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.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: You

freeminer wrote:

 


You advocate 'science'...........and call these bland assertions evidence!!!!!! Verify that codes self-generate, verify that a cow turned into a whale............stories you tell yourself!! According to your prerequisites evolution is not science......... as an advocate of science, I agree!

    Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt ( Adam ) and a human rib ( Eve ) ?  If not why give credence to this equally ludicrous origin of humanity ?  

   Following biblical tradition, have paleontologists discovered any human skeletons of "pre-flood" era that would verify the people were living hundreds and hundreds of years ( ie, Methuselah, 900+ years ) as part of their typical life span ?   Any forensic discoveries that have verified this utterly biblical assertion ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


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

freeminer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's simpler than that, freeminer. You have to choose which promise of God is the one God really meant to keep

From the evidence, he kept neither..

sorry........can't do much about your inability to handle evidence rationally.

It is difficult to do when one hasn't been given evidence.

"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


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

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

You must be terribly afraid of actually examining the prophecies of Daniel themselves to be throwing out this much bull. It is more than obvious that these prophecies were written in symbolic language. The text itself makes this plain. The beasts represent kingdoms or powers, the horn is the first king etc.

As for God claiming He loves us and wants us to be in heaven, there is no reason to believe this to by symbolic.

Quit throwing crap in the fan. That's all your doing.

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves.

Gramps

You mean because I have seem several different interpretations of something written in symbolic language that supposedly  was perfectly clear to both Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?

Or because I don't like to accept interpretations that are made that are based on fear of the EU or the old Common Market? 

If I'm using a fan, it's because I'm clearing away your crap. It seems I need a larger fan.

Dear Mr Gadfly,

Enough of this drivel. We are far enough along now. The main purpose of examining Daniel is to prove that God exists. We don't need to do a complete study on eschatology. I have put forward the nations I believe these prophecies clearly point to in Daniel 7. I have also asserted that no other set of powers can rationally fit this prophecy. You have continually asserted that there are many interpretations that fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one. Now it is time for YOU to suggest the interpretation that YOU believe will hold up best to critical analysis. We will analyse both and see where the evidence falls.

If you can not show that my view does not work, or come up with another one that does, than we have it. If one, and only one interpretation fits this prophecy, than somebody in the 2nd century BC, or 3rd as freeminer was so helpful to point out, or 6th as the book claims, predicted the rise and fall of Rome. They also predicted that Rome would not be conquered by the next great empire, but be divided and stay that way. They mentioned 10 kingdoms that would come out of the breakup of the Roman empire, and that three would be wiped out. The other 7 would be around when the Lord comes. The evidence of history proves this to be true.

Only God could do that. Either prove my interpretation wrong, come up with a viable alternative, or admit that God exists. Blogging is easy. Now is the time to cut the crap and show your cards.

I appreciate Freeminer's patience in allowing an old man the opportunity to have first crack at this. It means a lot to me. I also appreciate all of the good info he has brought to the site. When I get the opportunity I look forward to exploring his info more. But for now I will continue my focus on Daniel.

I have made my challenge. Prove my view wrong, Come up with a viable alternative, or acknowledge God. As for me, I see God's fingerprints all over the book of Daniel.

YOUR MOVE.

No problem.

History actually stands against you.

The empires fell but God had nothing to do with their fall. Where was the "stone uncut by human hands" that struck the statue? Oh wait...God's obfuscations to cover for the acts of man, right? Why do you insist on giving God credit for stuff he didn't do?

As for the predictions, a keen student of history can predict the fall of an empire. Or do you really think Babylon was the first empire to fall in human history?

My cards have been on the table while you've been busy marking yours. I gave you a viable interpretation. Others have done the same. You've ignored them and gone on with your interpretation because you don't like the others. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You can see God's prints all over Daniel? That's not hard to believe. You just need to be more careful handling things with ink on your fingers.

I don't have to prove your position wrong to question it (though as I said I gave you a viable interpretation). If you and your magic man can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe you need to re-evaluate the magic.

"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
freeminer wrote:jcgadfly

freeminer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's simpler than that, freeminer. You have to choose which promise of God is the one God really meant to keep

From the evidence, he kept neither..

sorry........can't do much about your inability to handle evidence rationally.

The evidence shows the god was either bi-polar or schizophrenic constantly changing his covenants and expectations.

Which is no surprise, considering the origin of the stories is from men,

 Seeing rationality in the explanations and stories of one group or culture in ancient times that lacked considerable knowledge of science, the real world, and attributing that what they did not understand to an unseen god indicates you really don't care what is real and what is not. You are most welcome to think the spoon is real.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:These ten tribes

Quote:

These ten tribes correspond to the ten toes on the image, and the ten horns on the beast of Daniel 7. The three tribes that were destroyed are the three kings subdued by the little horn.    

gramps......on what scriptural basis do you include only nations of Western Europe? The Roman Empire covered a good deal more territory than is occupied by ten contemporary nations.

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Seeing rationality

Quote:

 Seeing rationality in the explanations and stories of one group or culture in ancient times that lacked considerable knowledge of science, the real world, and attributing that what they did not understand to an unseen god indicates you really don't care what is real and what is not. You are most welcome to think the spoon is real.

I'm happy to discuss the atheist's relationship with reality in due course.  

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:to do when one hasn't

Quote:

to do when one hasn't been given evidence.

