Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 11-14-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

There was a Danl other than the Daniel of the Bible, but to think that the ancient hero came even close to the wisdom and renown of the Biblical Daniel is way off. Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C. Those who try to establish a late date have had their arguements refuted.

It's a subject that comes up quite often here. Daniel was written in the Maccbean period. This is pretty much unanimously accepted by competent Biblical scholars (this is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica will tell you, for instance), and it has never been refuted.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-14-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The not-very-wise Wiseman is getting his "Daniels" in a muddle. It's a rather well-established fact (except, apparently, among fundamentalists) that Ezekiel's Daniel was an ancient hero, not a contemporary: whereas the "Daniel of Babylon" was a fictional character who would not be invented until long afterwards, when the Book of Daniel was written, 168-164 BC or thereabouts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Well established fact? There was a Danl other than the Daniel of the Bible, but to think that the ancient hero came even close to the wisdom and renown of the Biblical Daniel is way off. Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C. Those who try to establish a late date have had their arguments refuted.

Oh really? Then you should have no trouble at all refuting the opening post in my thread that is titled 'It is time to put Daniel and Josh McDowell in their proper places.' Will you please make a post in that thread?

Sauron · 11-15-2005, 11:46 AM

New poster, JS Dileo, said

Quote:

The “many nations�? part of the prophecy might have been added after Nebuchadnezzar’s unsuccessful 13 siege of the mainland settlement, and of course of the island settlement. Considering Ezekiel 26:7-11, that is probably what happened.

Hmmm...I doubt it. The reason I doubt this is that there wouldn't have been any foreseeable threat against the city of Tyre after Nebbie went down to attempt to conquer Egypt. Alexander the Great, though, fulfills this part of the prediction perfectly:

[link to Robert Turkel's website]

The problems with this point of view are as follows:

1. There is there is scant, if any, evidence that Nebuchadnezzar ever bothered to try and invade Egypt in the first place;

2. Threats to Tyre do not evaporate, merely because Nebuchadnezzar is not on the scene - Tyre had walls and an army long before Nebuchadnezzar, thus demonstrating that he was not the *only* threat they were worried about;

3. The wording of Ezekiel clearly identifies Nebuchadnezzar - not Alexander - as the agent of destruction; you cannot simply search through all of the centuries of Tyrian history, looking for a battle that kinda/sorta fits your prophecy. The details of the prophecy were specific;

4. "Many nations" is a description of the Babylonian army - from my article on Tyre, that I referred to earlier

Quote:

Thus it can be seen that Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon was a broad collection of different nations, languages and peoples. (Modern readers of this text are somewhat handicapped by the understanding of the word “nation�?. We have grown up with the concept of a nation as a political entity with defined borders, a flag, an embassy and a national anthem, etc. But the nation (or nation-state) as a political entity is not what Ezekiel or Daniel were referring to. In ancient times, a nation referred to a distinct ethnic group, a people bonded together with a common sense of affiliation and a shared language.

Moving along. The point was made earlier that many surrounding nations had been made vassals of Babylon, either through subjugation or treaty. Part of the tribute that such states paid to Babylon was in the form of soldiers, charioteers, etc. provided for her military campaigns. As a result, the empire’s armies were composed of individuals from many different peoples. But all these soldiers served Nebuchadnezzar, the king of kings. The stronger argument here is that Ezekiel was equating "many nations" to Nebuchadnezzar's broad empire, and (by extension) its massive army, composed of many nationalities drawn from all over the empire. Thus, the phrase "many nations" was Ezekiel's apt description of Nebuchadnezzar's huge army--all of whom were to share in the spoils when they cracked open the city of Tyre, the ancient Alcatraz.

An additional historical item that sheds light on the “spoil to the nations�? phrase in v.5 is to note the scavenging entourage that accompanied the large armies of the ancient Near East. Whenever a conquering army rolled through an area, it was followed by a contingent of slave traders, professional thieves, and various other unsavory types. The members of this itinerant band of scavengers came from all parts of the ancient world, but had no permanent home themselves. Instead, they existed as vagabonds, camping near their host army and moving with it, as it progressed from conquest to conquest. They followed behind the army almost like vultures following lions, hoping to turn a profit from the destruction. After the conquering army and its generals had taken as much booty and human slaves as they wanted, these scavengers would clean up the rest. In light of this fact, when Ezekiel says that Tyre would become “the spoil of nations�?, this is more appropriately interpreted as a historical reference to the destruction first by the conquering army, and then by the rag-tag bands of looters that followed armies around.

