Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 03-07-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

All right, let’s try b. I have afforded adverse evidence to the hypothesis. Writing some two and a half centuries after 164 BC, Josephus quite straightforwardly calls Daniel a prophet. And he mentions the point not as if a recent revision of the issue had resulted in changing his and his contemporaries’ perception from educational to prophetic; he speaks of it as a matter of course. That takes us back to the early-to-mid first century AC, or some two centuries after the alleged date of writing.

You say it’s too late a witness. I reply, show me an earlier witness in support of the hypothesis.

I'll have to say I don't quite agree.

If Daniel is completely omitted by Ben Sirah, later named heroic in Maccabees, and yet later exhaulted by Josephus then it tells me there is evolution of the character to say the least.

I don't follow your insistence that it is failed prophecy and nothing more, because to Josephus it wasn't failed prophecy, obviously. Likewise it wouldn't represent failed prophecy/incorrect history to much of its audience. How would they know?

Josephus wrote: Antiquities of the Jews - Book X

Quote:

for he saith, that when he was in Susa, the metropolis of Persia . . . that after this he looked to the west, and saw a he-goat carried through the air from that quarter; that he rushed upon the ram with violence, and smote him twice with his horns, and overthrew him to the ground, and trampled upon him: that afterward he saw a very great horn growing out of the head of the he-goat, and that when it was broken off, four horns grew up that were exposed to each of the four winds, and he wrote that out of them arose another lesser horn, which, as he said, waxed great; and that God showed to him that it should fight against his nation, and take their city by force, and bring the temple worship to confusion, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for one thousand two hundred and ninety-six days. Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the Plain of Susa; . . . : He said that the ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, . . . : that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his entire dominion: that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, . . . , according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.

Sheshonq · 03-08-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Says Darius the king: Afterwards I sent forth the Persian and the Median army which was by me

So?

1. You originally misquoted Herodotus. Citations from Behistun don't excuse your attempt to put words into Herodotus' mouth.

2. Your Behistun citation doesn't prove what you think it does anyhow. I already told you that the Medes had been subjugated, lost their status as equals, and got folded into the Persian empire. That all happened before Darius, before Cambyses, and before Cyrus II. In fact, it happened before the invasion of Babylon. By the time of Darius, they had been absorbed into the Persian empire as another conquered people. So it's no suprise that they would form part of the imperial army; their languages were close and ethnicaly they were close. But Darius still refers to his army as the PERSIAN army:

[3.1] Says Darius the king: Afterwards I sent forth the Persian army to Hystaspes from Raga; when this army came to Hystaspes afterwards Hystaspes took that army (and) went away; there (is) a town Patigrabana by name in Parthia - here he engaged in battle with the rebels; Auramazda bore me aid; by the grace of Auramazda Hystaspes smote that rebellious army utterly; 1 day in the month Garmapada was in course - thus the battle (was) fought by them.

3. In fact, that is what the Behistun inscription actually is: a detailed list of all the rebellious wannabe-kings and provinces that tried to break away from Persia. Darius is listing the conquests and forced submissions he achieved. He lists Media among them:

[2.2] Says Darius the king: While I was in Babylon, these (are) the provinces which became estranged from me, Persia, Susiana, Media, Assyria [Egypt], Parthia, Margiana, Sattagydia, Scythia.

The Medians were not co-equals. They were a subjugated province, in rebellion, that had to be put down and forced to submit.

Anyone with background in this area knows this already. Which is why you were clueless about it.

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing::rolling:

arnoldo · 03-08-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

The Medians were not co-equals. They were a subjugated province, in rebellion, that had to be put down and forced to submit.

Anyone with background in this area knows this already. Which is why you were clueless about it.

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::roll ing::rolling:

The writer of Daniel also seemed to be clueless that the Medians were inferior to the Persians, NOT.

Quote:

Then I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. . .

20 “The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.

Sheshonq · 03-08-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The writer of Daniel also seemed to be clueless that the Medians were inferior to the Persians, NOT.

Quote:

Then I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a ram which had two horns was standing in front of the canal. Now the two horns were long, but one was longer than the other, with the longer one coming up last. . .

20 “The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.

1. Your original mistake was trying to put words into the mouth of Herodotus which he did not say. Fortunately I caught you red-handed in that attempt. You have yet to defend or explain that dishonest action on your part.

2. Your next act was to try and distract everyone about your Herodotus claim by dragging in something about the Behistun inscription. But as usual, you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about and got your ass kicked.

3. Now you want to change the topic again and talk about Daniel, Medes and Persians. But as usual, your post is merely a distraction: who cares if Daniel knew that the Medes were subjugated to the Persians? How does that explain # 1 or #2, above? During the time that Daniel was written, it was common knowledge that 300 years prior the Persians had conquered the Medes. The author(s) of Daniel are repeating history that was already 3 centuries old by the time.

