mdd344

Gamera,

You said

You also stated, Then you stated that if I didn't want to discuss it that was fine. The point that I made was that I did. However, the above issues are not on topic here. If you want to discuss the things you asked, start a thread and I will be more than happy to do so fyi.

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.

spin

I'm sorry that you missed the point.

If you want to talk about Daniel and what the text says, you are supposed to do that, not talk about almost anything else and then pretend that you've talked about what Daniel says.

Although I've already dealt with this post, let me just cite you:

Next problem, you didn't show that you read what I wrote.

Next problem, you cannot assume that what was written several hundred years after Daniel has any direct connection with, or ability to talk about, what Daniel says. This has the appearance of simple anachronism.

What I like is bald unsupported statement of bias on your part: it really cries for response, doesn't it?

This is simple christian folly, as I indicated in my previous response to this stuff. I don't really understand why you felt that I had to trash your post again.

What you've shown is that you are not ab;e to understand the need for evidence. When you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. You're big on unsupported claims.

As I explained last time, you've supplied untinged opinions and nothing more.

Without understanding it, without weighing up the historical content, without paying attention to your principal source. This is good stuff there, mdd344. Keep it up. You'll supply some entertainment.


Understanding your source text and being able to work from the context in which it was written is essential to anything you may want to write using the text.

Sorry, I was too busy dealing with the lack of content in the post. You've already shown you are not interested in reading what people have to say, not even your source text, so one doesn't get inspired by the sincerity of "I would certainly like to hear it."

Let me just say the task you took on with regard to Daniel required that you understood in what period the text was produced and what its relationship was to history and literary context. You then need to cite your text clearly and expound what you want from the text, rather than read from the new testament into the text.

Prophecy as you understand it as predictive requires you to show that the text was written before the events you claim that it predicts; you need to show that the events you claim that it predicts actually are what it predicts. I hope you see the problems you are required to resolve in order to do your task and that what you provided in your opening post simply didn't touch what you needed to. Of course you may disagree with the procedure I outline hear, but then you would need to say why you disagree, not simply that you disagree.

Reasoning is what is required from you when you make claims. The reasoning necessarily is based on your source material, not read into it. So please feel free to respond,... supplying the necessary reasoning for your thoughts.


spin

mdd344

Spin,
Why do you simply write off the misuses I pointed out in your post? Your only response, tangled in all of the words above is essentially, "I did not."

What argument is that? Part of your initial post to me about my post on Daniel (both of them) gave those phrases as part of the reason 'I was wrong.'

You cannot stand up and say those were reasons I was wrong WHEN you don't understand the terms to begin with, as the Bible gives them.

Tell you what. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll apologize for being short with you in this latest post--btw I changed my original but it was too late. I was a bit irritated and I ought to know better.

Here is what you can do. Take those concepts which I pulled from your post to me. Define them as the Bible uses them. Then post it. I will read it and I'll either see that I was wrong, or I'll be able to explain to you why I was right.

How about it?

spin

Thanks for the discussion wherever it was mdd344. The latter part of my previous post should be of use. Let me know when you have something to say. Have a good one. :wave:


spin

Amaleq13

Kosh

Kinda sucks when the audience thinks for itself and then talks back, eh?

Welcome to the 21st century, proliferation of information to the people.

Sven

In case you missed it: You are bringing up this prophecy as an argument that the bible is true. But you assume the bible to be true as soon as you accept what the bible says about the dating of the prophecy.
So all what your loooooooooooong post achieved was a textbook example of circular reasoning. So much effort for only one logical fallacy. Bummer.

Jack the Bodiless

You still aren't getting it, despite multiple corrections from various people. You are attempting to reinterpret Daniel based on a later "Holy Book" from a different religion not shared by the original author: this is analogous to reinterpreting the New Testament by citing the Koran, or the Book of Mormon.

You are also ignoring the date-of-authorship issue of the Gospel of Mark: you are citing what appears to be a late Christian apologetic for the failure of the "Kingdom of God".

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

We are now on page 3 of a thread entitled "The Prophecy of Daniel and its fulfilment prove that God exists", yet you still haven't provided a single verifiable example of a prophecy written before the event and subsequently fulfilled. Meanwhile you have chosen criteria so lax that I have used them to "prove" (via the Oedipus prophecy) that Greek mythology must be true: so where does this leave your religion?
Are you referring to this thread, in which you made that claim and were soundly refuted?

I prophesy that your future attempts to prove the existence of God will be similary unsuccessful. And I have a better track record on prophecies than God does.

Sven

While I largely agree with what you say, I'm interested in your take on the infamous verse in Romans 1:

[...]19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Doesn't this claim that the world itself proves god's existence?