I gave the Septuagint as evidence that the late authorship of Daniel is impossible - it remains unrefuted. Furthermore, not a single basis has been offered for rationally doubting the historicity of scripture.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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

freeminer wrote:

 

 

Quote:
However, appearing to be a god may just be incorrectly understood if you don't grasp the technology. Thus. the possibility is open Jesus was an alien from another world, which is what is said here.

There are billions and billions of stars with the possibility of hosting the homeworld of Jesus.

Since Jesus claimed to be not of this world that can only mean he was an alien.

..........and having resurrected he shot off at the speed of light  and hasn't arrived home yet!!!! 

 now you've entirely lost it.........claiming to be rational, you prefer any nonsense to God's actual communication to us. The remainder of your ramblings comprise a self-induced search after diversion. We each have around seventy years to discern what truth is.......short of illness or accident.....on the face of it one would think that would be sufficient time.

 

 

I asked you earlier do you consider the writings of scripture to be true unless proven to be not true and you said:

freeminer wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Do you see scripture as true unless it can be shown to be not true?

 

by no means..........if I did, then the standard atheist "fairies at the bottom of the garden'' jibe, would be justified  

However, you continue to puzzle piece fit to justify the beliefs you hold. Such as your claim of prophecies you listed.

If you looked at this in a neutral position you should have taken each OT reference and dissected them listing the possibilities and motivations for the writing. Instead, you proceed to take the hearsay claim from the NT to show it fulfilled the supposed claim.

In many cases the puzzle piece fitting used writing alleged to be David from Psalms that had no relationship at all to any prophecy or messiah expectations. Yet instead of addressing why this had anything to do with a messiah claim, you ignore the questioning of using the prayers/rants/complaints of the writer to his god.

A former priest and fairly famous writer, James Carroll who wrote the book "Constantine's Sword" explains in this book how such things could have happened to create the puzzle piece fitting you so hold dear. Refer to chapter 12 of this book, pp122-134. He calls what occurred after the execution of Jesus by the Romans as a "Healing Circle". What he says is the group was likely in hiding afraid that they too what be executed and in total shock, as the man they thought was the mashiach had been killed. They no doubt consulted scriptures and found things that to them was, "oh look, this is just like Jesus" and so it develops into "history remembered".

You OTOH aren't in need of consoling yourself on the sudden loss of a friend and loved one you thought was the mashiach. You can examine how these supposed prophecies including the highly inappropriate claims of prophecies in the writings of Psalms and see it in the open without puzzle piece fitting. That you don't says, that you really do not consider scripture as you claimed and consider it all to be true unless otherwise proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

With that in mind, we will beat each other senseless from our both very different perspectives and never change the understanding of the other.

As I have said, you can think you are eating steak if you want and think the spoon is real. No, problem at all, feel free it's your 70+ years you will devote, not mine.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
Put up or Shut Up

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

Your still just blogging. There have been many isolated references to kingdoms, but nothing cohesive that makes any sense. Please list specifically just which kingdoms YOU believe can fit into the list of kingdoms in Daniel 7. You say I ignored past suggestions, that's because I haven't yet seen a list of kingdoms put forward. In specific I want to see a list of kingdoms that you believe match Daniel 7. Give me that and I will critically analyze those kingdoms to see if they can stand the test of historical evidence. It's time to stop "pooping around" and show your cards. Answer my challenge or admit defeat.

Sorry to get so "testy" but you know how "just farting around" gets on my nerves.

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

You must be terribly afraid of actually examining the prophecies of Daniel themselves to be throwing out this much bull. It is more than obvious that these prophecies were written in symbolic language. The text itself makes this plain. The beasts represent kingdoms or powers, the horn is the first king etc.

As for God claiming He loves us and wants us to be in heaven, there is no reason to believe this to by symbolic.

Quit throwing crap in the fan. That's all your doing.

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves.

Gramps

You mean because I have seem several different interpretations of something written in symbolic language that supposedly  was perfectly clear to both Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?

Or because I don't like to accept interpretations that are made that are based on fear of the EU or the old Common Market? 

If I'm using a fan, it's because I'm clearing away your crap. It seems I need a larger fan.

Dear Mr Gadfly,

Enough of this drivel. We are far enough along now. The main purpose of examining Daniel is to prove that God exists. We don't need to do a complete study on eschatology. I have put forward the nations I believe these prophecies clearly point to in Daniel 7. I have also asserted that no other set of powers can rationally fit this prophecy. You have continually asserted that there are many interpretations that fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one. Now it is time for YOU to suggest the interpretation that YOU believe will hold up best to critical analysis. We will analyse both and see where the evidence falls.

If you can not show that my view does not work, or come up with another one that does, than we have it. If one, and only one interpretation fits this prophecy, than somebody in the 2nd century BC, or 3rd as freeminer was so helpful to point out, or 6th as the book claims, predicted the rise and fall of Rome. They also predicted that Rome would not be conquered by the next great empire, but be divided and stay that way. They mentioned 10 kingdoms that would come out of the breakup of the Roman empire, and that three would be wiped out. The other 7 would be around when the Lord comes. The evidence of history proves this to be true.

Only God could do that. Either prove my interpretation wrong, come up with a viable alternative, or admit that God exists. Blogging is easy. Now is the time to cut the crap and show your cards.

I appreciate Freeminer's patience in allowing an old man the opportunity to have first crack at this. It means a lot to me. I also appreciate all of the good info he has brought to the site. When I get the opportunity I look forward to exploring his info more. But for now I will continue my focus on Daniel.