4. And if you want to talk about the book of Daniel getting things wrong, you are still running like a scalded pig from answering any of these:

[1]
No royal dating using Belshazzar's vice regency

Belshazzar was never king; so Dan 8 claiming that such-and-such happened during "the third year of Belshazzar" is a historical mistake - regnal years are set from the actual king, not the viceroy;

[2]
Daniel doesn't know that Susa wasn't a capital at the time in question

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. The mistake is in associating the alleged reign of Belshazzar's 3rd year with a capital at Susa, which wouldn't become the capital until

(a) the reign of two other rulers had occurred; and
(b) a decade of time had passed.

[3]
Daniel 5:30 and 5:31 omit two decades of important history

* No mention of Cyrus II, the actual conqueror of Babylon;
* No mention of Cambyses II, who ruled after Cyrus;
* No mention of the almost two decades that intervened between (a) the fall of the Chaldeans and (b) the reign of Darius I (539 to 522);
* No "Darius the Mede" in any case;
* No conquest, no uprisings by spurious "Nebuchadnezzars", no revolt in Babylon against the Persians, no protracted military engagement to re-take Babylon - NOTHING

Dan 5:30 slides right into 5:31 and misses all these things.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

arnoldo · 03-08-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The writer of Daniel also seemed to be clueless that the Medians were inferior to the Persians, NOT.

1. Your original mistake was trying to put words into the mouth of Herodotus which he did not say. Fortunately I caught you red-handed in that attempt. You have yet to defend or explain that dishonest action on your part.

2. Your next act was to try and distract everyone about your Herodotus claim by dragging in something about the Behistun inscription. But as usual, you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about and got your ass kicked.

3. Now you want to change the topic again and talk about Daniel, Medes and Persians. But as usual, your post is merely a distraction: who cares if Daniel knew that the Medes were subjugated to the Persians? How does that explain # 1 or #2, above? During the time that Daniel was written, it was common knowledge that 300 years prior the Persians had conquered the Medes. The author(s) of Daniel are repeating history that was already 3 centuries old by the time.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Apparently it was not common knowledge since Daniel writes the following

Quote:

Thou, O king, wast looking, and lo, a certain great image. This image is mighty, and its brightness excellent; it is standing over-against thee, and its appearance is terrible. 32 This image! its head is of good gold, its breasts and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass; 33 its legs of iron, its feet, part of them of iron, and part of them of clay. 34 Thou wast looking till that a stone hath been cut out without hands, and it hath smitten the image on its feet, that are of iron and of clay, and it hath broken them small; 35 then broken small together have been the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, and they have been as chaff from the summer threshing-floor, and carried them away hath the wind, and no place hath been found for them: and the stone that smote the image hath become a great mountain, and hath filled all the land.

36 This is the dream, and its interpretation we do tell before the king. 37 'Thou, O king, art a king of kings, for the God of the heavens a kingdom, strength, and might, and glory, hath given to thee; 38 and whithersoever sons of men are dwelling, the beast of the field, and the fowl of the heavens, He hath given into thy hand, and hath caused thee to rule over them all; thou art this head of gold.

39 And after thee doth rise up another kingdom lower than those, and another third kingdom of brass, that doth rule overall the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom is strong as iron, because that iron is breaking small, and making feeble, all things, even as iron that is breaking all these, it beateth small and breaketh. 41 As to that which thou hast seen: the feet and toes, part of them potter's clay, and part of them iron, the kingdom is divided: and some of the standing of the iron is to be in it, because that thou hast seen the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 As to the toes of the feet, part of them iron, and part of them clay: some part of the kingdom is strong, and some part of it is brittle. 43 Because thou hast seen iron mixed with miry clay, they are mixing themselves with the seed of men: and they are not adhering one with another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

1. Head of Gold = Babylon
2. Breast/Arms Silver = Medes
3. belly/thigh brass = Persians
4 Legs Iron = Greece

Sheshonq · 03-08-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. Your original mistake was trying to put words into the mouth of Herodotus which he did not say. Fortunately I caught you red-handed in that attempt. You have yet to defend or explain that dishonest action on your part.

2. Your next act was to try and distract everyone about your Herodotus claim by dragging in something about the Behistun inscription. But as usual, you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about and got your ass kicked.

3. Now you want to change the topic again and talk about Daniel, Medes and Persians. But as usual, your post is merely a distraction: who cares if Daniel knew that the Medes were subjugated to the Persians? How does that explain # 1 or #2, above? During the time that Daniel was written, it was common knowledge that 300 years prior the Persians had conquered the Medes. The author(s) of Daniel are repeating history that was already 3 centuries old by the time.

Result?

PROPHECY FAILS
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Apparently it was not common knowledge since Daniel writes the following

These are just the interpretations that you have placed on all these images. Unfortunately, you have never been able to rationalize them against spin's better explanation for the symbology in this chapter.

What's more, even if your interpretations were 100% correct, you contradict your previous statement. First you claim that Daniel knew was aware that the Medes were junior status. Now you're saying that it wasn't common knowledge after all. Did Daniel know? Or didn't he?

