Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 01-04-2007, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

My thanks in advance for your careful considerations of these matters.

Your God is such a loser.

At least a magician can saw a woman in half today.

Yours can't do anything. "Oh - but you should have seen him two thousand years ago..."

hatsoff · 01-04-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

hatsoff stated, ....

Now you know why I did the post about the faithful reproduction of the Bible. And for the record, in the second post about the date/time there is plenty of evidence that is very substantial, were anyone to take a look at it.

What?

What does the alleged "faithful reproduction of the Bible" have to do with dating it? And where is this mysterious evidence? I can identify no post of yours which qualifies as a "second post" which has anything to do with dating Daniel.

diana · 01-04-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

You are also continuing to ignore the historical errors in Daniel, which allow it to be dated rather precisely.

The only one I've seen specifically mentioned in this thread was the relationship of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and the "Medo Persian" thing. Would someone (spin?) mind listing the historical errors of Daniel in one concise post, please?

Thanks in advance.

d

Coleslaw · 01-04-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

What?

What does the alleged "faithful reproduction of the Bible" have to do with dating it? And where is this mysterious evidence? I can identify no post of yours which qualifies as a "second post" which has anything to do with dating Daniel.

Post #21 in this thread entitled Reasons the Book of Daniel was written in the 500’s B.C.. give his reasons for dating Daniel before the events of which he wrote, FWIW.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-04-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

What?

What does the alleged "faithful reproduction of the Bible" have to do with dating it? And where is this mysterious evidence? I can identify no post of yours which qualifies as a "second post" which has anything to do with dating Daniel.

I can only guess that he's not counting posts #6, #10, #12, #17 and #18, and instead he's referring to his second BIG post, #21, entitled "Reasons the Book of Daniel was written in the 500’s B.C."

...Which seems conspicuously lacking in substantive "reasons".

Points 1, 2, 3 and 4 can be approximately summed up as "because it says so".

Points 5, 6 and 7 can be approximately summed up as "because Barnes and NetBible say so".

Point 8 can be summed up as "because Josephus says so" (gosh, a Jew believing that a Jewish holy book was genuine, what a surprise...).

Points 9 can be approximately summed up as "because Wayne Jackson says so".

Point 10: "The Jews recognized that the Old Testament canon was closed by about 400 B.C. This canon included Daniel the Book". Why? Essentially, because Geisler and Nix say so. what follows are some incongruous references to the "Jewish canon", the notion that the next revelation from God would be "just before the coming of Messiah" (which would appear to fit a late Daniel, yes?), "In the Maccabean period, the people were waiting until a prophet should arise" (...Daniel? Judas Maccabeus? Judas Maccabeus endorsed by a "newly-discovered ancient writing"?).

...Followed by more confusion, such as "“The redaction theory assumes there were inspired redactions of the Old Testament well beyond the period in which there were no prophets (namely the fourth century B.C.). There can be no inspired works unless there are living prophets. And the Jews recognized no prophets after the time of Malachi (c 400 B.C.)." But the Jews believed that Daniel was written before 400 BC! There is precedent for adopting a text "found" later, and retrospectively credited with being older: that's exactly what happened with Deuteronomy, retrospectively considered to be a part of the Pentateuch despite being "found" (i.e. written) after the Exile.

RED DAVE · 01-04-2007, 06:16 AM

mdd344:

Would you please address the fact that historical evidence clearly has pointed out that Belshazar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar?

RED DAVE

Coleslaw · 01-04-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

The only one I've seen specifically mentioned in this thread was the relationship of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and the "Medo Persian" thing. Would someone (spin?) mind listing the historical errors of Daniel in one concise post, please?

