Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths

gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
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.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

gramster wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I pointed out to you in this thread, Ezra has been noted as writing all of the Bible from scratch as it was lost or destroyed, see 4 Esdras 14.  If so, the complete history of all characters may be contaminated or damaged.

I can't believe you are actually trying to use 4 Esdras as a source of "reasonable doubt".

Neither the Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant Cannons include this book. Most universally it is considered to be a fabrication written in the 1st or 2nd century AD. Yes, AD. Not even BC. That means it post dates pretty much all of the OT scripture found at Qumran.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that doesn't make sense.

I am really impressed. I find it fascinating what means one will go to in order to defend ones beliefs.

tsk-tsk

I will be anxiously waiting to find out what evidence you have for "historical errors" in Daniel when we finish our discussion on chapters 11 and 12. So far nothing that comes close to holding water.

Now maybe we can get back to business??

 

There are so many issues you have ignored and pushed under the rug. This one here is just a minor little tidbit and is of no consequence.

Funny how you are willing to go with a scholarly position on 4 Esdras but ignore their views on the origin and dating of Daniel.

Could this be you picking and choosing to put together your puzzle piece views.

Hopefully you finally stop "farting around" and finish, though I won't hold my breath.

Esdras really?

I'm really beginning to worry about you. I guess the signs were there all along. One day you are competent and making perfect sense, and the next you are just babbling. Lately you seem to be just babbling most of the time.

I have had friends with the same symptoms. One day they seem to be "slipping" mentally and the next thing you know they don't even know their own relatives.

Maybe you should get in to see a specialist.

Esdras really?

Providing no evidence for Daniel being prophecy (beyond your opinion)? Really?

Maybe you should visit a librarian (a real one - not the one you see in the porno flicks).

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Personal Attacks & Insults, Really!

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

There are so many issues you have ignored and pushed under the rug. This one here is just a minor little tidbit and is of no consequence.

Funny how you are willing to go with a scholarly position on 4 Esdras but ignore their views on the origin and dating of Daniel.

Could this be you picking and choosing to put together your puzzle piece views.

Hopefully you finally stop "farting around" and finish, though I won't hold my breath.

Esdras really?

I'm really beginning to worry about you. I guess the signs were there all along. One day you are competent and making perfect sense, and the next you are just babbling. Lately you seem to be just babbling most of the time.

I have had friends with the same symptoms. One day they seem to be "slipping" mentally and the next thing you know they don't even know their own relatives.

Maybe you should get in to see a specialist.

Esdras really?

Maybe you should concentrate on the subject and stop farting around.

Personal attacks, really 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.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Chapter 11 - back on track



Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

Once again the writer of Daniel shows his  poor knowledge of history. And once again you show your puzzle piece technique of slamming square pegs into round holes. What Daniel 2 actually says is "And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.." JPS version. As this supposedly begins before any Persian kings it indicates Cyrus (549–529 BCE), Cambyses (529–522 BCE), Darius I (521–485 BCE). The 4th king is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus, 485–465 BCE) who attacks the  uncentralized Greek city states. Daniel ignores Bardiya (false Smerdis). Daniel only mentions the 4 kings and ignores there were 9 kings jumping to Alexander immediately after Xerxes. The other kings were Artaxerxes I (465–425 BCE), Darius II (425–405 BCE), Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE) and Darius III (338–330 BCE) who is defeated by Alexander and not mentioned by the writer of Daniel.

gramster wrote:

Still playing ignorant? The author mentions the 1st three kings, than in order gives us details on the 4th (Artazeres II). There was no need to list the next 5 kings. They were not relevant to this part of the story.

pjts wrote:

Remember your statement of relevance later. Even from the perspective of the Jews, who was more relevant to them? Xerxes? Or Artaxexes II?

So which king was the 4th king? Xerxes or Artaxerxes II? You indicate in your comments both were.

Like many of the kings of that period, Artaxerxes II went by more than one name or title. But you already know that.

 

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

pjts wrote:

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

Interesting just how "not crystal clear" secular accounts of history often are. Yet they are still used to try to disprove the Biblical accounts of history.

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.

pjts wrote:

Really what has occurred is a stalemate or detente where both sides are in a standoff mode.

Your point exactly? He did not attack again. The text is accurate.

pjts wrote:

Is it? Only if you accept certain records and ignore others.

Yeah right!


gramps post 1051 wrote:

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.

pjts wrote:

Again, he fought back and recovered most of the territory in the east (Babylon) and pushed back in Syria, though the coast was still held by Egypt.

Yes, he did have a "come back" later. Your point again?

pjts wrote:

Your summary was not accurate is the point.

Wrong again! Accurate yes. But I did not see the need to follow history down past the point where the text left off.


Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

pjts wrote:

This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

Interesting how the mention of Seleucus II (the father) "jumps over" the actions of Seleucus III "the son"???

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

pjts wrote:

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

Another brilliant observation on your part. Read the text. Nothing was detailed about false Smerdis. He was only part of a list counting down to Artaxeres II who was the real focus. Likewise Seleucus III was not relevant enough to discuss. So the author did not.

A skeptic and a free thinker? I am continually amazed at how you guys think. Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place. You still amaze me!


 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Logic,

gramster wrote:

Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place.

and I wish you'd stop throwing logic reason and common sense out the window to make room for your obviously flawed arguments - I don't want to keep replacing glass forever.

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:


Gramps post 1040 wrote:


vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

Once again the writer of Daniel shows his  poor knowledge of history. And once again you show your puzzle piece technique of slamming square pegs into round holes. What Daniel 2 actually says is "And now will I declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.." JPS version. As this supposedly begins before any Persian kings it indicates Cyrus (549–529 BCE), Cambyses (529–522 BCE), Darius I (521–485 BCE). The 4th king is Xerxes (or Ahasuerus, 485–465 BCE) who attacks the  uncentralized Greek city states. Daniel ignores Bardiya (false Smerdis). Daniel only mentions the 4 kings and ignores there were 9 kings jumping to Alexander immediately after Xerxes. The other kings were Artaxerxes I (465–425 BCE), Darius II (425–405 BCE), Artaxerxes II (404–358 BCE) and Darius III (338–330 BCE) who is defeated by Alexander and not mentioned by the writer of Daniel.

gramster wrote:

Still playing ignorant? The author mentions the 1st three kings, than in order gives us details on the 4th (Artazeres II). There was no need to list the next 5 kings. They were not relevant to this part of the story.

pjts wrote:

Remember your statement of relevance later. Even from the perspective of the Jews, who was more relevant to them? Xerxes? Or Artaxerxes II?

So which king was the 4th king? Xerxes or Artaxerxes II? You indicate in your comments both were.

Like many of the kings of that period, Artaxerxes II went by more than one name or title. But you already know that.

 

However, you skip back in forth in the name for him in this case and the result is not being clear when several kings have the same or similar name. Not very consistent and makes what you say easy to misunderstand.

To be clear, do you refer to Xerxes (485-465 BCE) or Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE)???

 

 

Gramps wrote:

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

Gramps wrote:

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

pjts wrote:

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

Interesting just how "not crystal clear" secular accounts of history often are. Yet they are still used to try to disprove the Biblical accounts of history.

Herein lies your entire problem. The bible accounts, especially the book of Daniel is not crystal clear either. If it was crystal clear we'd not be having this discussion at all. So instead of considering all of them, you dismiss the secular accounts or accounts from other countries in favor of the Bible. Which since the Bible is actually copies of copies of translated copies is rather illogical for a position.

I'm not per se trying to disprove the Bible, as it's never been proven in the first place.

Proof would be actual manuscripts from the 6th century BCE just like those of the Persians and the Babylonians. The accounts from Nabonidus, Cyrus, and the verse account of Nabonidus all date to that period from clay tablets. The Bible does not date to that period. The oldest scraps of Daniel are the DSS from the 1st to 2nd century BCE.

So, you wish to discredit older original documents from Persia and Babylon with unknown dated but no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE scraps and copies of copies.

 

Do you see your problem here?

 

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps post 1050 wrote:

Daniel 11:8

"He (Ptolemy III) shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking the king of the north."

During this military campaign, Ptolemy III captured around 2500 gold and silver images. Many of them were Egyptian gods stolen by various conquerors through time. The Egyptians were grateful to have their gods back and hailed Ptolemy III as their benefactor. Hence Ptolemy III is called "Euergetes" (benefactor).

Ptolemy III was satisfied with his victories and did not attack again as long as he lived.