You are so disorganized that you can't even keep track of your own arguments!
ROLFMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO

arnoldo · 03-08-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Apparently it was not common knowledge since Daniel writes the following

Quote:

Thou, O king, wast looking, and lo, a certain great image. This image is mighty, and its brightness excellent; it is standing over-against thee, and its appearance is terrible. 32 This image! its head is of good gold, its breasts and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass; 33 its legs of iron, its feet, part of them of iron, and part of them of clay. 34 Thou wast looking till that a stone hath been cut out without hands, and it hath smitten the image on its feet, that are of iron and of clay, and it hath broken them small; 35 then broken small together have been the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, and they have been as chaff from the summer threshing-floor, and carried them away hath the wind, and no place hath been found for them: and the stone that smote the image hath become a great mountain, and hath filled all the land.

36 This is the dream, and its interpretation we do tell before the king. 37 'Thou, O king, art a king of kings, for the God of the heavens a kingdom, strength, and might, and glory, hath given to thee; 38 and whithersoever sons of men are dwelling, the beast of the field, and the fowl of the heavens, He hath given into thy hand, and hath caused thee to rule over them all; thou art this head of gold.

39 And after thee doth rise up another kingdom lower than those, and another third kingdom of brass, that doth rule overall the earth.

40 And the fourth kingdom is strong as iron, because that iron is breaking small, and making feeble, all things, even as iron that is breaking all these, it beateth small and breaketh. 41 As to that which thou hast seen: the feet and toes, part of them potter's clay, and part of them iron, the kingdom is divided: and some of the standing of the iron is to be in it, because that thou hast seen the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 As to the toes of the feet, part of them iron, and part of them clay: some part of the kingdom is strong, and some part of it is brittle. 43 Because thou hast seen iron mixed with miry clay, they are mixing themselves with the seed of men: and they are not adhering one with another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

These are just the interpretations that you have placed on all these images. Unfortunately, you have never been able to rationalize them against spin's better explanation for the symbology in this chapter.

What's more, even if your interpretations were 100% correct, you contradict your previous statement. First you claim that Daniel knew was aware that the Medes were junior status. Now you're saying that it wasn't common knowledge after all. Did Daniel know? Or didn't he?

You are so disorganized that you can't even keep track of your own arguments!
ROLFMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO

Daniel knew.

Quote:

20 The ram (Medo-Persian Empire) that thou hast seen possessing two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia.

Quote:

21 And the young he-goat (Greece), the hairy one, is the king of Javan; and the great horn that is between its eyes is the first king (Alexander the Great); 22 and that being broken, stand up do four in its place, four kingdoms from the nation do stand up, and not in its power.

Sheshonq · 03-08-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Daniel knew.

Then why did you try to say it wasn't common knowledge during the time Daniel was written?

Recognize these words, oh confused one?

Apparently it was not common knowledge since Daniel writes the following

Gotcha, checkmate!

ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO

arnoldo · 03-08-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

3. Now you want to change the topic again and talk about Daniel, Medes and Persians. But as usual, your post is merely a distraction: who cares if Daniel knew that the Medes were subjugated to the Persians? How does that explain # 1 or #2, above? During the time that Daniel was written, it was common knowledge that 300 years prior the Persians had conquered the Medes. The author(s) of Daniel are repeating history that was already 3 centuries old by the time.

1. Babylon

Quote:

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel hath seen a dream, and the visions of his head on his bed, then the dream he hath written, the chief of the things he hath said. 2 Answered hath Daniel and said, 'I was seeing in my vision by night, and lo, the four winds of the heavens are coming forth to the great sea; 3 and four great beasts are coming up from the sea, diverse one from another. 4 The first is like a lion, and it hath an eagle's wings. I was seeing till that its wings have been plucked, and it hath been lifted up from the earth, and on feet as a man it hath been caused to stand, and a heart of man is given to it

.

2. Medo-Persia

Quote:

5 And lo, another beast, a second, like to a bear, and to the same authority it hath been raised, and three ribs (the 3 geographical areas of the Medo-Persian Empire------Persia, Media, Babylon) are in its mouth, between its teeth, and thus they are saying to it, Rise, consume much flesh.

3. Greece

Quote:

6 'After this I was seeing, and lo, another like a leopard, and it hath four wings of a fowl on its back, and four heads hath the beast, and dominion is given to it

4. Rome

Quote:

. 7 After this I was seeing in the visions of the night, and lo, a fourth beast, terrible and fearful, and exceedingly strong; and it hath iron teeth very great, it hath consumed, yea, it doth break small, and the remnant with its feet it hath trampled;

CountryPreacher · 03-08-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

Jesus believed that Daniel was a real prophet.

Mark 13:14 (King James Version)
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

If Daniel is a fraud, then so is Jesus.

Stuart Shepherd

It's not that Jesus is a "fraud." It's just that he's not God!

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.