Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Darklighter · 01-22-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Excellent point.

Does anyone know when the first mention of "Daniel the Prophet" and his book occured? As much as I've studied Daniel, I've never found that out.

Exactly, the book should of been revised in order to take out the errors. Can you please give a single example of an error in the book of Daniel as well as the source you used to verify this?

Did you read the OP? Everything in there is easily verifiable.

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Do you have any responses to anything I stated in the OP? Where is the tomb of Darius the Mede?

Yeah, what are your sources? How do you know your sources are accurate?

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I would like to add that an article at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=234947 provides lots of evidence that the book of Daniel should not be trusted.

I'd say Daniel is rather trustworthy.
spin

Are you saying the book is historically accurate?

Darklighter · 01-22-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Do you have any responses to anything I stated in the OP? Where is the tomb of Darius the Mede?

Yeah, what are your sources? How do you know your sources are accurate?

Ummm... the sources for a good chunk of whats in the OP were the Babylonians themselves. The records that THEY or THEIR CONTEMPORARIES kept. Arnoldo, take a few days, read a few history books, and then come back and tell us what you think. It's not a great 'source' but you can start at Wikipedia.

spin · 01-22-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'd say Daniel is rather trustworthy.
spin

Are you saying the book is historically accurate?

Why didn't you read the fucking post that you cite from?

You'd stop asking silly questions.

Here it is again:

Quote:

I'd say Daniel is rather trustworthy, but not for the time that it purports to represent, ie I'm objecting to your choice of words in "trust". Your problem with Daniel seems to me to be the abuse of the book by christians intent on turning it into prophecy. Daniel is not a transparent text to someone not living in the politico-cultural context in which it was written. That's why christians have trouble with it and have had since early christian times, as seen by the misunderstanding about the son of man in Dan 7. It is frequent that once a historical context is lost, the significance of a text written in that context drifts until it is reinterpreted. This is not the "fault" of the text (or a matter of its trustworthiness), but of the users of the text: they do eisegesis on the text rather than exegesis.

spin

spin · 01-22-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It's certainly not accurate for the period it is set in. See the OP.

Ok, you are stating that the Book of Daniel is not historically accurate and written after the fact, right? Can you just list one or two historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel? Can you also list the source of the historical record you are using to verify the inaccuracy?

Why didn't you read the OP? As I said: "See the OP" -- you know the first post in the thread. It's a good place to start.

spin

Darklighter · 01-22-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why didn't you read the fucking post that you cite from?

spin

Temper, temper. We wouldn't want to play into the biased and hypocritical stereotype that all fundies are indoctrinated into applying to the infidels.

j/k

Seriously, I think he gave up. At least thats the way his last post in the Tyre thread reads.

That was fun.

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 02:50 PM

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but the first post "A short primer" does not list any sources. I was merely asking for the source of the information.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-22-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Can you please give a single example of an error in the book of Daniel as well as the source you used to verify this?

Rather, since the Bible asserted first, meaning that it is no more encumbent upon skeptics to disprove the Bible than it is encumbent upon you to disprove deism, please quote a prediction that Daniel made that came true, and state the evidence that you have that it was written before the event came true.

stuart shepherd · 01-22-2008, 03:44 PM

Jesus believed that Daniel was a real prophet.

Mark 13:14 (King James Version)
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

If Daniel is a fraud, then so is Jesus.

Stuart Shepherd

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

01-22-2008, 02:50 PM	#28
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but the first post "A short primer" does not list any sources. I was merely asking for the source of the information.

01-22-2008, 03:44 PM	#30
stuart shepherd Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 315	Jesus believed that Daniel was a real prophet. Mark 13:14 (King James Version) But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: If Daniel is a fraud, then so is Jesus. Stuart Shepherd

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.