Really what has occurred is a stalemate or detente where both sides are in a standoff mode.

 

Your point exactly? He did not attack again. The text is accurate.

 

Is it? Only if you accept certain records and ignore others.

 

Yeah right!

The whole problem is your choices to ignore what you consider not important, though all of it is important to understand the situation in 6th century Babylon and 2nd century Judea.

Gramps wrote:

PJTS wrote:

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

gramps post 1051 wrote:

Daniel 11:9

"Than the later (the new king of the north, Seleucus II) shall come into the realm of the king of the south but shall return into his own land."

The next king of the north after Antiochus II was Seleucus II. He attempted to avenge Ptolemy's deep penetration into Seleucid Territories but was defeated and returned home.


Again, he fought back and recovered most of the territory in the east (Babylon) and pushed back in Syria, though the coast was still held by Egypt.

Yes, he did have a "come back" later. Your point again?

 

Your summary was not accurate is the point.

Wrong again! Accurate yes. But I did not see the need to follow history down past the point where the text left off.

Again, this picking and choosing contributes to erroneous understanding. All of it is important in grasping what was being discussed.

 

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps wrote:

pjts wrote:

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."


This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

Interesting how the mention of Seleucus II (the father) "jumps over" the actions of Seleucus III "the son"???

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

 

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

Another brilliant observation on your part. Read the text. Nothing was detailed about false Smerdis. He was only part of a list counting down to Artaxeres II who was the real focus. Likewise Seleucus III was not relevant enough to discuss. So the author did not.

A skeptic and a free thinker? I am continually amazed at how you guys think. Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place. You still amaze me! 

You did note that I left out Smerdis who you included. The text didn't mention the names of the kings, you did. And I responded with a different list.

First off, we have multiple documents describing the events of Babylon and Persia that date to the period. Your approach really should be comparing the text of Daniel to see how it agrees with the far older actual originals since Daniel is a copy of a copy of a copy no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

Instead, you take your undated copy of a copy with a newer date and argue against the events described in originals. You want to use the Daniel text as reality over the original text from Persia and Babylon.

Next, you miss the point of why Babylon fell to Cyrus. Nabonidus was the cause, and if Daniel wrote then he very obviously would have included it.

 

More later on.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Simply following history


Gramps post 1040 wrote:

 
vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

However, you skip back in forth in the name for him in this case and the result is not being clear when several kings have the same or similar name. Not very consistent and makes what you say easy to misunderstand.

To be clear, do you refer to Xerxes (485-465 BCE) or Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE)???

 

Xerxes. As Artaxerxes II was further down in history and not of much consequence.  

 

 

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

Gramps wrote:

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

pjts wrote:

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

Interesting just how "not crystal clear" secular accounts of history often are. Yet they are still used to try to disprove the Biblical accounts of history.

pjts wrote:

Herein lies your entire problem. The bible accounts, especially the book of Daniel is not crystal clear either. If it was crystal clear we'd not be having this discussion at all. So instead of considering all of them, you dismiss the secular accounts or accounts from other countries in favor of the Bible. Which since the Bible is actually copies of copies of translated copies is rather illogical for a position.

I'm not per se trying to disprove the Bible, as it's never been proven in the first place.

Proof would be actual manuscripts from the 6th century BCE just like those of the Persians and the Babylonians. The accounts from Nabonidus, Cyrus, and the verse account of Nabonidus all date to that period from clay tablets. The Bible does not date to that period. The oldest scraps of Daniel are the DSS from the 1st to 2nd century BCE.

So, you wish to discredit older original documents from Persia and Babylon with unknown dated but no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE scraps and copies of copies.

 

Do you see your problem here?

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

Since the book of Daniel does not conflict with any credible secular accounts of 6th century BC history including the clay tablets, I have no conflicts to have to deal with. All is peace and harmony between them.

Interesting that scraps of copies of copies of copies are so accurate and detailed about events so far back in history. Especially for a goat herder without a library.

 


Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

pjts wrote:


This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

gramster wrote:

Interesting how the mention of Seleucus II (the father) "jumps over" the actions of Seleucus III "the son"???

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

pjts wrote:

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

gramster wrote:

Another brilliant observation on your part. Read the text. Nothing was detailed about false Smerdis. He was only part of a list counting down to Xerxes (edited for correction) who was the real focus. Likewise Seleucus III was not relevant enough to discuss. So the author did not.

A skeptic and a free thinker? I am continually amazed at how you guys think. Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place. You still amaze me!

pjts wrote:

You did note that I left out Smerdis who you included. The text didn't mention the names of the kings, you did. And I responded with a different list.

First off, we have multiple documents describing the events of Babylon and Persia that date to the period. Your approach really should be comparing the text of Daniel to see how it agrees with the far older actual originals since Daniel is a copy of a copy of a copy no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

Instead, you take your undated copy of a copy with a newer date and argue against the events described in originals. You want to use the Daniel text as reality over the original text from Persia and Babylon.

Next, you miss the point of why Babylon fell to Cyrus. Nabonidus was the cause, and if Daniel wrote then he very obviously would have included it.

More later on.

Really? My approach precisely is comparing the text of Daniel with the far older actual originals and so far I have not been able to find any conflicts. I have never argued against any of the events described in the "originals"

You however, commonly read things into the original texts that are not there, and try to use such methods to build a  case against the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel. No that is neither a scholarly nor a rational approach.

Once again you jump in and try to second guess the author of Daniel, and argue with the author about what should have been included in his writings.

The author of Daniel was not writing a book of reasons why empires fell. Your assertion that Daniel "very obviously would have included it", is nothing more than empty speculation on your part. Really?

You never cease to amaze me!

I await your "more later on".

 

 

 


 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:I do not

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Blogzilla

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

Once again you come "a bloggin'". You sure like to try to put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. There are "credible" accounts of history that are supported and verified, and there are highly questionable accounts of history that conflict with other secular accounts of that period.

This has nothing to do with whether something agrees with the Bible. That is your fabrication.

Why don't Ya'll contribute something useful to the conversation??

I'll be awaiting your intelligent views on the topic at hand.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

Once again you come "a bloggin'". You sure like to try to put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. There are "credible" accounts of history that are supported and verified, and there are highly questionable accounts of history that conflict with other secular accounts of that period.

This has nothing to do with whether something agrees with the Bible. That is your fabrication.

Why don't Ya'll contribute something useful to the conversation??

I'll be awaiting your intelligent views on the topic at hand.

 

You mean like you with your "Daniel's history because I want it to be" examples?

You have credible histories that disagree with your view of Daniel - you insist on claiming that Daniel is still right. Just because you disagree with history doesn't mean you can ignore it (unless you're a Christian?).

Poor grams - my "blogs" carry more weight than your collection of "insightful" fabrications and that just drives you nuts.

 

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
You have failed

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

Once again you come "a bloggin'". You sure like to try to put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. There are "credible" accounts of history that are supported and verified, and there are highly questionable accounts of history that conflict with other secular accounts of that period.

This has nothing to do with whether something agrees with the Bible. That is your fabrication.

Why don't Ya'll contribute something useful to the conversation??

I'll be awaiting your intelligent views on the topic at hand.

 

You mean like you with your "Daniel's history because I want it to be" examples?

You have credible histories that disagree with your view of Daniel - you insist on claiming that Daniel is still right. Just because you disagree with history doesn't mean you can ignore it (unless you're a Christian?).

Poor grams - my "blogs" carry more weight than your collection of "insightful" fabrications and that just drives you nuts.

 

That's interesting because I have asked repeatedly for one single credible historical account that disagrees with Daniel, and you have failed to provide even one.

Until you can find one you might be able to save yourself some embarrassment by not making that claim over and over like some mindless parrot.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

This is a very telling quote. What you have said is that if history conflicts with the Bible, history must be wrong.

Once again you come "a bloggin'". You sure like to try to put words in my mouth that I have not spoken. There are "credible" accounts of history that are supported and verified, and there are highly questionable accounts of history that conflict with other secular accounts of that period.

This has nothing to do with whether something agrees with the Bible. That is your fabrication.

Why don't Ya'll contribute something useful to the conversation??

I'll be awaiting your intelligent views on the topic at hand.

 

You mean like you with your "Daniel's history because I want it to be" examples?

You have credible histories that disagree with your view of Daniel - you insist on claiming that Daniel is still right. Just because you disagree with history doesn't mean you can ignore it (unless you're a Christian?).

Poor grams - my "blogs" carry more weight than your collection of "insightful" fabrications and that just drives you nuts.