I have made my challenge. Prove my view wrong, Come up with a viable alternative, or acknowledge God. As for me, I see God's fingerprints all over the book of Daniel.

YOUR MOVE.

No problem.

History actually stands against you.

The empires fell but God had nothing to do with their fall. Where was the "stone uncut by human hands" that struck the statue? Oh wait...God's obfuscations to cover for the acts of man, right? Why do you insist on giving God credit for stuff he didn't do?

As for the predictions, a keen student of history can predict the fall of an empire. Or do you really think Babylon was the first empire to fall in human history?

My cards have been on the table while you've been busy marking yours. I gave you a viable interpretation. Others have done the same. You've ignored them and gone on with your interpretation because you don't like the others. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You can see God's prints all over Daniel? That's not hard to believe. You just need to be more careful handling things with ink on your fingers.

I don't have to prove your position wrong to question it (though as I said I gave you a viable interpretation). If you and your magic man can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe you need to re-evaluate the magic.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:to do

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

to do when one hasn't been given evidence.

I gave the Septuagint as evidence that the late authorship of Daniel is impossible - it remains unrefuted. Furthermore, not a single basis has been offered for rationally doubting the historicity of scripture.

so the events in Daniel occurred even earlier than the predictions written about it? Not possible.

Of course, there is also the problem of the book being put together in the late 2nd century (sorry, I can't help your stance against scholarly consensus) but having various authors. Perhaps Daniels stuff come from his time - the prophesies came later from other hands. That also allows for prophecies after the fact - which is my main contention.

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No problem.History

Quote:
No problem.

History actually stands against you.

which history ?..... please give examples

Quote:
The empires fell but God had nothing to do with their fall.

your evidence is? 

Quote:
Where was the "stone uncut by human hands" that struck the statue? Oh wait...God's obfuscations to cover for the acts of man, right? Why do you insist on giving God credit for stuff he didn't do?

Acts 4:11
He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. '
Acts 4:10-12 (in Context)

1 Peter 2:6
For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
1 Peter 2:5-7

Luke 20:18
Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
Luke 20:17-19 (in Context)

Quote:
As for the predictions, a keen student of history can predict the fall of an empire. Or do you really think Babylon was the first empire to fall in human history?

even empires as yet unheard of!!!!!

Quote:
My cards have been on the table while you've been busy marking yours. I gave you a viable interpretation. Others have done the same. You've ignored them and gone on with your interpretation because you don't like the others. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

where?....you've spent all your time trying to diss the real one.

Quote:
You can see God's prints all over Daniel? That's not hard to believe. You just need to be more careful handling things with ink on your fingers.

I don't have to prove your position wrong to question it (though as I said I gave you a viable interpretation).

except that your "interpretation" doesn't correspond with the text. 

Quote:
If you and your magic man can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe you need to re-evaluate the magic.

there was a point at which I thought you were above all this 'sky-fairy' bilge.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:freeminer

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

to do when one hasn't been given evidence.

I gave the Septuagint as evidence that the late authorship of Daniel is impossible - it remains unrefuted. Furthermore, not a single basis has been offered for rationally doubting the historicity of scripture.

so the events in Daniel occurred even earlier than the predictions written about it? Not possible.

Of course, there is also the problem of the book being put together in the late 2nd century (sorry, I can't help your stance against scholarly consensus) but having various authors. Perhaps Daniels stuff come from his time - the prophesies came later from other hands. That also allows for prophecies after the fact - which is my main contention.

which all goes to prove you can't follow evidence when it's stuffed right in front of you.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:No

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
No problem.

History actually stands against you.

which history ?..... please give examples

Quote:
The empires fell but God had nothing to do with their fall.

your evidence is? 

Quote:
Where was the "stone uncut by human hands" that struck the statue? Oh wait...God's obfuscations to cover for the acts of man, right? Why do you insist on giving God credit for stuff he didn't do?

Acts 4:11
He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. '
Acts 4:10-12 (in Context)

1 Peter 2:6
For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
1 Peter 2:5-7

Luke 20:18
Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
Luke 20:17-19 (in Context)

Quote:
As for the predictions, a keen student of history can predict the fall of an empire. Or do you really think Babylon was the first empire to fall in human history?

even empires as yet unheard of!!!!!

Quote:
My cards have been on the table while you've been busy marking yours. I gave you a viable interpretation. Others have done the same. You've ignored them and gone on with your interpretation because you don't like the others. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

where?....you've spent all your time trying to diss the real one.

Quote:
You can see God's prints all over Daniel? That's not hard to believe. You just need to be more careful handling things with ink on your fingers.

I don't have to prove your position wrong to question it (though as I said I gave you a viable interpretation).

except that your "interpretation" doesn't correspond with the text. 

Quote:
If you and your magic man can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe you need to re-evaluate the magic.

there was a point at which I thought you were above all this 'sky-fairy' bilge.

Funny that, neither you or gramps have come up with a counter, merely insisting that your own interpretation is the best.

You do realize you contradicted yourself, right? Saying I provided no interpretation while saying my interpretation was wrong. never mind, maybe you don't.

You want me to be above "God as sky-fairy"? Prove he's something else. Your descriptions and definitions for him forbid another interpretation.

How about this one instead? Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination or start worshipping people. Don't worship the creation, worship the creator. You folk are fond of saying it - just not doing it.

"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


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

freeminer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

to do when one hasn't been given evidence.