Thanks in advance.

d

There was a list given in the source linked to (religious tolerance.org) in post number 5. I'll quote it here:

Quote:

Many Liberal Christians believe that the book was really written many centuries after Daniel's time, during the Maccabean revolt against the Greek occupying forces in 168-164 BCE. They regard the book as pseudepigraphic - written by an anonymous author or authors and attributed to Daniel. They conclude this for a number of reasons:
The text contains a number of Greek words; yet the Greek occupation of the area did not occur until the 4th century BCE.
One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.
Daniel 1:4 refers to the "Chaldeans" as a priestly class in Babylon. This term did not attain this meaning until much later than the 6th century.
About 180 BCE, Jeshua ben Sira listed the heroes of the Jewish faith, including "Enoch, Noah and Abraham through to Nehemiah;" 2 Daniel is not mentioned - presumably because Jeshua is unaware of him. This would indicate that the book of Daniel was written after that time.
Chapter 12 discusses the dead being resurrected, judged, and taken to either heaven and hell. At the time of Daniel, the Jews believed that all persons went to Sheol after death. The concept of heaven and hell was introduced centuries later by the Greeks. It did not appear in Israel until the time of the Maccabean revolt.
Daniel 11:31 (and elsewhere) refers to "the abominable thing that causes desolation." This appears to refer to the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple in 167 BCE, and would indicate that the book was written later than that date.
Prior to Daniel 11:40, the author(s) has been recording past events under the Babylonian, Median, Persian and Greek empires. In Daniel 11:40-45, he really attempts to predict the future. He prophesizes that a king of the south (of the Ptolemaic dynasty) will attack the Greeks in Palestine, under Antiochus. The Greeks will win, will lay spoil to all of northeast Africa, and return to Palestine where Antiochus will die. The end of history will then occur. The author(s) appeared to be a poor psychic because none of these events actually happened. Antiochus did die in 164 BCE, but it was in Persia. Thus, the book was apparently completed before 164.

hatsoff · 01-04-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Reasons the Book of Daniel was written in the 500’s B.C.

1. The book itself identifies the time (“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it” (Dan. 1:1).

I agree. Point one: an internal claim.

Quote:

2. The reign of Jehoiakim, one of Josiah’s sons, occurred during the assault by Nebuchadnezzar upon Judah. That assault began in 606, happened again in 597, and then was completed in 586.

This man exists because...? And you can date his reign how?

Quote:

3. Jesus referred to the words in the book as Daniels (see previously noted scriptures in first post—multiple ones). He said for instance, ‘…spoken by the prophet Daniel.’

Wrong. The canonical Gospel authors claim Jesus did so, but there is no good reason to believe them.

Quote:

4. Daniel writes that God told him to record what he wrote (Dan. 12:4).

I'm not even going to look this up. I'll cede the point.

Quote:

5. Barnes records that the first challenge to the authenticity and genuineness of the book was, “The first open and avowed adversary to the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel was Porphyry, a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century. He wrote fifteen books against Christianity, all of which are lost, except some fragments preserved by Eusebius, Jerome, and others. His objections against Daniel were made in his twelfth book, and all that we have of these objections has been preserved by Jerome in his commentary on the book of Daniel.”

I fail to see why this constitutes grounds for trusting Daniel. In fact, this is more evidence *against* Daniel's authenticity.

I need to stop here. I can't go on. So far, you're 0-5. I haven't the time for this nonsense.

mdd344 · 01-04-2007, 06:42 AM

hatsoff,
So your entire defense is "all those who wrote the Bible were liars and God doesn't exist anyway." Does that summarize it? Not only that, but you also must deny the captivity of Israel by Babylon, the reign of the Medes and Persians and etc.

That defense seems to be par for the course here.

hatsoff · 01-04-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

hatsoff,
So your entire defense is "all those who wrote the Bible were liars

My arguments are something else entirely, and apparently incomprehensible to you.

Quote:

and God doesn't exist anyway."

I'm not an atheist.

Quote:

Does that summarize it? Not only that, but you also must deny the captivity of Israel by Babylon, the reign of the Medes and Persians and etc.

That defense seems to be par for the course here.

What in the world are you talking about?

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

01-04-2007, 06:16 AM	#76
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	mdd344: Would you please address the fact that historical evidence clearly has pointed out that Belshazar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar? RED DAVE

01-04-2007, 06:42 AM	#79
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	hatsoff, So your entire defense is "all those who wrote the Bible were liars and God doesn't exist anyway." Does that summarize it? Not only that, but you also must deny the captivity of Israel by Babylon, the reign of the Medes and Persians and etc. That defense seems to be par for the course here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.