 

That's interesting because I have asked repeatedly for one single credible historical account that disagrees with Daniel, and you have failed to provide even one.

Until you can find one you might be able to save yourself some embarrassment by not making that claim over and over like some mindless parrot.

PJTS has been bringing you the history. My job is to remind you when you've been ignoring it and substituting your fantasies.

You keep doing your thing and I'll keep doing mine.

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Nothing Yet!

PJTS has not yet brought anything to the table even remotely conflicting with the book of Daniel in regard to 6th century BC history.

You are doing a very poor job of "reminding" me of even one single detail that Daniel "got wrong".

I would think that if the book of Daniel were written in the 2nd century BC it would be very easy to find obvious and indisputable examples. So far. NONE!

Well done blogger boy.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Still delaying the end?

gramster wrote:

Gramps post 1040 wrote:

 
vs 2 "And now I will show you the truth. Behold, three more kings shall arise in Persia, and a fourth shall be far richer than all of them. And when he has become strong through riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece."

This vision was given during the reign of Cyrus. The next three Persian kings were Cambyses (530-522), False Smerdis or Bardiya (522), and Darius I (522-486).

The 4th king was Xerxes (486-465) same king also know as Ahasuerus in the book of Esther in the bible. He stockpiled weapons, and supplies and assembled a great military expedition and marched against Greece. And he certainly did "stir up all". And he was not successful.

pjts wrote:

However, you skip back in forth in the name for him in this case and the result is not being clear when several kings have the same or similar name. Not very consistent and makes what you say easy to misunderstand.

To be clear, do you refer to Xerxes (485-465 BCE) or Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE)???

 

Xerxes. As Artaxerxes II was further down in history and not of much consequence. 

 

Thanks for being clear finally.

 

gramster wrote:

 

 

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:7

"In that time a branch from her roots (Ptolemy III) shall arise in his (Ptolemy II)'s place; he shall come against the army and enter the fortress of the king of the north (Antiochus II), and he shall prevail."

"branch from her roots" does not mean that Ptolemy III was a son or grandson of Bernice. It simply means that they were from the same heritage. Ptolemy III was a brother of Bernice. In retaliation for her death he invaded Syria, and conquered much of the Seleucid Empire.

pjts wrote:

I think claiming he conquered much of the Seleucid Empire is an overstatement in regard to his conquests.  He invaded Syria capturing Seleucia (Antioch)  which is held until the 4th Syrian war by Egypt or 219 BCE and much of the coastline from Egypt to Seleucia.  He also invades Babylon holding it for about 6 months. Meanwhile Antigonus II of Macedonia conquers much of the Egyptian possessions in the Aegean. see - http://www.livius.org/su-sz/syrian_wars/3_syrian_war.html

Gramps wrote:

"Several sources tell us that Ptolemy made a grand campaign into the interior of the Seleucid empire and even conquered it completely". Ptolemy III Chronicle commentary from your link.

pjts wrote:

If you read further in the chronicle and commentary you will see that it's not crystal clear what Ptolemy III actually conquered. Apparently he never seized the palace in Babylon, please do read on in the link.

Interesting just how "not crystal clear" secular accounts of history often are. Yet they are still used to try to disprove the Biblical accounts of history.

pjts wrote:

Herein lies your entire problem. The bible accounts, especially the book of Daniel is not crystal clear either. If it was crystal clear we'd not be having this discussion at all. So instead of considering all of them, you dismiss the secular accounts or accounts from other countries in favor of the Bible. Which since the Bible is actually copies of copies of translated copies is rather illogical for a position.

I'm not per se trying to disprove the Bible, as it's never been proven in the first place.

Proof would be actual manuscripts from the 6th century BCE just like those of the Persians and the Babylonians. The accounts from Nabonidus, Cyrus, and the verse account of Nabonidus all date to that period from clay tablets. The Bible does not date to that period. The oldest scraps of Daniel are the DSS from the 1st to 2nd century BCE.

So, you wish to discredit older original documents from Persia and Babylon with unknown dated but no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE scraps and copies of copies.

 

Do you see your problem here?

I do not "dismiss" any credible accounts of history. I cannot however, agree that conflicting secular accounts provide sufficient evidence to discredit the bible. That would not be rational.

Since the book of Daniel does not conflict with any credible secular accounts of 6th century BC history including the clay tablets, I have no conflicts to have to deal with. All is peace and harmony between them.

Interesting that scraps of copies of copies of copies are so accurate and detailed about events so far back in history. Especially for a goat herder without a library.

 

We have gone over this several times and you continue to use Daniel as the history to be disproven instead of using the verified documents from the period as a start to see if Daniel has correlation to them.

Daniel contains unproved events of magic, the clay tablets do not. In order to show Daniel is not just a Jewish story telling episode you must be able to show something from the secular world that indicates a guy named Daniel was involved in the court of Nebuchadnezzar and all following kings to the end with Nabonidus. You have presented nothing to show Daniel was present in the 6th century BCE at all.

 

And I have never called Daniel a goat herder, that was CJ. Talk to her about that.

 

 

gramster wrote:

Gramps post 1050 wrote:


Daniel 11:10

"His sons (Antiochus III the Great, son of Seleucus II) shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come and overflow and pass through, and again shall carry the war as far as his fortress."

pjts wrote:


This jumps over Seleucus III who invaded Egypt unsuccessfully and was poisoned in his 3rd year of reign, succeeded by his brother Antiochus III.

gramster wrote:

Interesting how the mention of Seleucus II (the father) "jumps over" the actions of Seleucus III "the son"???

No need for the author of Daniel to waste time discussing this unsuccessful short term ruler. Again this is not a complete list of kings and their exploits. Apparently not relevant to the author at this time.

pjts wrote:

A short term ruler? You think earlier that false Smerdis (522) should be included who ruled only for months having no real relevance to the Jews and think Seleucus III who ruled for over 2 years should be ignored though he did have some relevance to them.

gramster wrote:

Another brilliant observation on your part. Read the text. Nothing was detailed about false Smerdis. He was only part of a list counting down to Xerxes (edited for correction) who was the real focus. Likewise Seleucus III was not relevant enough to discuss. So the author did not.

A skeptic and a free thinker? I am continually amazed at how you guys think. Logic, reason, and common sense just fly right out the window. Obviously flawed arguments take their place. You still amaze me!

pjts wrote:

You did note that I left out Smerdis who you included. The text didn't mention the names of the kings, you did. And I responded with a different list.

First off, we have multiple documents describing the events of Babylon and Persia that date to the period. Your approach really should be comparing the text of Daniel to see how it agrees with the far older actual originals since Daniel is a copy of a copy of a copy no older than the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

Instead, you take your undated copy of a copy with a newer date and argue against the events described in originals. You want to use the Daniel text as reality over the original text from Persia and Babylon.

Next, you miss the point of why Babylon fell to Cyrus. Nabonidus was the cause, and if Daniel wrote then he very obviously would have included it.

More later on.

Really? My approach precisely is comparing the text of Daniel with the far older actual originals and so far I have not been able to find any conflicts. I have never argued against any of the events described in the "originals"

You however, commonly read things into the original texts that are not there, and try to use such methods to build a  case against the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel. No that is neither a scholarly nor a rational approach.

Once again you jump in and try to second guess the author of Daniel, and argue with the author about what should have been included in his writings.

The author of Daniel was not writing a book of reasons why empires fell. Your assertion that Daniel "very obviously would have included it", is nothing more than empty speculation on your part. Really?

You never cease to amaze me!

I await your "more later on". 

Since you claim you have shown how Daniel fits so perfectly in to the secular writing show a side by side comparison using them and archeology versus Daniel. Please include sources for anything that you claim.

You can do this in your summary argument instead of continuing to "fart around" delaying the end of your presentation.

Daniel wrote what is supposed to be an accurate portrayal from Nebuchadnezzar to some point in the future according to you. Leaving out important events in the events such as the fall of Babylon discredits it as originating in the period.

You have:

1-Nothing that supports Daniel was present in the Babylonian court from secular sources.

2-You have omissions in the account that cast suspicion on the origination date of the writing.

3- You have nothing mentioned of Daniel in Jewish writing other than the discussion of the lion's den myth in 1 Mac. And a reference to a guy named Daniel in Ezekiel. Neither one discusses where Daniel was located, what he did, nor any relationship to the story telling in the Book of Daniel.

4- There are no manuscripts prior to the DSS to support Daniel existed.