I gave the Septuagint as evidence that the late authorship of Daniel is impossible - it remains unrefuted. Furthermore, not a single basis has been offered for rationally doubting the historicity of scripture.

so the events in Daniel occurred even earlier than the predictions written about it? Not possible.

Of course, there is also the problem of the book being put together in the late 2nd century (sorry, I can't help your stance against scholarly consensus) but having various authors. Perhaps Daniels stuff come from his time - the prophesies came later from other hands. That also allows for prophecies after the fact - which is my main contention.

which all goes to prove you can't follow evidence when it's stuffed right in front of you.

And you don't like evidence that might make you think outside of your interpretation. Why does that scare you so?

"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
Put up or Shut Up

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

Your still just blogging. There have been many isolated references to kingdoms, but nothing cohesive that makes any sense. Please list specifically just which kingdoms YOU believe can fit into the list of kingdoms in Daniel 7. You say I ignored past suggestions, that's because I haven't yet seen a list of kingdoms put forward. In specific I want to see a list of kingdoms that you believe match Daniel 7. Give me that and I will critically analyze those kingdoms to see if they can stand the test of historical evidence. It's time to stop "pooping around" and show your cards. Answer my challenge or admit defeat.

Sorry to get so "testy" but you know how "just farting around" gets on my nerves.

In bible prophecy time can be either literal or symbolic. It is important to know the difference. A day can be one literal day, or it can be symbolic for a year. One example is in Ezekiel 4:6 "I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the number of years of their iniquity". We will also discover that some of the Daniel prophecies can not be referring to literal time and make any sense.

In the bible we also find a month to be equal to 30 days. The flood story gives us a good example of this. Genesis 7:11 the flood event starts on the 2nd month 17th day, and Genesis 8:4 it ends on the 7th month 17th day. This comes out to exactly 5 months. In Genesis 8:24 it says the "water prevailed on the earth 150 days". 150 days/5 months = 30 days.

In Daniel the term Time or Times is also used. The term time is translated to equal one year and times or (two times) refers to 2 years. The word used is "iddan" translated by Strongs Hebrew Lexicoon "a set time: technically a year: time".

As we get into time prophecies we will hold the position that the passage could be literal or symbolic. We will examine both possibilities and see which makes sense.

In other word, the prophecy can be interpreted to fit whatever conclusion is desired.

This issue is why the Bible "prophecies have a lot in common with the "prophecies" of Nostradamus.

Not at all. The prophecies in Daniel are very specific and detailed. A detailed examination will eliminate all but the correct interpretations. That is why it is important to establish sound basic principles.

I have not seen any Nostradamus prophecies that come anywhere close to paralleling those in the bible.

If they are "very specific and detailed" why do they have such varied interpretations (all of them claiming to be correct)?

Let me rephrase your question. If the prophecies in Daniel which are given largely in symbolic terms are very specific and detailed than why do people (who, if you get 4 into the same room can't seem to all agree on anything) have varied interpretations?

Why do scientists so often disagree when examining the same evidence? Why are some people Republicans, others Democrats, and others even Libertarians? That's the nature of mankind. It wouldn't be expected to be any different with Bible Prophecy.

That shouldn't keep us from closely examining the evidence. A close examination will show that there is only one set of powers that this prophecy can be referring to. No other powers on earth will stand up to close examination.

 

Simple, the prophecies didn't come from God. I thought this was going to be hard. See, you forgot to add that if these people believe in the Bible and that it was inspired by God and that these prophecies came from God -they should only have one interpretation. "Thus saith the Lord" shouldn't allow for wiggle room.

Why do scientists disagree when viewing evidence? Mostly because of a suspicion that the evidence is incomplete not that the evidence doesn't lead to the conclusion. Again, if it's evidence from a Gos, shouldn't it be incontrovertible? should really be playing the game of "When God said this he really didn't mean..."?

Not against closely examining evidence - I hope you bring some. I don't expect you'll do this but as a hint - "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." isn't evidence.

Your logic is faulty. You once again fail to use the much touted "critical analysis" made so much a while back.

It doesn't take much gray matter to figure this one out. If God had written these prophecies in a manner in which they would be easily understood by all, it would probably have caused all kinds of problems He would have wanted to avoid.

If a would be ruler had lofty ambitions that conflicted with these prophecies he would likely become very hostile to the writings and the people that had it. Much persecution would likely result and destruction of the writings as well.

If an existing ruler that wanted his kingdom to "last forever" read the prophecies, he would likely react much the same. Not to mention the effect making these prophecies easily understandable by all would have on the outcome of history.

God also needed to be relatively brief. These writings would have to be hand copied and passed down for centuries. God did all these things very well. Those writings would be understand by many at the appropriate time intended. Others would take these prophecies and try to force them to fit their own personal interpretations.

Man simply uses the prophecies to do what he does best. Disagree.

I don't really want to waste too much time on "stupid arguments" that serve only to delay getting in to the prophecies themselves so I won't. I will continue forward in making my case. There is only one interpretation of these prophecies that holds water under close examination. All others will fail.

 

So your God obfuscates information intentionally? Isn't God not supposed to be the one who is the author of confusion?

How does one know when he is being straight with them? Was God spreading a load of bull when he claimed that he loved us and wanted Heaven for us? 

You must be terribly afraid of actually examining the prophecies of Daniel themselves to be throwing out this much bull. It is more than obvious that these prophecies were written in symbolic language. The text itself makes this plain. The beasts represent kingdoms or powers, the horn is the first king etc.

