Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sherlock1310 · 09-11-2008, 01:03 AM

Hello everybody.

It is an old thread, I know, but this information is very useful to see how fundamentalist are liars about the book of Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
[B]Thank you for the link.

NB: The chap was called Ferdinand HITZIG; i.e. Hitzig was his surname.

Today is NOT my day.

Maybe the quote is made up....but a Fundy whackjob gives the cite from a BAR article which in turn is citing Hitzig in a debate with Till

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../2/992dan.html

"Nebuchadnezzar had, of course, ruled over Babylon, but Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. The Greek chroniclers who had preserved lists of ancient kings identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last native ruler of Babylon; Belshazzar was not even mentioned. Belshazzar, declared one commentator named Ferdinand Hitzig in 1850, was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" (Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75)."

Was the Cyropedia found after this?

This quote is a fraud, an hoax. I've put it on Wikipedia yesterday.

Hal Flemings in his book Examining criticism of the Bible(p.161) and several fundamentalist websites or related [1] [2] claim that Ferdinand Hitzig had written in 1850 about Belshazzar that he was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination". The reference always given is - Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75 - but, there is not even a little clue about such claim into that page [3] which coming up neither page 74 and page 76 [4]. Furthermore, there is nowhere into the book something about this concept related to Baltasar with « Schreiber » (writer), « Schriftsteller » (author), « jüdisch » (jewish), « Erfindung » (figment) or «Vorstellung» (imagination). This quote is a fraud.

Further details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Hitzig

Cheers:wave:

Doug Shaver · 09-11-2008, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherlock1310

but this information is very useful to see how fundamentalist are liars about the book of Daniel

It is not the least bit useful to imply that fundamentalists lie whenever they say something that isn't true.

patcleaver · 09-12-2008, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherlock1310

but this information is very useful to see how fundamentalist are liars about the book of Daniel

It is not the least bit useful to imply that fundamentalists lie whenever they say something that isn't true.

If I were to claim that Doug Shaver was the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist strike against the world trade center, then I would be lying, even if I had no reason to doubt that it was true. I would be lying because I have no reasonable evidence that its true. I would be lying even though you have not proved that it is false.

It is possible to innocently repeat a lie without being a liar. It is possible to innocently believe that you have good reason for a belief when you do not, but fundamentalists are not innocent. When fundamentalists make claims, when they should know that they have no reasonable evidence that they are true, then they are simply lying.

When someone says something as though it were true, then they are warranting that they have reason to believe its true, and if they have no reason to believe that its true, then they are lying.

Religious beliefs are unsubstantiated rumors whether they are written in books or on web sites or repeated from pulpits in Church. When a religious leader stands before his followers and makes statements, that he has no good evidence for, then he is simply lying to his followers. Christian history consists of millennia after millennia of fraud, forgery and lying for Jesus.

Fundamentalist websites and fundamentalist literature is mostly dishonest propaganda filled with half truths and lies. Fundamentalists who quote that stuff have to understand, at least on some level, that they are just repeating lies. People who use sources, when they know that the source is dishonest and unreliable, are being dishonest - it is not just an innocent mistake.

Why shouldn't we point out that someone is lying when they are lying?

:huh: :huh:

bacht · 09-12-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Why shouldn't we point out that someone is lying when they are lying?

"Lying" implies deliberate intent to deceive. What about legitimate differences of opinion?

Jeffrey Gibson · 09-12-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

It is not the least bit useful to imply that fundamentalists lie whenever they say something that isn't true.

It is possible to innocently repeat a lie without being a liar. It is possible to innocently believe that you have good reason for a belief when you do not, but fundamentalists are not innocent. When fundamentalists make claims, when they should know that they have no reasonable evidence that they are true, then they are simply lying.

So what do we do in the case of all the "enlightened" atheists, self proclaimed experts in 1st century Judaism and Greco Roman religion, and the followers of AS etc. who keep repeating here the nonsense they do about dying and rising gods, mystery religions, Jesus as Mithras, Jesus as "off spring of a ghost", and the intent of the stories of Jesus' "temptation", etc.? Surely, they more than anyone should know that they have no reasonable evidence that their beliefs about these things are true. Shouldn't we say that they too are lying and are liars?

Jeffrey

Toto · 09-12-2008, 09:30 AM

Please stick to the topic of Hitzig and Belshassar and avoid going off on your favorite tangents.

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Why shouldn't we point out that someone is lying when they are lying?

"Lying" implies deliberate intent to deceive. What about legitimate differences of opinion?

Or indeed honest mistakes.