5- Supposed interpretations that can be viewed in multiple ways as meticulously shown to you that can fit various scenarios.

6- Bad history:

a) Dan 9:1 - Darius said to be "the son of Ahasuerus" - Ahasuerus aka Xerxes ruled 486-465 BCE over 50 years off.

b)Dan 4 - Claims Nebuchadnezzar was insane or crazy. No secular account supports this.

c)Dan 3 - The image to be worshiped is not given the name of any Akkadian, Sumerian or Babylonian god. It appears to be the invention of an unnamed god. In addition, the claim to fall down and worship at the sound of music from " horn, pipe, harp, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe,.." or horn, flute, harp, lyre uses words that are of Greek origin from the later Hellenistic period. It is also not clear these instruments were invented at the time.

d) The spelling of the name of the King of Babylon in the book of Daniel is of the later Persian period. The correct spelling is shown in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is Nebuchad R ezzar. Daniel spells it as the later Persian method 100 years later - Nebuchad N ezzar.

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

g) Dan 5 - The supposed writing on the wall - "MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN" is Aramaic. Funny Aramaic was the language used by the Babylonians, why is it they could not read it?

h) Dan 10 & 11 - Daniel errors in the number of Persian kings regardless of how you ignore it by "puzzle piece fitting". In Dan 11:2 "Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece." - The last king in this list means Xerxes who invaded Greece. Yet in Dan 11:3 - "And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. - Alexander is suddenly injected. Alexander did not overthrow Xerxes, it was Darius III he conquered.

 

This list is not totally inclusive and represents some of the other issues you ignore in the account of Daniel.

 

 

You do not have:

Verifiable evidence the writer of Daniel ever was in Babylon from any sources.

Show me writing from a source outside the Hebrew propaganda book that places him in Babylon. A copy of his stamped "passport" indicating he was there. A photo of Daniel in Babylon's famous hanging gardens, something not mentioned by Daniel either. An inscription anywhere from Babylon with the details of: Daniel surviving in a den of lions; 3 men not being consumed in a furnace; Nebuchadnezzar promoting a Jewish captive to be in power over Chaldeans.

 

I imagine you will continue to delay and not finish your presentation and final "puzzle piece" arguments to show how this all relates to Rome, the popes and the world's end.

Delay will not help you.

Bring actual evidence and proof that Daniel actually was in Babylon and did not write this in a later period.

Do you have anything of actual physical evidence to present?

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hey grams! More history for

Hey grams! More history for you to keep ignoring here!

Any bets you'll respond to this instead?


nude00071 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
And the winner is...

 I was initially intrigued by this guys idiotic claims, but since he quickly got off his own topic and failed to supply any evidence, I passed over the bulk of this forum.  I don't know why some people chose to feed this troll.  I suspect he is from CARM, a site I visited once where they claim atheists are irrational and that Xtians hold the corner market on reason.  The arrogance and snide remarks this guy keeps putting forth is typical of them.  I see that he  is finally being nailed down, but the fact is that he views the Big Book of Babble as unshakably true, so he picks secular sources that agree with it, and the ones that don't are "conflicting".  No matter what you say to him, even when you prove him wrong, he will not admit it.  Just watch.  I suppose you babble scholars are getting a kick out of showing him, tho, so who am I to deny you your fun.

To this guy, we are deluded and evil, therefore anything we say/write is inherently without merit/truth.  Even if you shoot down every illogical meandering he comes up with, he'll just chalk it up to us being deceiving as, of course, we are of the devil.

I didn't see where he explained how his god commanding rape and other vile acts were actually good, or did he just continue to state that it was in god's unknowable realm?  There is no way to pin god down this way, since there is always a convenient qualifier to avoid responsibility in any way.  We can't know his unfathomable ways, prayer works, but isn't answered according to our wants and needs (so why bother?), to even question the scripture only proves you are evil and should be killed, etc..  So you can't win beyond just quit believing and forget the damn book.  When we acknowledge it, we give it credence.  Ignore it, burn any copies you come across, and hope they run out of money to print new ones.

As for gramps, he cannot help but lose because he cannot evn consider for a second that the scripture is even partially wrong.  If you can't admit the possibility, then how can it possibly be right?  Anything true can withstand the harshest criticism, not the other way around.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I would think that if

Quote:
I would think that if the book of Daniel were written in the 2nd century BC it would be very easy to find obvious and indisputable example

 

  When did  this  get so far off-topic ?   What was the idea of "quoting" the Book of Daniel in the first place ?

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Quote:I

danatemporary wrote:

Quote:
I would think that if the book of Daniel were written in the 2nd century BC it would be very easy to find obvious and indisputable example

 

  When did  this  get so far off-topic ?   What was the idea of "quoting" the Book of Daniel in the first place ?

 

I believe the idea was to show us infidels that the Book of Daniel was infallible proof of god because it was prophecy revealed - or some such.  So far,  Gramps just sounds like those people who are nutty about the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.  That is, it can mean any damn thing you want it to mean.

So the big argument at the moment is when Daniel was written.  Which is important to a couple of people around here - not me.  If written in 5th century BCE, it is about the future and therefore, it is prophecy.  If it was written in the 2nd century BCE, it is mostly history - and rather bad history at that.  Mind, I think they did an okay job considering the lack of printing presses and general illiteracy, but it is still, not terribly surprising, not accurate.  Unless, of course, you are stubbornly hanging on to it like Gramps.

I have no idea why I am following along as I don't particularly care and I find it boring.  Sort of like an aching tooth you keep rubbing with your tongue.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This thread

 

highlights a point danatemp made somewhere else on the boards that belief in god depends on an a priori belief in the infallibility of the bible and that god himself, depending as he does on interpretations of this bible, is constrained by the scriptures that shape him. Without an initial belief in bible there's no god - I think danatemp very pleasingly called this bibli-idolatry. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Refreshing

pjts wrote:

Daniel wrote what is supposed to be an accurate portrayal from Nebuchadnezzar to some point in the future according to you. Leaving out important events in the events such as the fall of Babylon discredits it as originating in the period.

You have:

1-Nothing that supports Daniel was present in the Babylonian court from secular sources.

2-You have omissions in the account that cast suspicion on the origination date of the writing.

3- You have nothing mentioned of Daniel in Jewish writing other than the discussion of the lion's den myth in 1 Mac. And a reference to a guy named Daniel in Ezekiel. Neither one discusses where Daniel was located, what he did, nor any relationship to the story telling in the Book of Daniel.

4- There are no manuscripts prior to the DSS to support Daniel existed.

5- Supposed interpretations that can be viewed in multiple ways as meticulously shown to you that can fit various scenarios.

6- Bad history:

a) Dan 9:1 - Darius said to be "the son of Ahasuerus" - Ahasuerus aka Xerxes ruled 486-465 BCE over 50 years off.

b)Dan 4 - Claims Nebuchadnezzar was insane or crazy. No secular account supports this.

c)Dan 3 - The image to be worshiped is not given the name of any Akkadian, Sumerian or Babylonian god. It appears to be the invention of an unnamed god. In addition, the claim to fall down and worship at the sound of music from " horn, pipe, harp, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe,.." or horn, flute, harp, lyre uses words that are of Greek origin from the later Hellenistic period. It is also not clear these instruments were invented at the time.

d) The spelling of the name of the King of Babylon in the book of Daniel is of the later Persian period. The correct spelling is shown in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is Nebuchad R ezzar. Daniel spells it as the later Persian method 100 years later - Nebuchad N ezzar.

e) Errors in Dan 1 - RE: the supposed siege of Jerusalem in "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it" this would be in 605 BCE as he became the king of Judah in 608 BCE. History from secular sources however establish only 2 sieges of Jerusalem, 597 BCE and 586 BCE. Further in 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar was fighting Necho and Egypt. He was the crown prince at the time not king. His father died and he returned to Babylon. In 601 BCE Nebuchadrezzar fought several battles that reduced his forces such that he stayed in Babylon for the next few years. During this period, Jehoiakin rebelled. This rebellion brought the 1st siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the 1st Jewish captives.

f) Dan 2 - The supposed vision takes place in Nebuchadrezzar's 2nd year as king. This would be approximately 603 BCE. As Daniel should not yet have been taken captive until 597 BCE or the king's 7th to 8th year this is erroneous.

g) Dan 5 - The supposed writing on the wall - "MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN" is Aramaic. Funny Aramaic was the language used by the Babylonians, why is it they could not read it?

h) Dan 10 & 11 - Daniel errors in the number of Persian kings regardless of how you ignore it by "puzzle piece fitting". In Dan 11:2 "Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece." - The last king in this list means Xerxes who invaded Greece. Yet in Dan 11:3 - "And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. - Alexander is suddenly injected. Alexander did not overthrow Xerxes, it was Darius III he conquered.

