Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gregor · 02-27-2008, 06:06 AM

Kudos to Sheshonq and spin - Your logical presentations that so effectively pulled the wings off the vacuous yinquirer arguments are appreciated by at least one lurker.

arnoldo · 02-27-2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Apparently 10 out of 12 translations disagree with you.

Quote:Originally Posted by The Amplified Bible
And I saw in the vision and it seemed that I was at Shushan the palace or fortress [in Susa, the capital of Persia], which is in the province of Elam, and I saw in the vision and I was by the river of Ulai.

Quote:Originally Posted by Contemporary English Version
in which I was in Susa, the chief city of Babylonia's Elam Province. I was beside the Ulai River,

Quote:Originally Posted by New Century Version
In this vision I saw myself in the capital city of Susa, in the area of Elam. I was standing by the Ulai Canal.

Quote:Originally Posted by New Revised Standard
In the vision I was looking and saw myself in Susa the capital, in the province of Elam, and I was by the river Ulai.

Quote:Originally Posted by THE MESSAGE
In the vision, I saw myself in Susa, the capital city of the province Elam, standing at the Ulai Canal.

Quote:Originally Posted by Easy-to-Read Version
In the vision, I saw that I was in the city of Susa. Susa was the capital city in the province of Elam. I was standing by the Ulai River.

You could add to those two the following six also mentioning “the capital“ or related words:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy-to-Read Version

In the vision, I saw that I was in the city of Susa. Susa was the capital city in the province of Elam. I was standing by the Ulai River.

Yes, Susa was an important city circa the time that Daniel was written.
Susa, capital of Elam

The Tomb of Daniel is alleged to be located in Susa

Susa, View Looking Approximately N; Note the "Tomb of Daniel," Center Left on a Branch of
the Saimarrah River

Jack the Bodiless · 02-27-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yes, Susa was an important city circa the time that Daniel was written.
Susa, capital of Elam

Your ability to refute yourself with your own sources never ceases to amaze me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo's source

The Assyrian king Aššurbanipal destroyed the Elamite capital between 645-640...

...The city was rebuilt by the Persian king Darius the Great (522-486).

...So, apparently Susa did not exist at the time that fundies imagine Daniel to have lived (having been destroyed by Aššurbanipal and not yet rebuilt by Darius the Great).

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The Tomb of Daniel is alleged to be located in Susa.

You mean, one of Daniel's six alleged tombs.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-27-2008, 09:28 AM

More on-topic: I just don't see why anyone would even try to put so much effort into "rescuing" the Daniel story. It was written by someone so clueless (or contemptuous of any need for historical veracity) that he imagined "king" Belshazzar to be the son of Nebuchadrezzar!

Kings of Babylon:

Nebuchadrezzar II
Amel-Marduk (actual son of Nebuchadrezzar)
Neriglissar (son-in-law of Nebuchadrezzar)
Labashi-Marduk (son of Neriglissar)
Nabonidus (unrelated to any of the above, married Nitocris daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, fathered Belshazzar)

Kings of Persia:

Cyrus the Great (took Babylon from Nabonidus)
Cambyses II (son of Cyrus)
Smerdis (son of Cyrus: some say, replaced by a usurper who stole his name)
Darius the Great (married a daughter of Smerdis)
Xerxes I (son of Darius)

arnoldo · 02-27-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yes, Susa was an important city circa the time that Daniel was written.
Susa, capital of Elam

Your ability to refute yourself with your own sources never ceases to amaze me.

...So, apparently Susa did not exist at the time that fundies imagine Daniel to have lived (having been destroyed by Aššurbanipal and not yet rebuilt by Darius the Great).
.

Umm. . . Daniel had a vision in reference to Shushan, try again.

Quote:

Young's Literal Translation: Daniel 8:2
And I see in a vision, and it cometh to pass, in my seeing, and I am in Shushan the palace that is in Elam the province, and I see in a vision, and I have been by the stream Ulai.

Sheshonq · 02-27-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Umm. . . Daniel had a vision in reference to Shushan, try again.