As for God claiming He loves us and wants us to be in heaven, there is no reason to believe this to by symbolic.

Quit throwing crap in the fan. That's all your doing.

As for myself I will continue the examination of the actual prophecies themselves.

Gramps

You mean because I have seem several different interpretations of something written in symbolic language that supposedly  was perfectly clear to both Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?

Or because I don't like to accept interpretations that are made that are based on fear of the EU or the old Common Market? 

If I'm using a fan, it's because I'm clearing away your crap. It seems I need a larger fan.

Dear Mr Gadfly,

Enough of this drivel. We are far enough along now. The main purpose of examining Daniel is to prove that God exists. We don't need to do a complete study on eschatology. I have put forward the nations I believe these prophecies clearly point to in Daniel 7. I have also asserted that no other set of powers can rationally fit this prophecy. You have continually asserted that there are many interpretations that fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one. Now it is time for YOU to suggest the interpretation that YOU believe will hold up best to critical analysis. We will analyse both and see where the evidence falls.

If you can not show that my view does not work, or come up with another one that does, than we have it. If one, and only one interpretation fits this prophecy, than somebody in the 2nd century BC, or 3rd as freeminer was so helpful to point out, or 6th as the book claims, predicted the rise and fall of Rome. They also predicted that Rome would not be conquered by the next great empire, but be divided and stay that way. They mentioned 10 kingdoms that would come out of the breakup of the Roman empire, and that three would be wiped out. The other 7 would be around when the Lord comes. The evidence of history proves this to be true.

Only God could do that. Either prove my interpretation wrong, come up with a viable alternative, or admit that God exists. Blogging is easy. Now is the time to cut the crap and show your cards.

I appreciate Freeminer's patience in allowing an old man the opportunity to have first crack at this. It means a lot to me. I also appreciate all of the good info he has brought to the site. When I get the opportunity I look forward to exploring his info more. But for now I will continue my focus on Daniel.

I have made my challenge. Prove my view wrong, Come up with a viable alternative, or acknowledge God. As for me, I see God's fingerprints all over the book of Daniel.

YOUR MOVE.

No problem.

History actually stands against you.

The empires fell but God had nothing to do with their fall. Where was the "stone uncut by human hands" that struck the statue? Oh wait...God's obfuscations to cover for the acts of man, right? Why do you insist on giving God credit for stuff he didn't do?

As for the predictions, a keen student of history can predict the fall of an empire. Or do you really think Babylon was the first empire to fall in human history?

My cards have been on the table while you've been busy marking yours. I gave you a viable interpretation. Others have done the same. You've ignored them and gone on with your interpretation because you don't like the others. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You can see God's prints all over Daniel? That's not hard to believe. You just need to be more careful handling things with ink on your fingers.

I don't have to prove your position wrong to question it (though as I said I gave you a viable interpretation). If you and your magic man can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe you need to re-evaluate the magic.

Your still just blogging. A few individual kingdoms have been thrown out, but nothing cohesive that makes any sense. Specifically I have challenged YOU to put forth a set of kingdoms that YOU believe can match the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 7. If you believe you already gave me this reference the quote. You say I just ignore kingdoms suggested, I won't ignore the ones you give me now. I am not limiting the possibilities to just the Mediterranean or Europe, you choose. Not only the whole world, but beyond if you please. Now answer my challenge or admit defeat. Show your cards.

Sorry to get so "testy" but you know how all this "farting around" gets on my nerves.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Prove your god is not a human construct

jcgadfly wrote:

 Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination 

Excellent point JC,

Since Gramps started this thread as "A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths" Proving his god is not a human construct would seem to be the #1 item on his list. That would seem to be the most important thing that Gramps and Freeminer should do. As the other discussions have developed into "I know it's true, it is, it is",  because that is my interpretation and we are saying no. it's not, show me the proof and only more interpretation is given, not proof, these discussion will never progress from a deadlock.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination 

Excellent point JC,

Since Gramps started this thread as "A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths" Proving his god is not a human construct would seem to be the #1 item on his list. That would seem to be the most important thing that Gramps and Freeminer should do. As the other discussions have developed into "I know it's true, it is, it is",  because that is my interpretation and we are saying no. it's not, show me the proof and only more interpretation is given, not proof, these discussion will never progress from a deadlock.

 

You must be blind. I am proving that God is not a human construct. If God can look into the future than He certainly can not be a human construct. I have shown specifically that the powers shown in Daniel 7 came true just as they were predicted to. This being written in the 3rd century BC could not have been known without divine revelation. I have not said "I know it's true, it is, it is", I have proved it is backed by irrefutable history.

I stopped short with Rome and the breakup of Rome since there was so much crap being thrown around. That is far enough to prove that God is the author of Daniel. Now I have challenged the assertions that there are many interpretations that can fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one.

I have made the challenge to either prove my interpretation does not work, or show me one that does. You can not. That is why all you can do is "fart around". Once again. Put up or Shut up.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:by no

 

Quote:
by no means..........if I did, then the standard atheist "fairies at the bottom of the garden'' jibe, would be justified  

Quote:
However, you continue to puzzle piece fit to justify the beliefs you hold. Such as your claim of prophecies you listed.

the word we use for "puzzle piece" is "exegesis"

Quote:
If you looked at this in a neutral position

were you about to claim a "neutral position"? 

