Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 01-23-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Daniel says nothing whatever about the Roman Empire.

True, Nebby had a dream of future world empires, Daniel merely gave the interpretation. Daniel didn't necessarily interpret the dream and state this means the "Roman Empire" rather he used figurative language to describe it.

...Except that the verses generally cited by fundies as referring to the "Roman Empire" actually refer to the Greek empire of Alexander the Great. On some occasions, the largest/strongest is specifically identified as the Greeks. So why imagine that, on the occasions when the largest/strongest was NOT so identified, the author meant somebody else?

As I have already pointed out, the Jews (some of them, anyhow) were able to figure it out long before the Christians started mangling Daniel.

mg01 · 01-23-2008, 01:39 PM

It is surprising to see that no one has mentioned the fact that the Hebrew of Daniel is recognized to be from a latter stage of development than from the time it is supposed to have been written, at least by comparision to other Biblical texts. It also uses many words derived from Aramaic, not Hebrew, that appear nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, incuding the word used for God, (strong 426 rather than 433).

arnoldo · 01-23-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

True, Nebby had a dream of future world empires, Daniel merely gave the interpretation. Daniel didn't necessarily interpret the dream and state this means the "Roman Empire" rather he used figurative language to describe it.

...Except that the verses generally cited by fundies as referring to the "Roman Empire" actually refer to the Greek empire of Alexander the Great. On some occasions, the largest/strongest is specifically identified as the Greeks. So why imagine that, on the occasions when the largest/strongest was NOT so identified, the author meant somebody else?

As I have already pointed out, the Jews (some of them, anyhow) were able to figure it out long before the Christians started mangling Daniel.

Quote:

"The golden head of the image is identical with the lioness, by which the Babylonians were represented.
The golden shoulders and the arms of silver are the same with the bear, by which the Persians and Medes are meant.
The belly and thighs of brass are the leopard, by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended.
The legs of iron are the dreadful and terrible beast, by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant.
The toes of clay and iron are the ten horns which are to be.
The one other little horn springing up in their midst is the antichrist.
The stone that smites the image and breaks it in pieces, and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world."

That's funny the part in bold has always been referred to as the first Roman Empire as well as the Revised Roman Empire(..which are to be) that is prophesied to come. Of course the stone that breaks the image is Yeshua who will break the image and then establish his own kingdom. Can you please list your source in which you claim that the "legs of iron" refers to the Greek Empire?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 06:54 PM

Message to arnoldo: If you were able to predict the future, and you wanted to convince people that you could predict the future, would you make questionable predictions that would invite dissent, or indisputable predictions that would discourage dissent. More specifically, if you accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, wouldn't a lot more people believe that you can predict the future than believe that the God of the Bible can predict the future?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

.......Nebby had a dream of future world empires, Daniel merely gave the interpretation.

Which interpretation are you referring to that indicates that God inspired the interpretation?

arnoldo · 01-23-2008, 07:05 PM

Obviously the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70 AD and the gospels were written after that. Yeshua states in Matthew 24 that the Jewish temple will be defiled and afterward he will return to establish himself as King of Israel, consider the following scripture:

Quote:

“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

Either this is more proof the Yeshua is a false prophet (or never existed) because he didn't establish his kingdom after the 2nd Jewish was destroyed or that there will be a third jewish temple built in which an individual will defile the temple. In any event is anyone aware if the temple was defiled by the Romans in 70 A.D.?

arnoldo · 01-23-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

.......Nebby had a dream of future world empires, Daniel merely gave the interpretation.

Which interpretation are you referring to that indicates that God inspired the interpretation?

See post #19 for the source of the interpretation.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 07:38 PM

Message to arnoldo: If you were able to predict the future, and you wanted to convince people that you could predict the future, would you make questionable predictions that would invite dissent, or indisputable predictions that would discourage dissent. More specifically, if you accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, wouldn't a lot more people believe that you can predict the future than believe that the God of the Bible can predict the future?

If you cannot come with any reasonable motives regarding why God makes questionable predictions when he could easily make indisputable predictions,
you lose. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why there are not any indisputable predictions in the Bible, why no one has ever heard the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, at least as far as we know, why food is distributed entirely by humans, why hurricanes indiscriminately kill people, why hurricanes kill innocent animals, why animals kill other animals, and why today it appears that all tangible benefits are indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests.