Which doesn't change the fact that the writer(s) of Daniel mistook Shushan as a capital, when it wasn't even built yet at the alleged time fundies want to say that Daniel was written.

arnoldo · 02-27-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Umm. . . Daniel had a vision in reference to Shushan, try again.

Which doesn't change the fact that the writer(s) of Daniel mistook Shushan as a capital, when it wasn't even built yet at the alleged time fundies want to say that Daniel was written.

I guess you don't understand what a vision is then

Here are some translations of the verse in question: Daniel 8:2

Sheshonq · 02-27-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Which doesn't change the fact that the writer(s) of Daniel mistook Shushan as a capital, when it wasn't even built yet at the alleged time fundies want to say that Daniel was written.

I guess you don't understand what a vision is then

I understand perfectly.
It still doesn't explain away the historical contradiction.

Quote:

Here are some translations of the verse in question: Daniel 8:2

None of which explain away the historical contradiction.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-28-2008, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Your ability to refute yourself with your own sources never ceases to amaze me.

...So, apparently Susa did not exist at the time that fundies imagine Daniel to have lived (having been destroyed by Aššurbanipal and not yet rebuilt by Darius the Great).
.

Umm. . . Daniel had a vision in reference to Shushan, try again.

Quote:

Young's Literal Translation: Daniel 8:2
And I see in a vision, and it cometh to pass, in my seeing, and I am in Shushan the palace that is in Elam the province, and I see in a vision, and I have been by the stream Ulai.

Umm... no. Daniel didn't actually have any "visions" at all, because Daniel is a fictional character in a book written in the 2nd century BC.

But YOU were the one who claimed that "Yes, Susa was an important city circa the time that Daniel was written".

Try again.

arnoldo · 02-28-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Umm. . . Daniel had a vision in reference to Shushan, try again.

Umm... no. Daniel didn't actually have any "visions" at all, because Daniel is a fictional character in a book written in the 2nd century BC.

But YOU were the one who claimed that "Yes, Susa was an important city circa the time that Daniel was written".

Try again.

Try doing some google searches, Susa if often listed as one of the oldest continuosly inhabited cities on earth. It appears all the arguments that the bible is 100% false is based on semantics, not archaelogical evidence, for example, "Many Nations = only Nebby," "Belshazzar was was not a King, he was a viceroy of the city of babylon, etc" Here is some info on Susa.
Source: SHUSHAN

Quote:

The association of Daniel with "Shushan the palace" has an added interest on account of the single occurrence of the word ("palace") in Dan. xi. 45, which, like its Syriac equivalent "afadana," is almost certainly a loan-word from the Old Persian "apadana." The tradition of Daniel's residence at Shushan has caused a structure of the Mohammedan period at the foot of the citadel to be called the tomb of Daniel

The Persian loan word dates it to the 5 BC. In contrast the lack of significant greek words in the book of daniel avoids dating it to the 2nd BC.

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

02-27-2008, 06:06 AM	#821
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Kudos to Sheshonq and spin - Your logical presentations that so effectively pulled the wings off the vacuous yinquirer arguments are appreciated by at least one lurker.

02-27-2008, 09:28 AM	#824
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	More on-topic: I just don't see why anyone would even try to put so much effort into "rescuing" the Daniel story. It was written by someone so clueless (or contemptuous of any need for historical veracity) that he imagined "king" Belshazzar to be the son of Nebuchadrezzar! Kings of Babylon: Nebuchadrezzar II Amel-Marduk (actual son of Nebuchadrezzar) Neriglissar (son-in-law of Nebuchadrezzar) Labashi-Marduk (son of Neriglissar) Nabonidus (unrelated to any of the above, married Nitocris daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, fathered Belshazzar) Kings of Persia: Cyrus the Great (took Babylon from Nabonidus) Cambyses II (son of Cyrus) Smerdis (son of Cyrus: some say, replaced by a usurper who stole his name) Darius the Great (married a daughter of Smerdis) Xerxes I (son of Darius)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.