Quote:
you should have taken each OT reference and dissected them listing the possibilities and motivations for the writing. Instead, you proceed to take the hearsay claim from the NT to show it fulfilled the supposed claim.

the term we use for "hearsay" is "divinely inspired".........and as already pointed out, "eyewitness" is the appropriate word. The reason we haven't come up with alternative rational explanations is simply:

a] there aren't any

b] that was your job.

Jesus didn't have control over whether his clothes were shared out or whether his bones were broken or whether he was ''pierced' or whether he would be buried in a rich man's tomb...... no doubt you'll come up with alternatives. 

 

In many cases the puzzle piece fitting used writing alleged to be David from Psalms that had no relationship at all to any prophecy or messiah expectations. Yet instead of addressing why this had anything to do with a messiah claim, you ignore the questioning of using the prayers/rants/complaints of the writer to his god.

 

 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8     Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9     Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
because David wasn't "begotten" perhaps?!

14     I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15     My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16     For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17     I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18     They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.


19     But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee

obviously this is the story of, 'King David visits the charity shop!

21     They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

perhaps David's wine cellar's a bit depleted!

 

Quote:
A former priest and fairly famous writer, James Carroll who wrote the book "Constantine's Sword" explains in this book how such things could have happened to create the puzzle piece fitting you so hold dear. Refer to chapter 12 of this book, pp122-134. He calls what occurred after the execution of Jesus by the Romans as a "Healing Circle". What he says is the group was likely in hiding afraid that they too what be executed and in total shock, as the man they thought was the mashiach had been killed. They no doubt consulted scriptures and found things that to them was, "oh look, this is just like Jesus" and so it develops into "history remembered".

aah! so that's why they thought martyrdom was worthwhile!

Quote:
You OTOH aren't in need of consoling yourself on the sudden loss of a friend and loved one you thought was the mashiach. You can examine how these supposed prophecies including the highly inappropriate claims of prophecies in the writings of Psalms and see it in the open without puzzle piece fitting.

which did you have in mind? What d'you mean by 'inappropriate'?

Quote:
That you don't says, that you really do not consider scripture as you claimed and consider it all to be true unless otherwise proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
it is in the nature of prophecy that it's scattered through scripture.

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination 

Excellent point JC,

Since Gramps started this thread as "A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths" Proving his god is not a human construct would seem to be the #1 item on his list. That would seem to be the most important thing that Gramps and Freeminer should do. As the other discussions have developed into "I know it's true, it is, it is",  because that is my interpretation and we are saying no. it's not, show me the proof and only more interpretation is given, not proof, these discussion will never progress from a deadlock.

 

You must be blind. I am proving that God is not a human construct. If God can look into the future than He certainly can not be a human construct. I have shown specifically that the powers shown in Daniel 7 came true just as they were predicted to. This being written in the 3rd century BC could not have been known without divine revelation. I have not said "I know it's true, it is, it is", I have proved it is backed by irrefutable history.

I stopped short with Rome and the breakup of Rome since there was so much crap being thrown around. That is far enough to prove that God is the author of Daniel. Now I have challenged the assertions that there are many interpretations that can fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one.

I have made the challenge to either prove my interpretation does not work, or show me one that does. You can not. That is why all you can do is "fart around". Once again. Put up or Shut up.

And you haven't proved that your god can look into the future. You simply believe that he can. The basis of your belief is an interpretation long after the fact that "God really meant this one empire when he said <x>"

By claiming that interpretations other than your own you consider "crap", you've shown yourself incapable of doing other than ignoring opposing views. I have "put up" as have others. Your reasoning for dismissing them is "Well, they can't be right because...they just CAN'T".

God wrote Daniel? You'd think he'd have the testicular fortitude to stand by his words instead of couching it in symbolism. They haven't come true as a new empire has not reformed as you claim. The EU (the countries you are touting as the reformed Roman Empire) is not an empire. It's not even an impressive trade union as there are much stronger ones out there. Personally, I'm waiting for these "predictions" to be re-interpreted and moved to Asia. china and Japan are easily more bad-ass in commerce than the EU. China also has its own nukes.

"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
Your Interpretations of Writing is Not Proof

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination 

Excellent point JC,

Since Gramps started this thread as "A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths" Proving his god is not a human construct would seem to be the #1 item on his list. That would seem to be the most important thing that Gramps and Freeminer should do. As the other discussions have developed into "I know it's true, it is, it is",  because that is my interpretation and we are saying no. it's not, show me the proof and only more interpretation is given, not proof, these discussion will never progress from a deadlock.

 

You must be blind. I am proving that God is not a human construct. If God can look into the future than He certainly can not be a human construct. I have shown specifically that the powers shown in Daniel 7 came true just as they were predicted to. This being written in the 3rd century BC could not have been known without divine revelation. I have not said "I know it's true, it is, it is", I have proved it is backed by irrefutable history.

I stopped short with Rome and the breakup of Rome since there was so much crap being thrown around. That is far enough to prove that God is the author of Daniel. Now I have challenged the assertions that there are many interpretations that can fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one.

I have made the challenge to either prove my interpretation does not work, or show me one that does. You can not. That is why all you can do is "fart around". Once again. Put up or Shut up.

Your interpretations of symbolism and allegorical texts, from long ago with translational issues with puzzle piece fitting is not anyway proving your god is not a human construct.

You start  with "prove my interpretation does not work". This means it is conjecture and has no basis only "your interpretation". 

Prove it, not with assertions of what you think was meant in the text, actual proof. Or do you not have any?

