fun aside, where in the text do you see the word "stole" or anything like it?

OMG, you used a quote after being asked to! you actually responded to a challenge. maybe we're getting somewhere.

follow me. there is a significant amount of time in between verses 20 and 21. could even be years. where in that time gap do you see the bible proclaim canaan to be upright and blameless?

next, in verses 25-27, where do you see "because of what your father did"? it's not there. i realize the bible implies that canaan was cursed because of what his father did. but you are assuming he wasn't cursed for anything else. if you are going to assume that, you bear the burden of proof by quoting the text your assumption comes from.

not that that makes a difference.

using the text, not your interpretation.

sigh. again, so what? is the minority wrong because there are less of them?

why do you believe they are right? how about quoting some text? have you ever noticed that you criticize the bible but avoid quoting it when you meet resistance?

i'll get there as soon as i can. i'll try to finish the tyre thread first.

so what? numbers are irrelevant as i have pointed out. jews were converted because they believed He did. i'm asking YOU to quote some text as to why you think Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy.

while i'm sure that website makes some great points, all i have to do to rebut their arguments is cite the existence of the christian religion. millions of people since 33ad believe the opposite. so, let's stop appealing to numbers and break out the texts themselves.

is that so? what do you mean by "conclusively"?

and the text that gives you that idea is.......?

deut 28.

whatever. if that excuse makes you feel better, then good. after you feel better, maybe you could provide some quotes from the text.

how about quoting some of those claims?

since the oldest is second century, daniel couldn't have been written anytime after that.

oh yeah? how do you know? should i just accept that jackism merely because you type it?

the first, most obvious response is that apocalyptic fashion in the 2nd century doesn't mean daniel had to necessarily be in that group. that is unverifiable supposition. however, it is still much less preponderant than the other signs that point to earlier composition for daniel as i enumerated earlier.

bfniii

why? are you tired of me asking you to back up your assertions? don't you have the winning argument? the cards are stacked in your favor, but you are still aren't doing too good.

ok. i've made a few modifications to make it more accurate.

Mr. Smith has a neighbor, Mr. Jones. One day, Smith guns down Jones' teenage son, Jones Junior.

the judge sentences smith to life in prison, or death (depending on where you live).

jews point out that this sentence is appropriate in accordance with deut 24:16

christians point out that God never promised we would be fair with each other and that He has always been fair with salvation. those who repent suffer only temporarily and go to heaven.

bfniii

i think it's safe to assume that most slaves were not given the option to become slaves. slave masters are coercive. God is not. slaves, being subjugated do not have freewill. they are not free to choose where they live, whom they live with, what they eat, what they do for a living, etc.

but did they become slaves willingly?

obviously.

but they have done so of their own volition in good conscience. slaves have not been given that option. the only choice they have been given is to acquiesce or be punished.

bfniii

and what exactly is meant by "succeed". the bible never claims that nebuchadnezzar would be the ultimate downfall of tyre, so there doesn't seem to be a problem

might i inquire as to what source that information comes from?