Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

He is an a true scholar who wrote his book in 1917 using archaelogical evidence to prove his claims. What is even more amazing is that the archaelogical evidence obtained since 1917 has further demonstrated that Nabonidus and Belshazzar are both historical, not fictional persons.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL by ROBERT DICK WILSON, PH.D., D. D., WM. H. GREEN PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM, PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 1917

Jeez, this is just...

... ahh,... hysterical. So that's where you've been mining your crap from. Too bad there's no blind leading the blind smilie. I do get the idea that you won't read a modern scholarly commentary on Daniel, but thank you for this gem. Others should be able to get a good laugh out of it just as I have.

spin

You seem to favor a translation from 100 years ago (Young) to prove that "Many Nations" is only refering to Nebby. Besides, have you even read the book which you are ridiculing?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-12-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You seem to favor a translation from 100 years ago (Young) to prove that "Many Nations" is only refering to Nebby.

What evidence do you have that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was not added after it became obvious that Nebby was not going to defeat Tyre.

Since Ezekiel called Nebby "a king of kings," it is probable that he and other Jews expected Nebby to defeat Tyre. It is not reasonable for anyone to believe that a true prophet would claim that "a king of kings" would invade Tyre, go down its streets, and tear down its towers, and fail to defeat it, and predict that God would give Egypt to Nebby, and refuse to give Egypt to Nebby. If God actually predicted that many nations would defeat Tyre, why would he only promise to compensate Nebby and not all of the other nations that failed to defeat Tyre? It is an utterly absurd notion that God would give a pagan conquerer and murderer anything.

Why hasn't God ever made any indisputable prophecies?

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 08:04 AM

Besides, Wilson is a professor of semitic languages and Till is a professor of what, the english language?

Note what Wilson verifies to disprove one of your many false claims.

Quote:

Chapter five investigates the use of the word for king, especially in the Semitic languages. This discussion, shows that Nebuchadnezzar may have been called king before his father’s death; and will serve also as an introduction to the discussion of the kingship of Belshazzar and that of Darius the Mede, in that it illustrates that there might be two kings of the same place at the same time.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/wilson/title.htm

makerowner · 02-12-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

He is an a true scholar who wrote his book in 1917 using archaelogical evidence to prove his claims. What is even more amazing is that the archaelogical evidence obtained since 1917 has further demonstrated that Nabonidus and Belshazzar are both historical, not fictional persons.

Unlike Darius the Mede. Or did you miss that part of mens sana's post? Must be the same Fundie Eye Syndrome (FES) that makes sugarhitman unable to read the words "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon".

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

He is an a true scholar who wrote his book in 1917 using archaelogical evidence to prove his claims. What is even more amazing is that the archaelogical evidence obtained since 1917 has further demonstrated that Nabonidus and Belshazzar are both historical, not fictional persons.

Unlike Darius the Mede. Or did you miss that part of mens sana's post? Must be the same Fundie Eye Syndrome (FES) that makes sugarhitman unable to read the words "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon".

You have no evidence to prove that Darius the Mede never existed. Besides, how do you know that "Darius the Mede" wasn't simply one title of a person?

makerowner · 02-12-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Unlike Darius the Mede. Or did you miss that part of mens sana's post? Must be the same Fundie Eye Syndrome (FES) that makes sugarhitman unable to read the words "Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon".

You have no evidence to prove that Darius the Mede never existed. Besides, how do you know that "Darius the Mede" wasn't simply one title of a person?

You have no evidence King Lear wasn't a real person. Do you therefore assume that he was? Or in the absence of evidence do you assume that he wasn't? And further, the period in which Darius was supposed to exist is occupied by other kings, none of them Medes, and the actions he was supposed to have done were performed by others.

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

He is an a true scholar who wrote his book in 1917 using archaelogical evidence to prove his claims. What is even more amazing is that the archaelogical evidence obtained since 1917 has further demonstrated that Nabonidus and Belshazzar are both historical, not fictional persons.

And once again we see arnoldo "proving" a point that was never disputed in the first place. For his next trick, arnoldo will "prove" that the bible has 66 books.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-12-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

He is an a true scholar who wrote his book in 1917 using archaelogical evidence to prove his claims. What is even more amazing is that the archaelogical evidence obtained since 1917 has further demonstrated that Nabonidus and Belshazzar are both historical, not fictional persons.

And once again we see arnoldo "proving" a point that was never disputed in the first place. For his next trick, arnoldo will "prove" that the bible has 66 books.

I think you're still overestimating arnoldo's Biblical knowledge there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Right, the bible is actually 60 books but they are all consistent within each other even though they were written by different prophets across a time span of thousands of years from Genesis to Revelations.

arnoldo · 02-12-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You have no evidence to prove that Darius the Mede never existed. Besides, how do you know that "Darius the Mede" wasn't simply one title of a person?

You have no evidence King Lear wasn't a real person. Do you therefore assume that he was? Or in the absence of evidence do you assume that he wasn't? And further, the period in which Darius was supposed to exist is occupied by other kings, none of them Medes, and the actions he was supposed to have done were performed by others.

You neglect the fact that the Greeks referred to the Persians as simply the Medes and that many rulers in the Persian empire were in fact of Mede descent. Wasn't it the custom of Babylon to merely assimiliate other nations into it's empire. The Persians also assimiliated the Medes into their empire.

Also you might note that the names of the jews that went to babylon weren't on any babylonian records, does that mean that no jews went to babylon( A minimlalist believes that the bible stories are just works of fiction that use real person and event to tell their stories)? Further the name of Daniel does not exist on any babylonian records however his babylonian title does.

Quote:

Of all the Belshazzars mentioned in these lists, two or three only might possibly refer to Daniel. One of these is found on a tablet from the fourth year of Cyrus.2 Here it is said that some minas of silver were to be delivered into the hands of Belshazzar the prince, or first officer, asharidu, of the king. On another tablet from the eighth year of the same king3 there is mention of “Belshazzar, the man who was over the house of the king.” In the second year of Darius Hystaspis, another tablet mentions a governor,4 called Belshazzar. If we suppose that Daniel was the Belshazzar, the prince of the king, who is mentioned in the fourth year of Cyrus (535 B.C.), he would, when thus mentioned, have been only 85 years of age,
http://home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/w...ies_chap02.htm

Sheshonq · 02-12-2008, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Besides, Wilson is a professor of semitic languages and Till is a professor of what, the english language?

1. *was* a professor of Semitic languages. Wilson is dead.

2. Your complaint about Till is misplaced. Hebrew has no future tense. That does not mean it cannot express the future. The past tense is used in this prophecy. Till's point is that Hogan has a twisted interpretation that is rooted in that linguistic anomaly.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.