 

This list is not totally inclusive and represents some of the other issues you ignore in the account of Daniel.

 

 

You do not have:

Verifiable evidence the writer of Daniel ever was in Babylon from any sources.

Show me writing from a source outside the Hebrew propaganda book that places him in Babylon. A copy of his stamped "passport" indicating he was there. A photo of Daniel in Babylon's famous hanging gardens, something not mentioned by Daniel either. An inscription anywhere from Babylon with the details of: Daniel surviving in a den of lions; 3 men not being consumed in a furnace; Nebuchadnezzar promoting a Jewish captive to be in power over Chaldeans.

 

I imagine you will continue to delay and not finish your presentation and final "puzzle piece" arguments to show how this all relates to Rome, the popes and the world's end.

Delay will not help you.

Bring actual evidence and proof that Daniel actually was in Babylon and did not write this in a later period.

Do you have anything of actual physical evidence to present?

 

It is refreshing to have you finally come up with some "new issues" to take a look at rather than just parroting the ones I have already debunked.

I have taken a brief look at some of these and will point out your historical and logic errors after I finish my presentation of Daniel.

Your insistence on arguing that my interpretation of Daniel does not make sense being written by a 2nd century BC author is "just plain silly". And it does nothing to support your case or make things flow better on this topic.

Of course my interpretation does not line up with a 2nd century BC author. My interpretation is based on the early date of authorship and yours on the later. Therefore I do not continue to point out that your argument does not match up to a 5th century authorship. That would be "just plain silly".

Now I will focus on the rest of chapter 12. After that I will give my summary and point out your numerous logical and factual errors.

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Would that you had debunked

Would that you had debunked them in more than just your mind...


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote: It is

gramster wrote:

 

It is refreshing to have you finally come up with some "new issues" to take a look at rather than just parroting the ones I have already debunked.

So far you have debunked nada.

gramster wrote:

I have taken a brief look at some of these and will point out your historical and logic errors after I finish my presentation of Daniel.

Are you finally going to stop "farting around"?

gramster wrote:

Your insistence on arguing that my interpretation of Daniel does not make sense being written by a 2nd century BC author is "just plain silly". And it does nothing to support your case or make things flow better on this topic.

 

WTF? I don't quite get what you were trying to say in this 1st sentance. If you mean that I'm saying your interpretation is "wishful fantasy thinking" in support of your imaginary god and nothing shows a writer wrote the book of Daniel prior to the 2nd century BCE that's more or less it.

Your interpretation does not fit into the dimension of reality we occupy.

gramster wrote:

Of course my interpretation does not line up with a 2nd century BC author. My interpretation is based on the early date of authorship and yours on the later. Therefore I do not continue to point out that your argument does not match up to a 5th century authorship. That would be "just plain silly".

Again, WTF. Exactly where is this coming from?

I looked back over the last few posts and don't get what you mean here.

Again, you can't even keep your century's straight, the 5th century BCE is 401 to 500 BCE. The 6th century BCE is 501 to 600 BCE.

gramster wrote:

Now I will focus on the rest of chapter 12. After that I will give my summary and point out your numerous logical and factual errors. 

 

Please do. Let's finally end this.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:danatemporary

cj wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

Quote:
I would think that if the book of Daniel were written in the 2nd century BC it would be very easy to find obvious and indisputable example

 

  When did  this  get so far off-topic ?   What was the idea of "quoting" the Book of Daniel in the first place ?

 

I believe the idea was to show us infidels that the Book of Daniel was infallible proof of god because it was prophecy revealed - or some such.  So far,  Gramps just sounds like those people who are nutty about the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.  That is, it can mean any damn thing you want it to mean.

So the big argument at the moment is when Daniel was written.  Which is important to a couple of people around here - not me.  If written in 5th century BCE, it is about the future and therefore, it is prophecy.  If it was written in the 2nd century BCE, it is mostly history - and rather bad history at that.  Mind, I think they did an okay job considering the lack of printing presses and general illiteracy, but it is still, not terribly surprising, not accurate.  Unless, of course, you are stubbornly hanging on to it like Gramps.

I have no idea why I am following along as I don't particularly care and I find it boring.  Sort of like an aching tooth you keep rubbing with your tongue.

 

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think the

TGBaker wrote:

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

 

Now if Gramps would read this, it might be fun to watch him "puzzle fit".  I found The New Jerome Biblical Commentary which I didn't read and have no intentions of reading.  But from the reviews of same it appears it agrees with your assessment.  What is your opinion of this reference?

My apologies if you have mentioned it elsewhere and I didn't catch the reference.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TGBaker wrote:I

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

 

Now if Gramps would read this, it might be fun to watch him "puzzle fit".  I found The New Jerome Biblical Commentary which I didn't read and have no intentions of reading.  But from the reviews of same it appears it agrees with your assessment.  What is your opinion of this reference?

My apologies if you have mentioned it elsewhere and I didn't catch the reference.

 

 

I use to use the Jerome Bible but have not really done anything with The New Jerome Bible. I can't keep up with the old ones  My little ditty was as a New Testament scholar (or at least I claim I am given all the money i paid for the education).  Daniel is important in the study of the historical Jesus because of the titular "son of man".  The reason for Aramaic is because the Jews quite speaking Hebrew and began speaking Aramaic.  It is evidence of the date of writings for the book. Someone never finished the whole Hebrew counterfeiting.  The Catholic Textual comments in Catholic bibles are a lot more trustworthy than any evangelical protestant translation. See my article I posted a few days ago on When Atheists SHould Side with Jehovah's Witnesses.  They translate the areas that have been corrupted with trinitarian doctrine correctly showing that no such doctrine exists in the New Testament.   I think my comment is a fairly normal Old Testament historical determination based upon textual conditions of the original language,  the subject matter in Daniel and the historical mistakes made through out the narrative.  I have a friend that is an Old testmant Scholar who could deal with this better than me. He would conclude the same as me  YET is a Christian scholar ( a believer!!!!).  I've read through the Dead Sea Scrolls completely 7 or 8 times. I have studied major portions of them.  That period of time is the womb of Daniel and Macabees.  I couldn't remmeber which chapter were Aramaic off the top of my head so I went to Wiki quikly.  I got some of my exact data  quotes off of Wiki which impresses me that they are following critical historical scholarship instead of woo woo believer mumbo jumbo. SO Id di not have to pull all those damn books out....

 

How you been doin'????

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think the

TGBaker wrote:

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

 

I have pointed this out to Gramps several times, but it is hard for him to see things through his rose colored welding helmut. Maybe you will have better luck.

How are you doing by the way?

____________________________________________________________
"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.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Thanks to Paul, Grams has an

Thanks to Paul, Grams has an out...

Romans 3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Of course, that doesn't work here. Folks here think.

"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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:How you been

TGBaker wrote:

How you been doin'????

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I am doing okay - hanging in, done with finals.  Signed up for classes next fall.  Financial aide all filled out and approved.  Submitted for SSI for my husband - who improves but very slowly. 

I trust you are doing well and your transplant is still on schedule.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

 

I have pointed this out to Gramps several times, but it is hard for him to see things through his rose colored welding helmut. Maybe you will have better luck.

How are you doing by the way?

I'm beating the odds. I was not originally thought to make it into remission (285 white cell count). I beat the pneumonia. Monday I had a blood marrow biopsy, a pulminary, a brain cat scan, a abdomen and pelvic cat scan, 24 tubes of blood removed from my bod,  EKG, an electo cardiogram ( ultrasound of the heart), met with the psychologist, the financial folk and passed all with flying colors. I meet monday with the Doctor, the pharmacist,  the nurse who coordinates my scheduling etc.  7/28 I get the transplant froma 20 something year old male.  I should feel young again. 55% odd in my favor. Thanks for your thoughts and care.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TGBaker wrote:How

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

How you been doin'????

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I am doing okay - hanging in, done with finals.  Signed up for classes next fall.  Financial aide all filled out and approved.  Submitted for SSI for my husband - who improves but very slowly. 

I trust you are doing well and your transplant is still on schedule.

