Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-10-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Daniel knew from firsthand experience.

Can you answer the question asked of you? No, of course not.

Your source dumbly accepts the notion of "the laws of the Medes and Persians" from where? Umm, Dan 6, naturally. Doh! Of course you can't see anything wrong with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

THE ILLUSION OF WINNING A DEBATE

arnoldo once again throwing a tangent. This time it's post mortem analysis of why he has wasted his time not being able to convince himself that he has been meaningful. It's someone else's fault. Pu-lease.

Now he can go away with his tail between his legs saying "I'm a christian. Who needs evidence? I was right. I have my faith to keep me warm." He can go away knowing that he has avoided analyzing any of the scholarly literature on Daniel. After all, what would they know? Apologetics has all the answers, no matter how lame those answers are.

spin

Sir, have you ever heard of attack the messege not the messenger

Although this is from a Jewish site it confirms that according to babylonian law the king had a right to change laws as he sees fit which is what happened in the account of Danny and Nebby.

Source Cite: The biblical laws are based on the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi

Quote:

In a similar vein, Babylonian law gives the king absolute right to pardon in a capital case. He is the source of the law and can determine exceptions. The Torah allows no such exceptions. The law is given by G-d and the king therefore has no special rights to override it.

And here is information that the Persian king was bound to follow the law exactly as later described in the book of daniel

Quote:

There was a distinction between the law of the land, and the edicts of a king. All Persians, including the king, were bound to follow the laws of the Persians (Her.Hist.3.31, 83)

Source cite: History of Media and Persia

spin · 02-10-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Sir,...

We're up to the "sir" stage of anger management.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...have you ever heard of attack the messege not the messenger

I have dealt with whatever content you've dredged up. I wish you could say the same.

So that you can understand where you are, this is the flow of discussion:

a: (quoting) If Daniel was written in 164 B.C. how did the author know that Nebuchadnezzar was "able to enact and modify Babylonian laws with absolute sovereignty (Dan. 2:12f., 46), while [at the same time] representing Darius the Mede as being completely powerless to change the laws of the Medes and Persians (Dan. 6:8f.; cf. Est. 1:9; 8:8)?"

s: Umm, how do you find out how the writers knew?

a: (guessing) Daniel knew from firsthand experience.

s: Can you answer the question asked of you? No, of course not.

Your source dumbly accepts the notion of "the laws of the Medes and Persians"... from where? Umm, Dan 6, naturally. Doh! Of course, you can't see anything wrong with this.

You have no way of knowing what your source claims Daniel knew. Your source is ignorant of the epistemological problem he has created for himself (and which you have taken on by proxy). Your source asks: "how did the author know...?" and how could your source know the answer without asking the writer of Daniel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

And here is information that the Persian king was bound to follow the law exactly as later described in the book of daniel

Quote:

There was a distinction between the law of the land, and the edicts of a king. All Persians, including the king, were bound to follow the laws of the Persians (Her.Hist.3.31, 83)

Source cite: History of Media and Persia

Exactly. Did you note: "laws of the Persians"? Not "laws of the Medes and Persians".

spin

ynquirer · 02-11-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Well, yes; I’m not making a positive claim, but a negative one. There is in post-330 BC Aramaic texts no mention of several words denoting in Imperial Persia official posts and dealings, as may be found in Daniel. Whose’s the burden of the proof?

It's a positive claim because your 'positing' a theory. As Sheshbazzar explained above, the burden is on you to look through the corpus of post-330 BC Aramaic text to show that these words don't occur, or to quote from a scholar who says that. [Emphasis added.]

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

You simply have no idea of how many post-330 BC Aramaic texts are extant.

arnoldo · 02-11-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

It's a positive claim because your 'positing' a theory. As Sheshbazzar explained above, the burden is on you to look through the corpus of post-330 BC Aramaic text to show that these words don't occur, or to quote from a scholar who says that. [Emphasis added.]

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

You simply have no idea of how many post-330 BC Aramaic texts are extant.

Good point. :wave:

Sheshonq · 02-11-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Although this is from a Jewish site it confirms that according to babylonian law the king had a right to change laws as he sees fit which is what happened in the account of Danny and Nebby.

Source Cite: The biblical laws are based on the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi

As usual, your source doesn't discuss anything even close to your claim. It's a link to a site that tries to refute a connection between Mosaic law and the law of Hammurabi.

Quote:

And here is information that the Persian king was bound to follow the law exactly as later described in the book of daniel

There was a distinction between the law of the land, and the edicts of a king. All Persians, including the king, were bound to follow the laws of the Persians (Her.Hist.3.31, 83)
Source cite: History of Media and Persia

This is a homemade site, not an educational site - in spite of the .edu suffix. It chiefly seems to be a hobby site that tracks Kennedy assassination theories and information.

As to the single page on Persia, the author of this webpage cites Herodotus' Histories. However, we know multiple mistakes in Herodotus. You'll need to find something better.

makerowner · 02-11-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

It's a positive claim because your 'positing' a theory. As Sheshbazzar explained above, the burden is on you to look through the corpus of post-330 BC Aramaic text to show that these words don't occur, or to quote from a scholar who says that. [Emphasis added.]

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

You simply have no idea of how many post-330 BC Aramaic texts are extant.

No, I don't. You seem to think you're pretty knowledgeable about Aramaic, so why don't you tell me?

Sheshonq · 02-11-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

It's a positive claim because your 'positing' a theory. As Sheshbazzar explained above,

Sheshonq, not Sheshbazzar.

Quote:

the burden is on you to look through the corpus of post-330 BC Aramaic text to show that these words don't occur, or to quote from a scholar who says that. [Emphasis added.]

You simply have no idea of how many post-330 BC Aramaic texts are extant.

Complaining that there are too many texts to review?

That's funny; earlier you seemed to think that there were relatively few Aramaic texts from the 200s BCE in Judaea. Oops.

You also claimed that the Aramaic in Daniel was unique in several ways. How did you make that claim, if you hadn't already conducted an inventory of the extant Aramaic texts? A claim of uniqueness can only be made if the entire body of extant texts has been examined, and no other incidents have been found. Did you do that? If so, then let's see the results. If you *didn't* do that, then how could you possibly make a claim for uniqueness? Were you guessing? Were you just tossing claims into the air, hoping they would stick? Were you lying?

Funny how things change when it becomes clear that you wont' be able to foist your burden of proof onto someone else. When you yourself have to do some work to support your claim; well; instead of being few texts, suddenly there are waaaaaaaay too many for you to lift a finger to review.

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

makerowner · 02-11-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Sheshonq, not Sheshbazzar.

oops, sorry. I'm having a debate with Sheshbazzar on another thread and I got confused. :blush:

ynquirer · 02-11-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

No, I don't. You seem to think you're pretty knowledgeable about Aramaic, so why don't you tell me?

Off topic, sorry. Open a new thread.

makerowner · 02-11-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

No, I don't. You seem to think you're pretty knowledgeable about Aramaic, so why don't you tell me?

Off topic, sorry. Open a new thread.

:rolling:
Off topic? This is the heart of your argument against a 2nd century dating! You've claimed that these words don't occur in post-330 Aramaic (other than Daniel), and I want to see some evidence for that assertion.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.