The problem with ancient texts is translation and understanding. What you are doing is "puzzle piece fitting", as was mentioned by James Carroll in "Constantine's Sword" in regard to the "healing circle". All you are showing is you can take vague descriptions which have no names associated with them and bang them into a puzzle to build your constructed proof or interpretation.

This is no different than the Hindus that have equally unsubstantiated texts that are unproveable:

The Hindus also have ancient texts such as the Rig Veda and the Mahabharata. In the Mahahharata it appears there was a war using advanced technology.

see this for a discussion of the Mahabharata - http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/article:alien-presence-during-mahabharata which has a supposed war between 2 advanced groups.

Rig Vida translations - http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/rigintro.asp

Maharharata translation - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm

Summary - http://larryavisbrown.homestead.com/files/xeno.mahabsynop.htm

Many have tried to show the Hindu texts have basis in the same manner which you try to show symbolic text from the OT means this or that. It is but conjecture and so are your interpretations.

Because you have a belief the Jesus came to save you and me and died for our sins you seem willing to go to no end to show it has some basis. You are dismissive of possibilities that will disrupt your view and interpretations, such as issues in regards to the Persians and Nabonidus. Opinions are not proof and so far all you have is opinions.

The possibility that Daniel was written in the late 2nd century BCE after all the events that occured is extremely probable. Coupled with the point in 4 Esdras that Ezra rewrote all of the ancient scripture with supposed inspiration from the god (see 4 Esdras 14 -

21: For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.
22: But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live.
23: And he answered me, saying, Go thy way, gather the people together, and say unto them, that they seek thee not for forty days.
24: But look thou prepare thee many box trees, and take with thee Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ecanus, and Asiel, these five which are ready to write swiftly;
25: And come hither, and I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart, which shall not be put out, till the things be performed which thou shalt begin to write.

26: And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou shew secretly to the wise: to morrow this hour shalt thou begin to write.

According to this Ezra rewrote or wrote the 1st 5 books attributed to Moses.

See also Nehemiah 8:17 "17 The whole company that had returned from exile built booths and lived in them. From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great."

So what this says is "Sukkot" had never been celebrated, until after Ezra had rewritten the Torah.

See also - http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-wrote-bible.html 

Considering all of this, it is upon you to prove as asked, that your god is not a human construct.

Opinions and interpretations using translations of dubious accuracy and symbolisim is not proof.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote: You

freeminer wrote:

 

You advocate 'science'...........and call these bland assertions evidence!!!!!! Verify that codes self-generate, verify that a cow turned into a whale............stories you tell yourself!! According to your prerequisites evolution is not science......... as an advocate of science, I agree!

 

Temper tantrum.

 

I am not advocating science. I am just asking to use proper definitions for science and not science.

If there will be a strogn evidence that the theory of evolution does not work, then scientists will move over to a new theory. 

 

Now, how about you?  What if we find out there were no Jesus?  Would you move to another religion???  If not, then any religious "thoery" including creationism is not scientific by definition.

 

Also, I AM NOT SAYING THAT CREATIONISM IS WRONG.  I AM SAYING IT IS NOT SCIENCE.  If it is science, you should be prepared to change religion.

 

 

 


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

freeminer wrote:

 

 

Quote:
However, you continue to puzzle piece fit to justify the beliefs you hold. Such as your claim of prophecies you listed.

the word we use for "puzzle piece" is "exegesis"

I call it slamming square pegs in round holes.

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
If you looked at this in a neutral position

were you about to claim a "neutral position"?

Putting words in my mouth now are you?

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
you should have taken each OT reference and dissected them listing the possibilities and motivations for the writing. Instead, you proceed to take the hearsay claim from the NT to show it fulfilled the supposed claim.

the term we use for "hearsay" is "divinely inspired".........

definition - hearsay-dictionary.com

 

hear·say

   /ˈhɪərˌseɪ/ [heer-sey] 

–noun

1.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2.an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.

–adjective

3.of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

 

Origin:

1525–35;  orig. in phrase by hear say,  trans. of MF par ouïr dire

 

—Synonyms

1.  talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle. 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

and as already pointed out, "eyewitness" is the appropriate word.

definition eyewitness =

 

eye·wit·ness

noun \ˈī-ˈwit-nəs\

Definition of EYEWITNESS

: one who sees an occurrence or an object; especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen

 

The problem I have with considering anything written in the writing called the Gospels as an "eyewitness" account is the lack of verification, the annonymous nature of the writing, the lack of an actual copy of the original writing, the conflict between the writing of the various Gospels, and unrealistic events claimed in such writing.

Next, Luke and Mark were not  "eyewitnesses" even by the Church's claims.

Whether the writers of Matthew and John were "eyewitnesses" can't be shown to be true.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

The reason we haven't come up with alternative rational explanations is simply:

a] there aren't any

b] that was your job.

a) there are always alternative explanations.

b)It's not my claim to prove that your God, prophecies and claims are real, it's your place to do that. 

 

definition - dictionary.com -  divinely

 

di·vine

   /dɪˈvaɪn/ [dih-vahyn]  adjective, -vin·er, -vin·est, noun, verb, -vined, -vin·ing.

–adjective

1.of or pertaining to a god, esp. the Supreme Being.

2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.

3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.

4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.

5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.

6.Informal . extremely good; unusually lovely: He has the most divine tenor voice.

7.being a god; being God: a divine person.