 

Yep thanks for the thoughts and concerns. See the previous post for the specifics. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Welcome TG Baker

TGBaker wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think the fact that it is written partly in Hebrew then switches to Aramaic and back to Hebrew. The Aramaic is the original core of the writing Chapters 2-7. The Hebrew are sections that were translated into Hebrew from Aramaic. The Hebrew reflects Aramaic colloquialisms  and patterns of language while the Aramaic does not reflect a Hebrew underpinning that it would have translated. Chapters 2-6 are earlier than chapters 7 which has similar Aramaic as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (!60 BCE) The Spetuagint Translation (LXX) differs from the received or presently used version but agrees with the Hebrew/Aramaic of the Scrolls.  There are additional chapters found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Greek Versions which are also found in the LXX and Theodotion.  Your looking a a Bbook that was rewritten by several generations from a little before the 2nd century to 125 BCE. 

 

I have pointed this out to Gramps several times, but it is hard for him to see things through his rose colored welding helmut. Maybe you will have better luck.

How are you doing by the way?

I'm beating the odds. I was not originally thought to make it into remission (285 white cell count). I beat the pneumonia. Monday I had a blood marrow biopsy, a pulminary, a brain cat scan, a abdomen and pelvic cat scan, 24 tubes of blood removed from my bod,  EKG, an electo cardiogram ( ultrasound of the heart), met with the psychologist, the financial folk and passed all with flying colors. I meet monday with the Doctor, the pharmacist,  the nurse who coordinates my scheduling etc.  7/28 I get the transplant froma 20 something year old male.  I should feel young again. 55% odd in my favor. Thanks for your thoughts and care.

 

Welcome TG Baker. I am so glad you are "beating the odds". I surely hope things go well for you.

Sorry for the delay in responding. After we finish out chapter 12 I will be going back to take a much closer look at the date of authorship, as this is so important.

I appreciate your input and views, and will include them when we get there.

 

Gramps


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 12:5,6 7,8

gramster wrote:

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation til that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Vs 2. "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Vs 3. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Vs 4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.

Now I will evaluate your claims and come up with a response.

 

Daniel Chapter 12

12:5,6 Than I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank an the other on that riverbank. vs 6. "And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?"

This question seems to be about the prophecy that started in chapter 10, and more specifically about the events mentioned in 12:1-3.

12:7,8 Than I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times and half a time; and when the power of the holy people  has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished. vs 8. Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, "my lord, what shall be the end of these things?'

Here we have another reference to a 1260 day time period. Daniel did not understand. Interestingly Daniel did understand the 1260 day prophecy in chapter 7, so this would not likely be that same event.

Also good to note is the meaning of the word translated "shattered". The Hebrew word "narphats" is better translated to disperse. 

Following down in time from the previous verses, this puts us near the end of time.

Being that there is no symbolism in this portion of Daniel I would have no reason to give the time period the symbolic day year interpretation.

This appears to be the "dispersion" or pouring out of the power of the holy spirit in the latter days often referred to as the "latter rain".

This is foretold to happen shortly before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

more later.

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:This appears

gramster wrote:

This appears to be the "dispersion" or pouring out of the power of the holy spirit in the latter days often referred to as the "latter rain".

This is foretold to happen shortly before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

more later.

 

One of the things I find really annoying with your "interpretations", Gramps, is this leaping from ancient peoples to modern day idiocies.  Just how does anyone get "pouring out of the holy spirit in the latter days" from "when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered"?

Just what the heck is the power of the holy people?  And how does it get shattered?  Holy people which is plural does not equate to holy spirit which is singular.  And if we are talking Israelites, I don't see their power being shattered any time soon.  Seems to me their power is all too evident in the Middle East.  And I suspect even the most orthodox of the Orthodox Jews don't see their peoples or the power of their people as being shattered or scattered or dispersed.  Since this is the Old Testament we are talking about, there is nothing here about christianity, it is all about people that we now call Jewish.  So how do christians get into this discussion as "holy people"?

I just don't see how one phrase is the same as the other phrase.  Is this one of those instances where I'm supposed to be a good girl and go sit down and shut up and just take the word of my "betters" (ie some man who is a church elder)?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I'm beating

TGBaker wrote:

I'm beating the odds. I was not originally thought to make it into remission (285 white cell count). I beat the pneumonia. Monday I had a blood marrow biopsy, a pulminary, a brain cat scan, a abdomen and pelvic cat scan, 24 tubes of blood removed from my bod,  EKG, an electo cardiogram ( ultrasound of the heart), met with the psychologist, the financial folk and passed all with flying colors. I meet monday with the Doctor, the pharmacist,  the nurse who coordinates my scheduling etc.  7/28 I get the transplant froma 20 something year old male.  I should feel young again. 55% odd in my favor. Thanks for your thoughts and care.

That's awesome news, TG!

Yay, science!

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I'm beating the odds. I was not originally thought to make it into remission (285 white cell count). I beat the pneumonia. Monday I had a blood marrow biopsy, a pulminary, a brain cat scan, a abdomen and pelvic cat scan, 24 tubes of blood removed from my bod,  EKG, an electo cardiogram ( ultrasound of the heart), met with the psychologist, the financial folk and passed all with flying colors. I meet monday with the Doctor, the pharmacist,  the nurse who coordinates my scheduling etc.  7/28 I get the transplant froma 20 something year old male.  I should feel young again. 55% odd in my favor. Thanks for your thoughts and care.

That's awesome news, TG!

Yay, science!

 

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well.  I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Hey

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:
I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:
I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells....


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:
I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells....


 

 

IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Different Views

 

gramster wrote:

This appears to be the "dispersion" or pouring out of the power of the holy spirit in the latter days often referred to as the "latter rain".

This is foretold to happen shortly before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

more later.

cj wrote:

 

One of the things I find really annoying with your "interpretations", Gramps, is this leaping from ancient peoples to modern day idiocies.  Just how does anyone get "pouring out of the holy spirit in the latter days" from "when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered"?

Just what the heck is the power of the holy people?  And how does it get shattered?  Holy people which is plural does not equate to holy spirit which is singular.  And if we are talking Israelites, I don't see their power being shattered any time soon.  Seems to me their power is all too evident in the Middle East.  And I suspect even the most orthodox of the Orthodox Jews don't see their peoples or the power of their people as being shattered or scattered or dispersed.  Since this is the Old Testament we are talking about, there is nothing here about christianity, it is all about people that we now call Jewish.  So how do christians get into this discussion as "holy people"?

I just don't see how one phrase is the same as the other phrase.  Is this one of those instances where I'm supposed to be a good girl and go sit down and shut up and just take the word of my "betters" (ie some man who is a church elder)?

 

Greetings cj.

There are two options we are discussing here. There are educated scholars that can be found to side with either view. The one that makes the most sense to me when all is said and done is the one I am presenting. I am sure Paul John will do his best to tear it down. Your input however is most welcome here as always.

I do not see myself as one of your "betters". You don't have to "take my word" for anything. You are  completely free to evaluate what I present and make your own evaluation based on evidence and logic.

The latter chapters only make sense if the earlier ones are correctly understood. A knowledge of the bible, NT as well as OT is also helpful. The book of Revelation which is criticized heavily by atheists is also helpful. I have not brought this in as it would only complicate things at this point.

I, like millions of other Christians, believe we are the modern day version of God's "holy people". That means simply that we are set apart as His followers or believers. That does not make us "better" than anyone else.

Now to the phrase. "and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished". We are discussing the events of the "end" at this point of these prophecies. It is common for Christians to correlate Michael with Jesus Christ. That is another topic. Unfortunately we cannot explore every point of theology that arises in these discussions.

It is a common theology that the "holy spirit", or power of God will be "poured out" on His (holy people) in the last days. This is supposed to happen right before the end of this worlds history. Therefore in context, the power of the holy people being "shattered" or "dispersed" at this time fits this event dead on.

You are free to disagree and probably will. I appreciate your input and realize my very brief initial interpretation does not come close to providing proof of what I am saying. That will become clearer upon further discussion.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Daniel 12:9-13

gramster wrote:

 

Before responding to the comments on chapter 11, I will finish with chapter 12:1-4 where chapter 11 should end.

Daniel 12:1. "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation til that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book."

Vs 2. "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Vs 3. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever."

Vs 4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

Verse 1 refers to Jesus ending his priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This will be followed by a very turbulent time on earth. We have the assurance that God's people will be delivered out of this chaotic scene.

Verse 2 refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus to raise his people from the dead. Something I am sure you do not believe in.

