Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.
Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!
If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.
Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
There was also the mention by Rainer where he makes the same statement in regard to Belshalzzar.
So what difference does it make where and when Belshalzzar was killed. It is only one piece of the many issues with Daniel. Does your entire view rest upon one piece of info?
Mine certainly does not. I have mentioned many things which you discredit. The least you could do is be a little skeptical.
Roux spent far more time studying Ancient Iraq then either of us.
The disdain you show for historians is duly noted.
And you consider just the simple mention of a name to prove everything even things of myth and fairytales.
Can you go on now that you have insulted a noted historian and scholar in the person of Georges Roux?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Gramster can't help it, PJTS.
You and others are mowing down the field of straws so there's nothing to grasp at.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I have searched the museum's online list of Babylon artifacts and this is not mentioned.
I found this mention here - http://www.kenboa.org/text_resources/unedited_transcripts?id=7179
This refers to a monument not a pottery shard. If this is what you mean you inaccurately presented the information.
Here is a link to the Pergamon Musuem. - http://www.smb.museum/smb/sammlungen/details.php?objID=23&n=0&r=0&p=0
They don't mention your claim. Exactly what monument do you think it is on?
Here is a link to CDLI or Cunnefirm Digital Library Online - http://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/
Please indicate which artifact contains your claim.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Just one more.
Herodotus, who lived during the time of Cyrus also seems in sync with the biblical account of the overthrow of Babylon.
In book 1, starting with 179 he gives a description of Babylon. A bit later he describes how Cyrus routed the river and marched his troops under the great wall, surprising the inhabitants of Babylon, and capturing the city.
On 1-179, he states "they did not know they had been captured; but as they chanced to be holding a festival, they went on dancing and rejoicing during this time until they learned the truth only too well".
This would also explain how Cyrus took the city without a fight. With the element of surprise, overwhelming force, and with the Babylonian leaders absent from the events having a drunken party, there likely wouldn't have been much resistance if any.
The book of Daniel also describes a big "festival" or "party" going on the night of Babylon's capture.
There are still no inaccuracies to be found in the book of Daniel. So far, his version of what took place in the 5th century BC, as far as we can tell is 100% accurate. Pretty amazing for a poorly informed 2nd century BC author.
Your only complaint remains to be that Daniel did not mention Nebonidus, who quite likely was not even in the city, and had nothing to do with the events depicted in the book.
It seems to be time to drop the false claims that the book of Daniel if "full of inaccuracies", and start to focus on the book's amazing accuracy and details.
Gramster. you sure like to do your version of the Gish Gallop.
Is that your strategy - to keep bouncing from point to point hoping that PJTS will forget something so you can turn around and say "Well, it seems we agree on this as you have provided no refutation"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Actually Herodotus did not live during the time of Cyrus.
Cyrus died in 530 BCE
Herodotus was born in approximately 490 BCE and died in about 430 BCE. This is clearly after Cyrus.
If you read his book and compare it to others you will see that Herodotus has many errors.
First off he inaccurately describes the city of Babylon indicating he had never been there.
He incorrectly describes the walls of the city in 178.
This indicates the wall was 100 meters high, 25 meters thick and over 90 Km total length,
In fact archeology and the description in the time of Alexander show the wall was about 25 meters high, 10 meters wide and 18 Km in length.
Sources - Liviius.org; German archaeologist Robert Kodeway and Curtius Rufus
Whereas other accounts indicate the people were already revolting against Nabonidus and welcomed Cyrus.
Buy into whatever helps you down your road to deceiving yourself.
The Book of Daniel does not discuss anything in the 5th century BCE. It supposedly discusses the 6th century BCE.
You have many times demonstrated acceptance for your desires over meticulous study. Deluding yourself into thinking Daniel is 100% accurate really indicates your failure to be skeptical and consider all possibilities. Where there is doubt as with the entire Book of Daniel there can not be 100% accuracy or certainty.
Not hardly, go back and reread this entire thread. You once more overlook reality in order to delude yourself into finding validation and correlation where there is none to be found.
Don't hold your breath.
Feel free to present your "Doomsday Scenario" now.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
[quote-gramster]
I have studied these references thoroughly. Here is what I have discovered.
1. Roux, in his book "Ancient Iraq" p. 386-387 claims that Belshazzar was killed in the battle of Opis. He gives reference as you listed above to Josephus and Eusebius.
2. In his works Contra Apionnem, Josephus makes no reference to the death of Belshazzar. None.
3. In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews Ch 11 however, Josephus gives an account of Belshazzar's feast much like the account in Daniel. That seems to be pretty much all Josephus has to say about Belshazzar.
4. Eusebius, in his work Praeparatio Evangelica also fails to mention Belshazzar. Here is a summary of what this says.
a. Cyrus invades Babylon.
b. Nebonidus (Nabonnedus) and his army is defeated by Cyrus.
c. Nebonidus flees to Borsippus.
d. Cyrus takes Babylon and demo's the outer walls because the city had been "very troublesome" to him.
e. Cyrus' army goes to Borsippus to "besiege" Nabonidus.
f. Nebonidus gives up peaceably "without a siege", and is therefore treated kindly by Cyrus.
g. Nebonidus is given charge of Carminia.
Nothing here about Belshazzar either. It seems as if Roux just pulled this one out of his "Arse".
What we can get from this is that According to Eusebius and Josephus, it appears that Nebonidus was not in Babylon when it fell, but in Borsippus. And that he was treated "kindly" because he gave up peaceably.
However, if Belshazzar was in Babylon which was a royal pain to Cyrus, and it is already known that Cyrus did not like Belshazzar, his fate would likely have been much worse. This all seems to correspond very well with the account in the book of Daniel.
It is only the unsubstantiated claim by Roux that is out of line here.
There was also the mention by Rainer where he makes the same statement in regard to Belshalzzar.
My whole view does not rest on where Belshazzar was killed. Your view however does seem to be based largely on "apparent historical inaccuracies" in the book of Daniel. You have trumpeted about these alleged inaccuracies many times, but have failed to provide any solid evidence for a single one. On the contrary, all you have is baseless assertions.
The only things that I have discredited, is those things which have no evidence or proof of support.
Yes, Roux spent much time studying Ancient Iraq. I am not showing disdain for historians. I do however, hold them to the same standard as everyone else. A "great historian" like Roux should know better than to make a statement, and back it up with a reference that does not support that statement. If he had a credible source for his claim one would think he would have posted that one in his bibliography.
It seems like a good time to discontinue the false assertions that the book of Daniel contains many historical inaccuracies since none have been shown to have any credible basis.
And you consider just the simple mention of a name to prove everything even things of myth and fairytales.
Can you go on now that you have insulted a noted historian and scholar in the person of Georges Roux?