If we find someone peddling a bit of hearsay, we shouldn't flay them. We were all naive once. But we can certainly correct them politely. On the other hand the sort of person who persists in telling us that the Council of Nicaea decided the canon of scripture, despite being corrected, pointed to the evidence, asked for evidence themselves... we're getting to the sort of person who is telling a lie.

It's not a lie if we don't know it's wrong. It is if we do know, or don't care.

That said, I wouldn't call someone a liar who refuses to take my word for something when it's clearly a matter of political or religious controversy. I might be a liar, for all they know; and they can see we're on different sides. But once something is challenged, I'd expect people to check.

That said, calling someone a liar -- even if they are -- is usually the signal for the discussion to be abandoned and the fight to begin. At that point we aren't talking about the subject; we're talking personalities.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherlock1310

Hello everybody.

It is an old thread, I know, but this information is very useful to see how fundamentalist are liars about the book of Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Today is NOT my day.

Maybe the quote is made up....but a Fundy whackjob gives the cite from a BAR article which in turn is citing Hitzig in a debate with Till

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../2/992dan.html

"Nebuchadnezzar had, of course, ruled over Babylon, but Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. The Greek chroniclers who had preserved lists of ancient kings identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last native ruler of Babylon; Belshazzar was not even mentioned. Belshazzar, declared one commentator named Ferdinand Hitzig in 1850, was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" (Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75)."

Was the Cyropedia found after this?

This quote is a fraud, an hoax. I've put it on Wikipedia yesterday.

Hal Flemings in his book Examining criticism of the Bible(p.161) and several fundamentalist websites or related [1] [2] claim that Ferdinand Hitzig had written in 1850 about Belshazzar that he was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination". The reference always given is - Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75 - but, there is not even a little clue about such claim into that page [3] which coming up neither page 74 and page 76 [4]. Furthermore, there is nowhere into the book something about this concept related to Baltasar with « Schreiber » (writer), « Schriftsteller » (author), « jüdisch » (jewish), « Erfindung » (figment) or «Vorstellung» (imagination). This quote is a fraud.

Further details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Hitzig

I'm afraid that you're having difficulty with your English, so I am having difficulty understanding you.

Are we saying that you have looked at the BAR issue, and found that the quote is not on p.74-5?

Are we saying that we have looked at Hitzig and verified whether he said this? (Is Hitzig online?)

Do you have the original thread? I don't recall any of this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto · 09-12-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherlock1310

Hello everybody.

It is an old thread, I know, but this information is very useful to see how fundamentalist are liars about the book of Daniel

...

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../2/992dan.html

"Nebuchadnezzar had, of course, ruled over Babylon, but Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Biblical text. The Greek chroniclers who had preserved lists of ancient kings identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last native ruler of Babylon; Belshazzar was not even mentioned. Belshazzar, declared one commentator named Ferdinand Hitzig in 1850, was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination" (Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75)."

...

This quote is a fraud, an hoax. I've put it on Wikipedia yesterday.

Hal Flemings in his book Examining criticism of the Bible(p.161) and several fundamentalist websites or related [1] [2] claim that Ferdinand Hitzig had written in 1850 about Belshazzar that he was "obviously a figment of the Jewish writer's imagination". The reference always given is - Ferdinand Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75, as quoted by Millard, "Daniel and Belshazzar in History," Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75 - but, there is not even a little clue about such claim into that page [3] which coming up neither page 74 and page 76 [4]. Furthermore, there is nowhere into the book something about this concept related to Baltasar with « Schreiber » (writer), « Schriftsteller » (author), « jüdisch » (jewish), « Erfindung » (figment) or «Vorstellung» (imagination). This quote is a fraud.[/CENTER]

Further details : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Hitzig

I am pretty sure that pages 74-75 refers to the BAR article, not Hitzig's book. To say that the quote is a fraud, you would have to scan the entire book for a passage that could not be interpreted to mean something like the quote. Millard appears to be a reputable scholar, not likely to make something up out of whole cloth. But he could have been misread or misinterpreted.

If there is someone with access to the BAR archives, the article can be accessed online, and might have a more complete footnote.

Roger Pearse · 09-12-2008, 09:55 AM

Hitzig is online and the Wikipedia article has a link. P75 certainly doesn't contain such a statement. There's something on page 76 about "later Jewish historical knowledge", but my German is refusing the parse the sentence and I don't know whether it refers to Baltasar or not.

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

09-12-2008, 09:30 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Please stick to the topic of Hitzig and Belshassar and avoid going off on your favorite tangents.

09-12-2008, 09:55 AM	#10
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Hitzig is online and the Wikipedia article has a link. P75 certainly doesn't contain such a statement. There's something on page 76 about "later Jewish historical knowledge", but my German is refusing the parse the sentence and I don't know whether it refers to Baltasar or not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.