Verse 3 describes the glory of our reunion with our God.

Verse 4 Daniel is told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. It was not for his time. It was intended for a people living in the closing period of this earths history. At a time when many would "run to and fro", and "knowledge would increase". Certainly a good portrayal of our modern age.

One only has to look at a daily chart showing airline traffic to see just how much man is running to and fro. And the increase of knowledge has been exponential since the 1800's.

Now I will evaluate your claims and come up with a response.

 

Daniel Chapter 12

12:5,6 Than I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank an the other on that riverbank. vs 6. "And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?"

This question seems to be about the prophecy that started in chapter 10, and more specifically about the events mentioned in 12:1-3.

12:7,8 Than I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times and half a time; and when the power of the holy people  has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished. vs 8. Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, "my lord, what shall be the end of these things?'

Here we have another reference to a 1260 day time period. Daniel did not understand. Interestingly Daniel did understand the 1260 day prophecy in chapter 7, so this would not likely be that same event.

Also good to note is the meaning of the word translated "shattered". The Hebrew word "narphats" is better translated to disperse. 

Following down in time from the previous verses, this puts us near the end of time.

Being that there is no symbolism in this portion of Daniel I would have no reason to give the time period the symbolic day year interpretation.

This appears to be the "dispersion" or pouring out of the power of the holy spirit in the latter days often referred to as the "latter rain".

This is foretold to happen shortly before the 2nd coming of the Lord.

more later.

Daniel 12:9-13

vs 9. And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the end of time. 

Once again we have a reference to the "end of time", and the "closing" or "sealing of this book".

vs 10. "Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand."

The events here are descriptive of end times. Again "the wise" that shall understand would be God's people at that time.

vs 11. "And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days."

Here the use of the word "yowm" (generally translated as a literal day) for days instead of "iddan" (generally translated as a year), combined with the absence of symbolism would point to a literal day application.

vs 12. "Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

This appears to be in reference to the great time of tribulation mentioned in verse one. A blessing is pronounced on those who stand firm through those times.

vs 13. "But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."

Daniel was not to live to see the fulfillment of these prophecies for they were far off into the future. He would live out his days, rest in the ground, and arise in the resurrection at the end of this worlds history.

Chapter 12 is not a description of the events of the 2nd century BC, but a vivid and glorious depiction of the final events of this earths history.

 

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Stem cells

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:
I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells....


 

 

IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

 

I can't understand how someone who is "pro life" can object to stem cell research. Unless they only really care about life before it is born. Maybe they have something. Once we come out of the womb we can become real "stinkers".

Anyway science and new technologies can be really something. So glad you are benefiting from this and doing well.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:redneF

gramster wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Hey bro...great to see you I emailed you wondering where you were?  Hope all is well. 

I'm good, brother. Been travelling back and forth a lot on business, and took a few weeks holiday.

Been reading your posts, and enjoying your edumacating. You ex theists are like 1 man armies!

I fricken' love it...lol

TGBaker wrote:
I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells....


 

 

IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

 

I can't understand how someone who is "pro life" can object to stem cell research. Unless they only really care about life before it is born. Maybe they have something. Once we come out of the womb we can become real "stinkers".

Anyway science and new technologies can be really something. So glad you are benefiting from this and doing well.

 

Grams, it's good to know that in this respect you are not a Bible-believing Christian.

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
?


TGBaker wrote:

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

[]

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells.... [/]


IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

gramster wrote:

I can't understand how someone who is "pro life" can object to stem cell research. Unless they only really care about life before it is born. Maybe they have something. Once we come out of the womb we can become real "stinkers".

Anyway science and new technologies can be really something. So glad you are benefiting from this and doing well.

Grams, it's good to know that in this respect you are not a Bible-believing Christian.

I really don't see much of a case against stem cell research in the bible. Of course one can always interpret things in such a way as to make it appear such. The important thing is how Baker and others are benefiting from this.

I have been an avid believer in the prospects of stem cell technology for many years now. I hope they keep pursuing this aggressively in the medical world. I have seen a lot of suffering and it is not pretty. Much of this may not be present in the not too distant future.

Go Science!

 

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:TGBaker

gramster wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

[]

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells.... [/]


IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

gramster wrote:

I can't understand how someone who is "pro life" can object to stem cell research. Unless they only really care about life before it is born. Maybe they have something. Once we come out of the womb we can become real "stinkers".

Anyway science and new technologies can be really something. So glad you are benefiting from this and doing well.

Grams, it's good to know that in this respect you are not a Bible-believing Christian.

I really don't see much of a case against stem cell research in the bible. Of course one can always interpret things in such a way as to make it appear such. The important thing is how Baker and others are benefiting from this.

I have been an avid believer in the prospects of stem cell technology for many years now. I hope they keep pursuing this aggressively in the medical world. I have seen a lot of suffering and it is not pretty. Much of this may not be present in the not too distant future.

Go Science!

 

 

Except when it involves taking embryonic stem cells from extras in fertility clinics. If we went by the Biblical opinion on abortion legality would never have been an issue - people would be doing it out in the street in public. If I recall God seemed to enjoy it when people ripped babies from wombs.

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I came from


TGBaker wrote:

I came from meeting the Doctor today. I have a 20 something year olds stem cells coming from over seas . It will change my blood type from A positive to his. So his immune system will eat up anything A positive including the leukemia. 

[]

That blows my mind...

I'm so glad you're doing better, dude!

The importance of stem cells.... [/]


IOW, the kind of progress that's possible when religion doesn't stand in the way...

gramster wrote:

I can't understand how someone who is "pro life" can object to stem cell research. Unless they only really care about life before it is born. Maybe they have something. Once we come out of the womb we can become real "stinkers".

Anyway science and new technologies can be really something. So glad you are benefiting from this and doing well.

Grams, it's good to know that in this respect you are not a Bible-believing Christian.

I really don't see much of a case against stem cell research in the bible. Of course one can always interpret things in such a way as to make it appear such. The important thing is how Baker and others are benefiting from this.

I have been an avid believer in the prospects of stem cell technology for many years now. I hope they keep pursuing this aggressively in the medical world. I have seen a lot of suffering and it is not pretty. Much of this may not be present in the not too distant future.

Go Science!

 

 

blogman wrote:

Except when it involves taking embryonic stem cells from extras in fertility clinics. If we went by the Biblical opinion on abortion legality would never have been an issue - people would be doing it out in the street in public. If I recall God seemed to enjoy it when people ripped babies from wombs.

Right! Believe what you want. I won't get into a "God Monster" let's who can be stupider discussion at this time. I need to get back to the issues. My point. I'm glad Baker is doing better. Once again. Go Science!


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Let me share a personal

Let me share a personal situation. As you know I have leukemia and am getting a bone marrow transplant which includes stem cells.  While I have insurance 20% of 1.3 million is still a lot to owe.  We thus have been educated in Fund Raising by our insurance company and our doctor's staff.  This has been my observation of those who give.

Now I have a diverse background of Christian affiliation given my education and church activities in the past. So much so that while I was in the hospital Christians that I have not seen in 20 years  popped in and out with prayers and concern.    However, as I posted on Facebook my fund raising endeavors I recieved a plethora of "thinking about you and I'll be praying" statements.  Donations to my funds and an 18 month child for whom I also was requesting assistance were zero. 

On the other hand my brother-in-law is Persian and an atheist (not to mention a great artist and Flemenco guitarist).  His community heard and cared about me his brother-in-law . They conducted a silent auction and donation dinner. I received over $6000 from people I do not even know.  Other donations have come from a non-believer attorney friend, an Apophatic mystical daoist Internet friend, medical professionals and hospital staff.  I think the prayer tool is a method which satisfies the Christian's human moral impulse by exchanging actual benevolent acts for the unreality of satisfying god.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Greetings "nude?"

nude00071 wrote:

 I was initially intrigued by this guys idiotic claims, but since he quickly got off his own topic and failed to supply any evidence, I passed over the bulk of this forum.  I don't know why some people chose to feed this troll.  I suspect he is from CARM, a site I visited once where they claim atheists are irrational and that Xtians hold the corner market on reason.  The arrogance and snide remarks this guy keeps putting forth is typical of them.  I see that he  is finally being nailed down, but the fact is that he views the Big Book of Babble as unshakably true, so he picks secular sources that agree with it, and the ones that don't are "conflicting".  No matter what you say to him, even when you prove him wrong, he will not admit it.  Just watch.  I suppose you babble scholars are getting a kick out of showing him, tho, so who am I to deny you your fun.