JSDileo · 11-15-2005, 02:30 PM

Ooops! I accidentally submitted the same post four times. Is there any way I can delete the other posts? {Done.}

Quote:

The problems with this point of view are as follows:

1. There is there is scant, if any, evidence that Nebuchadnezzar ever bothered to try and invade Egypt in the first place;

I'm afraid this isn't so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II

Quote:

It would appear that following the pacification of Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar turned again to Egypt. A clay tablet, now in the British Museum, bears the following inscription referring to his wars:

"In the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar, king of the country of Babylon, he went to Mitzraim (Egypt) to make war. Amasis, king of Egypt, collected [his army], and marched and spread abroad."

Having completed the subjugation of Phoenicia, and inflicted chastisement on Egypt, Nebuchadrezzar now set himself to rebuild and adorn the city of Babylon, and constructed canals, aqueducts and reservoirs.

Quote:

2. Threats to Tyre do not evaporate, merely because Nebuchadnezzar is not on the scene - Tyre had walls and an army long before Nebuchadnezzar, thus demonstrating that he was not the *only* threat they were worried about;

I guess, but the problem is that the only other threat against Tyre after Nebbie left would be Egypt, and Egypt conquering Tyre would require them not only fending off Nebbie's forces but conquering part of Babylon as well.

Quote:

3. The wording of Ezekiel clearly identifies Nebuchadnezzar - not Alexander - as the agent of destruction; you cannot simply search through all of the centuries of Tyrian history, looking for a battle that kinda/sorta fits your prophecy. The details of the prophecy were specific;

This allegation rests mostly on your next quote:

Quote:

4. "Many nations" is a description of the Babylonian army - from my article on Tyre, that I referred to earlier

The article that I linked to earlier gave reason to assume that the many nations part of the prophecy referred to nations other than Babylon, but because of comments by Johnny Skeptic, I don't know whether to trust that article or not.

Nice debatin'.

Jonathan

Sauron · 11-15-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSDileo

Quote:

The problems with this point of view are as follows:

1. There is there is scant, if any, evidence that Nebuchadnezzar ever bothered to try and invade Egypt in the first place;

I'm afraid this isn't so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II

I'm afraid it *is* so.

First I'm going to discuss why my statement is correct. Then I'm going to discuss why Wikipedia -- the source you quoted from -- cannot be relied upon.

I already knew about the solitary fragment. As I mention in my document on the Thebes-Memphis prophecy:

Quote:

There is a record, a cuneiform tablet, which alludes to an attempt of the invasion of Egypt in 568/567 BCE. However, the invasion appears to either have been called off, or to have been a total and complete failure. There are no archaeological records, written records, or third-party accounts of this invasion ever having taken place. Indeed, there would be no record of the invasion plans whatsoever, were it not for this solitary cuneiform fragment mentioned above.

The noted Assyriologist, Georges Roux, comments on this solitary cuneiform inscription:

A fragmentary table in the British Museum alludes to a campaign against pharaoh Amasis in 568 BC and mentions an Egyptian town, but this cannot be regarded as sufficient proof that the Babylonians ever set foot in the Nile valley.

And the world-renowned Egyptologist, Sir Alan Gardiner, concurs with this view about the extreme unlikelihood of any such Babylonian invasion:

A cuneiform fragment in the British Museum ascribes to this same year, the thirty-seventh of Nebuchadrezzar's reign (568-567 B.C) some sort of military action against Amasis, but it is unlikely that the two powers ever came into conflict with one another either at this time or later, when the great Babylonian monarch was succeeded by three weak kings and then by a fourth, Nabonidus (555 - 539 B.C.), whose troubles never took him nearer to Egypt than northern Syria and Edom.

In addition to a lack of affirmative evidence for any successful conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, we have other evidence of a more contradictory nature; i.e., evidence that could not possibly exist had such a conquest occurred. During the same time frame mentioned previously when Nebuchadnezzar might have launched his hypothetical invasion of Egypt, all of the following was going on in the Egyptian kingdom:

The next king, Apries (ruled 589-570 BC), tried unsuccessfully to end Babylonian domination of Palestine and Syria. With the withdrawal of Egyptian forces, Nebuchadrezzar destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 586 BC. In the aftermath of his conquest, many Jews fled to Egypt, where some were enlisted as soldiers in the Persian army of occupation. Apries' army was then defeated in Libya when it attacked the Greek colony at Cyrene, some 620 miles west of the Delta; this led to an army mutiny and to civil war in the Delta. A new Saite king, Amasis (or Ahmose II; ruled 570-526 BC), usurped the throne and drove Apries into exile. Two years later Apries invaded Egypt with Babylonian support, but he was defeated and killed by Amasis, who nonetheless buried him with full honours. Amasis returned to a more conservative foreign policy in a long, prosperous reign. To reduce friction between Greeks and Egyptians, especially in the army, Amasis withdrew the Greeks from the military colonies and transferred them to Memphis, where they formed a sort of royal bodyguard. He limited Greek trade in Egypt to Sais, Memphis, and Naukratis, the latter becoming the only port to which Greek wares could be brought, so that taxes on imports and on business could be enforced. Naukratis prospered and Amasis was seen by the Greeks as a benefactor. In foreign policy he supported a waning Babylonia, now threatened by Persia; but six months after his death in 526 BC the Persian Cambyses II (ruled as pharaoh 525-522 BC) penetrated Egypt, reaching Nubia in 525.
"Egypt", Encylopedia Britannica

These are descriptions of the customary actions of a sovereign Egyptian empire, free of any Babylonian yoke. Note the phrase about Pharaoh Amasis: "in foreign policy he supported a waning Babylonia" - a totally illogical statement, unless Egypt was a free and independent empire with the ability to act in support of (or against) another political entity. Had Nebuchadnezzar invaded and destroyed Egypt as Ezekiel prophesied, then none of the above actions would have taken place. Egypt would have a much different history during this period.

And that is the crux of my point: there is no way for a successful Babylonian invasion of Egypt to have happened without leaving behind substantial corroborating archaeological evidence of some kind: Babylonian weapons, articles of clothing, remnants of military encampments, personal items of the soldiers, etc. In addition, the Egyptians themselves would have recorded such an event, just as they recorded other times of foreign domination in their history (such as the decades that Egypt spent under the Assyrian yoke). And, of course, various third parties in the area, such as the city-states of Sidon and Tyre, would have mentioned such a world-changing event as the downfall of the Egyptian Empire. The Nile kingdom was known throughout the ancient world for its wealth and commerce; such a devastating conquest of Egypt would have adversely affected trade with that kingdom, and dealt a significant blow to the financial situation of these city-states. Politically speaking, the removal of Egypt as an empire would have also amounted to a major shift of power in the region, with ramifications (and opportunities) for all the surrounding lands. All of these secondary effects would be noted and substantiated by evidence of some kind - but there is no such notation or evidence anywhere to corroborate a Babylonian invasion of Egypt.

I hope the above helps demonstrate why archaeology is so robust: like any science, it relies upon corrobations from multiple sources, and paints a picture using evidence from several lines of investigation. The problem with the claim of Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt is that there is next-to-nothing to confirm it. And given the type of event we are talking about, there ought to be an explosion of supporting evidence - but there is not.

Now on to why Wikipedia is not a good source for serious discussions about anything. You perhaps do not know that Wikipedia is not actually an encyclopedia; it is an online collaborative effort, similar to a group weblog ("blog"). The Wiki was originally created to solve the problem of not having enough hands to do all the work of publishing an online encyclopedia. To solve that problem, the originators opened up the writing work to anyone who would volunteer. Anyone who wants to can submit an article, and there is no requirement that subject matter experts participate. It does not go through any kind of extensive peer review; and in reality is not much better than a homemade webpage.

Setting that aside for the moment, let's look at the sources quoted in this Wiki article. There are only two listed:

(1) Chapter 23, "The Chaldaean Kings" in George Roux, Ancient Iraq (3rd ed.). London: Penguin Books, 1992. ISBN 014012523-X

It is apparent that whoever wrote the Wiki article above did not read Georges Roux very carefully; had he/she done so, they would have realized that Roux holds the *opposite* position concerning Nebuchadnezzar. Look directly above; you will see that the first citation I give above actually comes from Georges Roux! Here it is again:

A fragmentary table in the British Museum alludes to a campaign against pharaoh Amasis in 568 BC and mentions an Egyptian town, but this cannot be regarded as sufficient proof that the Babylonians ever set foot in the Nile valley.

This can be found in: Georges Roux. Ancient Iraq. Penguin Books, Third Edition, 1992. Page 380.