This forum usually deals with the past, but the only kind of God who I am interested in would be a God of the present who would tangibly appear in person to everyone in the world. I do not find a God who must depend primarily or largely upon copies of copies of questionable ancient texts to reveal himself to people to be appealing.

arnoldo · 01-23-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I do not find a God who must depend primarily or largely upon copies of copies of questionable ancient texts to reveal himself to people to be appealing.

Me too, that's why God promised Abraham all people would be blessed by one of his descendents, namely Yeshua.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I do not find a God who must depend primarily or largely upon copies of copies of questionable ancient texts to reveal himself to people to be appealing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Me too, that's why God promised Abraham all people would be blessed by one of his descendents, namely Yeshua.

No, what I meant was the only kind of God who I am interesting in is a God who cares enough about me to provide me with the kinds of evidence that I need to accept him. Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

In those cases, Jesus' words alone, meaning faith alone, was not enough to convince people to become Jesus' followers, so Jesus provide them with the tangible, firsthand evidence that they needed.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples when about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. It is quite odd that with all of the miracles that Jesus had performed, and with his post-Resurrection appearances, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that there was a need for even more confirmations? Obviously, you faith argument does not work. If anything, believers would need LESS confirmations than unbelievers would. "O ye of little faith" contradicts the many miracles that Jesus and the disciples supposedly performed. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

I would never accept a God who played favorites, and refused to do everything that he could do to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

Consider the following post from another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If a powerful being accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, there is not doubt that the vast majority of the people in the world would consider that to be much better evidence than any Bible prophecy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Did a powerful being predict that the State of Israel would exist after two thousand years of it's destruction by the Romans?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If so, the Partition of Palestine did not fulfill the requirement in Genesis 17:8 that says that God would give Abraham and his descendants ALL of the land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy nearly ALL of the land of Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to conclude that the Partition of Palestine would have happened anyway. Whether or not a prophecy is true or not does not make any difference. All that makes a difference is whether or not people who have enough military power BELIEVE that it is true.

In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. Since 2 Samuel 7:10 can never be fulfilled in this life, and since it refers to this life, that is a false prophecy.

At any rate, you did not answer my question. Please do so. Hypothetical arguments are frequently useful tools for revealing bad arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' is a good example. In addition, since hypothetical arguments are frequently useful, they are sometimes of great value in court trials.

Any man who is afraid to discuss a hypothetical argument has revealed that he is not confident of his arguments, and, if he has ever used hypothetical arguments himself, that he is a hypocrite.

I am not afraid to discuss hypothetical arguments. Why are you afraid to discuss them? Haven't you ever used hypothetical arguments?

Last but not least, no rational God would inspire disputable prophecies when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies.

You conveniently refused to reply to those arguments. Why is that?

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

01-23-2008, 01:39 PM	#52
mg01 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: USA Posts: 197	It is surprising to see that no one has mentioned the fact that the Hebrew of Daniel is recognized to be from a latter stage of development than from the time it is supposed to have been written, at least by comparision to other Biblical texts. It also uses many words derived from Aramaic, not Hebrew, that appear nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, incuding the word used for God, (strong 426 rather than 433).

01-23-2008, 06:54 PM	#54
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: If you were able to predict the future, and you wanted to convince people that you could predict the future, would you make questionable predictions that would invite dissent, or indisputable predictions that would discourage dissent. More specifically, if you accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, wouldn't a lot more people believe that you can predict the future than believe that the God of the Bible can predict the future?

01-23-2008, 07:38 PM	#58
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: If you were able to predict the future, and you wanted to convince people that you could predict the future, would you make questionable predictions that would invite dissent, or indisputable predictions that would discourage dissent. More specifically, if you accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, wouldn't a lot more people believe that you can predict the future than believe that the God of the Bible can predict the future? If you cannot come with any reasonable motives regarding why God makes questionable predictions when he could easily make indisputable predictions, you lose. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why there are not any indisputable predictions in the Bible, why no one has ever heard the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, at least as far as we know, why food is distributed entirely by humans, why hurricanes indiscriminately kill people, why hurricanes kill innocent animals, why animals kill other animals, and why today it appears that all tangible benefits are indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. This forum usually deals with the past, but the only kind of God who I am interested in would be a God of the present who would tangibly appear in person to everyone in the world. I do not find a God who must depend primarily or largely upon copies of copies of questionable ancient texts to reveal himself to people to be appealing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.