To this guy, we are deluded and evil, therefore anything we say/write is inherently without merit/truth.  Even if you shoot down every illogical meandering he comes up with, he'll just chalk it up to us being deceiving as, of course, we are of the devil.

I didn't see where he explained how his god commanding rape and other vile acts were actually good, or did he just continue to state that it was in god's unknowable realm?  There is no way to pin god down this way, since there is always a convenient qualifier to avoid responsibility in any way.  We can't know his unfathomable ways, prayer works, but isn't answered according to our wants and needs (so why bother?), to even question the scripture only proves you are evil and should be killed, etc..  So you can't win beyond just quit believing and forget the damn book.  When we acknowledge it, we give it credence.  Ignore it, burn any copies you come across, and hope they run out of money to print new ones.

As for gramps, he cannot help but lose because he cannot evn consider for a second that the scripture is even partially wrong.  If you can't admit the possibility, then how can it possibly be right?  Anything true can withstand the harshest criticism, not the other way around.

Greetings and Welcome.

Sorry I missed this and did not get back to you.

When I first visited this site I found it delightfully refreshing to have a format where one could say what they wanted, use sarcasm, insult and be insulted, and just plain have fun and nobody would be offended.

I don't mind or take it personally when someone gets "snarky", insulting, or just plain rude. That is part of the fun. I do find it interesting however that when a Christian "joins in all the fun" it suddenly becomes an issue. This is so disappointing, not to mention hypocritical.

I will continue however, to enjoy myself, using all these tools from time to time when they seem appropriate. So sorry you are so easily offended.

I haven't heard of CARM. Thanks for the pointer. I will look them up. It is always interesting to check out these sites and see what they are all about.

I have offered plenty of pieces of evidence that have been blatantly dismissed myself. Interestingly Christians don't seem to have any patent on this one. Your anti Christian bias and angst is duly noted. One can only wonder where all your hostility comes from.

By he way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:By he way,

gramster wrote:

By he way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

Quote:

A direct command of rape? No, the writers weren't stupid enough to give the God character that line. They did, however, give a lot of examples where he condoned it - here's one.

So in Numbers 31:18 when God told the Israelites to keep the virgins for themselves after killing off a lot of Midianites, he also made the virgins magically consent to whatever was going to be done to them?

or how about the time when he performed it?

You call it the way God came to earth as a baby named Jesus (you remember him - the other god you worship?). Most sane people would call it impregnating an underage girl who gave consent not to him but to his proxy.

Then again, it's just "blogman" showing you that you are a biblical illiterate and laughing at you when others show you that you are an illiterate when it comes to history as well. I gave up showing you history when you disregarded Maccoby without disputing any of his work. 

It's hard not to laugh when someone values their own unsubstantiated opinions over actual scholarship.

 

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote Function

gramster wrote:

By the way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

gadfly wrote:

A direct command of rape? No, the writers weren't stupid enough to give the God character that line. They did, however, give a lot of examples where he condoned it - here's one.

So in Numbers 31:18 when God told the Israelites to keep the virgins for themselves after killing off a lot of Midianites, he also made the virgins magically consent to whatever was going to be done to them?

or how about the time when he performed it?

You call it the way God came to earth as a baby named Jesus (you remember him - the other god you worship?). Most sane people would call it impregnating an underage girl who gave consent not to him but to his proxy.

Then again, it's just "blogman" showing you that you are a biblical illiterate and laughing at you when others show you that you are an illiterate when it comes to history as well. I gave up showing you history when you disregarded Maccoby without disputing any of his work. 

It's hard not to laugh when someone values their own unsubstantiated opinions over actual scholarship.

I have corrected your misuse of the quote function. All you have to do is count the quotes and /quotes to get this one right. PJTS can instruct you further if needed.

Yes, I am familiar with that text and its context. God was "providing" for the young women instead of allowing them to be killed or left to fend for themselves. In those times a young woman left alone was in a very bad place.

By having the Israelites integrate them in and take them as wives, they would be taken care of.

And the Jesus thing. That's just plain "stupid".

When you laugh at me I take it as a complement.

If you were to agree with me now that would be scary.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:gramster

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

By the way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

gadfly wrote:

A direct command of rape? No, the writers weren't stupid enough to give the God character that line. They did, however, give a lot of examples where he condoned it - here's one.

So in Numbers 31:18 when God told the Israelites to keep the virgins for themselves after killing off a lot of Midianites, he also made the virgins magically consent to whatever was going to be done to them?

or how about the time when he performed it?

You call it the way God came to earth as a baby named Jesus (you remember him - the other god you worship?). Most sane people would call it impregnating an underage girl who gave consent not to him but to his proxy.

Then again, it's just "blogman" showing you that you are a biblical illiterate and laughing at you when others show you that you are an illiterate when it comes to history as well. I gave up showing you history when you disregarded Maccoby without disputing any of his work. 

It's hard not to laugh when someone values their own unsubstantiated opinions over actual scholarship.

I have corrected your misuse of the quote function. All you have to do is count the quotes and /quotes to get this one right. PJTS can instruct you further if needed.

Yes, I am familiar with that text and its context. God was "providing" for the young women instead of allowing them to be killed or left to fend for themselves. In those times a young woman left alone was in a very bad place.

By having the Israelites integrate them in and take them as wives, they would be taken care of.

And the Jesus thing. That's just plain "stupid".

When you laugh at me I take it as a complement.

If you were to agree with me now that would be scary.

So God was providing for these young women by allowing them to be sex slaves (there is nothing in the Bible where God tells the Israelites to marry them - that is an assumption you pulled from your hind parts)? Interesting.

As for the Jesus thing, you disagree. I figured as much but a disagreement is not a refutation. But I forget - that's how you frame "arguments", isn't it?

If I were to agree with you, that would make me a Christian. I'd just hope to be a little more honest and moral than you. Oh wait - I'm already more honest than you and more moral than your God now. Never mind.

"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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Dirty Minds

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

gramster wrote:

By the way, where in the bible did God command anyone to commit rape? You guys seem to really get hung up on this one.

gadfly wrote:

A direct command of rape? No, the writers weren't stupid enough to give the God character that line. They did, however, give a lot of examples where he condoned it - here's one.

So in Numbers 31:18 when God told the Israelites to keep the virgins for themselves after killing off a lot of Midianites, he also made the virgins magically consent to whatever was going to be done to them?

or how about the time when he performed it?

You call it the way God came to earth as a baby named Jesus (you remember him - the other god you worship?). Most sane people would call it impregnating an underage girl who gave consent not to him but to his proxy.

Then again, it's just "blogman" showing you that you are a biblical illiterate and laughing at you when others show you that you are an illiterate when it comes to history as well. I gave up showing you history when you disregarded Maccoby without disputing any of his work. 

It's hard not to laugh when someone values their own unsubstantiated opinions over actual scholarship.

I have corrected your misuse of the quote function. All you have to do is count the quotes and /quotes to get this one right. PJTS can instruct you further if needed.

Yes, I am familiar with that text and its context. God was "providing" for the young women instead of allowing them to be killed or left to fend for themselves. In those times a young woman left alone was in a very bad place.

By having the Israelites integrate them in and take them as wives, they would be taken care of.

And the Jesus thing. That's just plain "stupid".

When you laugh at me I take it as a complement.

If you were to agree with me now that would be scary.

So God was providing for these young women by allowing them to be sex slaves (there is nothing in the Bible where God tells the Israelites to marry them - that is an assumption you pulled from your hind parts)? Interesting.

As for the Jesus thing, you disagree. I figured as much but a disagreement is not a refutation. But I forget - that's how you frame "arguments", isn't it?

If I were to agree with you, that would make me a Christian. I'd just hope to be a little more honest and moral than you. Oh wait - I'm already more honest than you and more moral than your God now. Never mind.

Interesting how you have such a perverted mind. You assume these girls are being raped without any evidence or inquiry into the matter.

The word used here that has been translated "keep for yourselves", chayah, includes "spare", "keep alive", "save alive", and "nourish up". It does not include rape.

The Israelites already had instructions regarding the treatment of women and that did not allow rape. They took them into their households and raised up the very young, and at some point would be allowed to marry those of age when the time came.

If God had "wiped them out" you would have blasted Him for that. If He had left them abandoned to fend for themselves you would have blasted Him as well. As it is you are making baseless charges against God for NOT killing them, but providing for them.

What a Dirty Mind you have.