(2) So that leaves us with the second source: an 1897 Bible dictionary (Eastons)
http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd....html#T0002684

This is a public domain bible dictionary, over a century old, not a historical work or an archaeology treatise. And it comes from a time - archaeologically speaking -- when those doing such archaeology were not trying to be objective, but only trying to endorse their religious beliefs. From my opening comments:

Quote:

Writing about the bias of traditional biblical archaeologists of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Amihai Mazar says:

The new trends in world archaeology raised questions and controversy concerning the basic nature of the discipline. In America, traditional biblical archaeology as understood by W. F. Albright and G. E. Wright was based on a very specific approach to the relationship between archaeology and biblical studies. Interpretation of archaeological data was sometimes interlocked with theological concepts. This was particularly clear concerning some of the most questionable historical issues related to biblical history, such as the historical framework to the period of the patriarchs and to the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. The answers of traditional biblical archaeologists to such issues tended to be simplistic and fundamental.

Current archaeological research in Palestine tends to be professional, secular, and free from theological prejudices. It tends to acquire the objective data from field work by utilizing the best methods available today in world archaeology. The new trend has motivated scholars to redefine this field of research. Thus W. G. Dever called for the abandonment of the term ‘biblical archaeology’ in favor of the term ‘Syro-Palestinian archaeology.’ This suggestion reflects the tendency to abandon the theological approach of traditional biblical archaeology in favor of a secular, professional approach which defines the archaeology if the Levant as a specific branch of world archaeology with its own methods and goals.

It should be pointed out that the person I quoted above -- Amihai Mazar -- is a well-respected and published archaeologist as well as the head of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Quote:

2. Threats to Tyre do not evaporate, merely because Nebuchadnezzar is not on the scene - Tyre had walls and an army long before Nebuchadnezzar, thus demonstrating that he was not the *only* threat they were worried about;

I guess, but the problem is that the only other threat against Tyre after Nebbie left would be Egypt,

How did you come to that conclusion?
Are you sure?
Hint: you're leaving out at least two other players.

Quote:

and Egypt conquering Tyre would require them not only fending off Nebbie's forces but conquering part of Babylon as well.

How would Egypt conquering Tyre somehow force them to conquer Babylon?

Also, since Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to deal with a problem of royal succession, he would have been nowhere near Tyre.

Quote:

3. The wording of Ezekiel clearly identifies Nebuchadnezzar - not Alexander - as the agent of destruction; you cannot simply search through all of the centuries of Tyrian history, looking for a battle that kinda/sorta fits your prophecy. The details of the prophecy were specific;

This allegation rests mostly on your next quote:

Quote:

4. "Many nations" is a description of the Babylonian army - from my article on Tyre, that I referred to earlier

The article that I linked to earlier gave reason to assume that the many nations part of the prophecy referred to nations other than Babylon, but because of comments by Johnny Skeptic, I don't know whether to trust that article or not.

Well, my statement rests on more than just the text of the quote I provided. There is no linguistic reason to assume "many nations" refers to anyone else except Nebuchadnezzar's army. In fact, the only reason that some apologists try to stretch the meaning is because this prophecy didn't work out.

The previous article you referenced from Turkel's website contains recycled claims that have been deconstructed in this same thread, as well as other threads. When I read it, I saw nothing that was new, or that wasn't addressed at some earlier point. If you are curious about any particular point, please let us know and one of us will respond.

Johnny Skeptic is right: Robert Turkel (AKA JP Holding) is not really a trustworthy source on such matters. You're much better off doing your own research, coming to your own conclusions, and making up your own mind. We will make a skeptic out of you yet. :thumbs:

mata leao · 11-15-2005, 07:45 PM

And there is a very very good reason WHY Ezekiel set Nebbie up to take the fall and telescoped out Alexanders' role. Study military history and you will see why Ezekiel was so brilliant and so accurate in his prophecy andsee why Sauron is afraid to answer my question "Was Ezekeil treated reasonably well in Babylon"?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-16-2005, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

And there is a very very good reason WHY Ezekiel set Nebbie up to take the fall and telescoped out Alexanders' role. Study military history and you will see why Ezekiel was so brilliant and so accurate in his prophecy andsee why Sauron is afraid to answer my question "Was Ezekeil treated reasonably well in Babylon"?

Which is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because you cannot reasonably prove that the prophecy was written before the events, and because there is not any evidence at all that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version. If I told you that I predicted what the stock market would close at on a specific day, you would demand that I produce evidence that I made my prediction before the event, and that I did not alter my prediction after the events.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-16-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

And there is a very very good reason WHY Ezekiel set Nebbie up to take the fall and telescoped out Alexanders' role.

Ezekiel never mentioned Alexander or the Greeks. The "very good reason" is that he utterly lacked any predictive ability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

Study military history and you will see why Ezekiel was so brilliant and so accurate in his prophecy...

He wasn't. As has been pointed out many times already, even if we assume (without evidence) that "many nations" includes Alexander, that does not change the fact that Nebby failed to perform the actions specifically prophesied for HIM: nor does it change the fact that even Alexander failed to permanently destroy Tyre as prophesied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

..andsee why Sauron is afraid to answer my question "Was Ezekeil treated reasonably well in Babylon"?

Still babbling, I see.

Was Merlin treated reasonably well in Camelot: YES or NO?

Sauron · 11-16-2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

And there is a very very good reason WHY Ezekiel set Nebbie up to take the fall and telescoped out Alexanders' role.

Except that you have no evidence that Ezekiel did this. Your list of ad hoc assertions -- you remember, those right? The claim you strung together like burnt-out Christmas lights? -- that list is still awaiting any proof. Let's repeat them, for the benefit of the audience:

Quote:

*You misidentified your first claim.
* The evidence is only sufficient to prove the general case, not the specific;
* You now have this list of claims to support:

(1) forced 'concubinry' involving Tyre -- per your specific claims earlier, and not a general comment on the ubiquitous slave trade in the ANE;

(2) unusual Greek involvement in such sex trade, at this stage in history - also per your claim;

(3) proof of Greek 'conquests' at this period in history, which was a full century and a half before the golden age of Athens, and even longer from the rise of Sparta;

(4) how eradicating the Babylonian 'hegemony' in the Mediterranean would somehow force the liberation of exile Jews in the capital city of Babylon, hundreds of miles away;

(5) that the Babylonian court paid any attention to the prophecies of a Jewish priest held captive with the exiles, as opposed to just ignoring the rambling words of another one of their "pet exiles";

(6) that the Babylonians were somehow 'emboldened' by Ezekiel's prophecy to attack Tyre -- according to your claim -- when otherwise they were not intending to do so already;

(7) the people of Tyre somehow got wind of Ezekiel's prophecy - how did that happen?

(8) and then afterwards, the Tyrians and were thus given a 'false sense of security' - in spite of the fact that they were correct about their security;

(9) that any Jewish children held in Tyre would have been held only on the mainland, instead of the island city - again, according to your claim;

Quote:

Study military history and you will see why Ezekiel was so brilliant and so accurate in his prophecy

1. I have studied military history, and -- as usual -- you are wrong.

2. Ezekiel's prediction on Tyre was a failure, and his attempt to redeem his mistake by predicting a Babylonian invasion of Egypt also failed.

Quote:

andsee why Sauron is afraid to answer my question "Was Ezekeil treated reasonably well in Babylon"?

1. Already answered that.

2. Twice, actually.

3. Here it is again:
All we know is the general treatment of the exiles. We have no evidence either way on Ezekiel, specifically. And there lies the problem: the general treatment is not sufficient to prove a specific case. By the way: the difference between the general case and the specific case have been explained to you before. Pay attention next time.

Pointing out that he had a house and a wife does not prove your original first claim, which was that Ezekiel was singled out for special access to the Babylonian court.

And finally, mata leo, have a look at my response to JS Dileo above, discussing the solitary artifact in the British museum. That is an example of how to properly support an argument, and how to provide references and citations. You might want to consider that, instead of stringing together claims in multiple posts, using run-on sentences, and incomplete citations.

John A. Broussard · 11-16-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

And there is a very very good reason WHY Ezekiel set Nebbie up to take the fall and telescoped out Alexanders' role. Study military history and you will see why Ezekiel was so brilliant and so accurate in his prophecy andsee why Sauron is afraid to answer my question "Was Ezekeil treated reasonably well in Babylon"?

What in the world does "reasonably well" mean?

Would a slave receiving three meals a day be considered as being treated "reasonably well?"

Your questions, as usual, are meaningless unless you define your terms.

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

11-15-2005, 07:45 PM	#446
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	And there is a very very good reason WHY Ezekiel set Nebbie up to take the fall and telescoped out Alexanders' role. Study military history and you will see why Ezekiel was so brilliant and so accurate in his prophecy andsee why Sauron is afraid to answer my question "Was Ezekeil treated reasonably well in Babylon"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.