8.of superhuman or surpassing excellence: Beauty is divine.

9.Obsolete . of or pertaining to divinity or theology.

–noun

10.a theologian; scholar in religion.

11.a priest or member of the clergy.

12.the Divine,

a.God.

b.( sometimes lowercase ) the spiritual aspect of humans; the group of attributes and qualities of humankind regarded as godly or godlike.

–verb (used with object)

13.to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.

14.to discover (water, metal, etc.) by means of a divining rod.

15.to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.

16.Archaic . to portend.

–verb (used without object)

17.to use or practice divination; prophesy.

18.to have perception by intuition or insight; conjecture.

 

Origin:

1275–1325;  ME < L dīvīnus,  equiv. to dīv ( us ) god + -īnus -ine1 ;  r. ME devin ( e ) < OF devin  < L, as above

 

—Related forms

di·vin·a·ble, adjective

di·vine·ly, adverb

di·vine·ness, noun

half-di·vine, adjective

half-di·vine·ly, adverb

pre·di·vin·a·ble, adjective

pseu·do·di·vine, adjective

sub·di·vine, adjective

sub·di·vine·ly, adverb

sub·di·vine·ness, noun

su·per·di·vine, adjective

un·di·vin·a·ble, adjective

un·di·vined, adjective

un·di·vin·ing, adjective

 

—Synonyms

13, 17.  foretell, predict, foresee, forecast. 15, 18.  discern, understand.

 

—Antonyms

5.  worldly, mundane. 

 

definition dictionary.com - inspired

 

in·spired

   /ɪnˈspaɪərd/ [in-spahyuhrd] 

–adjective

1.aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something, by or as if by supernatural or divine influence: an inspired poet.

2.resulting from such inspiration: an inspired poem; an inspired plan.

3.inhaled: inspired air.

 

 

freeminer wrote:

Jesus didn't have control over whether his clothes were shared out or whether his bones were broken or whether he was ''pierced' or whether he would be buried in a rich man's tomb...... no doubt you'll come up with alternatives.

So, to show prophecy, one goes through a book and finds anything that has clothes being taken, bones broken,  stabbing with a spear, or burial in a rich man's tomb and claim that it is a prophecy.

Clothes taken - Ezekiel 16:39 -"Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare."

Since Yahshua was stripped and left naked to die on the cross, this verse is clearly prophecy.

 

bones broken - Lamentations 3::4- "He has made my skin and my flesh grow old and has broken my bones."

Jesus' bones weren't broken but the other 2 executed had their legs broken so this verse is clearly prophecy.

stabbed with a spear - Numbers 25:8 - "and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped;"

An Israelite was run through with a spear so this is clear prophecy that Yahshua would be as well.

buried in a rich man's tomb - 2 Chron 16:14 -"They buried him in the tomb that he had cut out for himself in the City of David. They laid him on a bier covered with spices and various blended perfumes, and they made a huge fire in his honor."

Asa was buried in a rich man's or kingly tomb with spices and perfume so it was foretold here that Jesus would be as well.

I think I get the hang of this prophecy thing now, find anything with a word or two and then construe it to be a prophecy with something else in the future from the writing but in our own past.

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In many cases the puzzle piece fitting used writing alleged to be David from Psalms that had no relationship at all to any prophecy or messiah expectations. Yet instead of addressing why this had anything to do with a messiah claim, you ignore the questioning of using the prayers/rants/complaints of the writer to his god.

 

 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8     Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9     Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
because David wasn't "begotten" perhaps?!

14     I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15     My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16     For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17     I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18     They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.


19     But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee

obviously this is the story of, 'King David visits the charity shop!

21     They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

perhaps David's wine cellar's a bit depleted!

David was so wonderful many who knew him found themselves in an early grave. Clearly the way to win hearts and minds.

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

A former priest and fairly famous writer, James Carroll who wrote the book "Constantine's Sword" explains in this book how such things could have happened to create the puzzle piece fitting you so hold dear. Refer to chapter 12 of this book, pp122-134. He calls what occurred after the execution of Jesus by the Romans as a "Healing Circle". What he says is the group was likely in hiding afraid that they too what be executed and in total shock, as the man they thought was the mashiach had been killed. They no doubt consulted scriptures and found things that to them was, "oh look, this is just like Jesus" and so it develops into "history remembered".

aah! so that's why they thought martyrdom was worthwhile!

So it's up to you to prove exactly who was executed for belief in the Jesus as the messiah and who executed the supposed early disciples. Clearly many Jews are executed for rebellion against Rome, so you must show that these disciple Jews if executed were executed only for Jesus belief and not for rebellion against Rome as thousands of Jews were. 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

You OTOH aren't in need of consoling yourself on the sudden loss of a friend and loved one you thought was the mashiach. You can examine how these supposed prophecies including the highly inappropriate claims of prophecies in the writings of Psalms and see it in the open without puzzle piece fitting.

which did you have in mind? What d'you mean by 'inappropriate'?

Inappropriate definition = 

 

: not appropriate : unsuitable in·ap·pro·pri·ate·ly adverbin·ap·pro·pri·ate·ness noun   For Example: A quote that is claimed to be prophecy pulled from Psalms written by David allegedly should be understood in context of the chapter in which it was located. In addition, if a time period can be associated with the writing or events, it should be taken into account as well. Pulling a sentence out of context from David's supposed writing in Psalms, someone who was never claimed to be a prophet even in the Hebrew Bible and calling it prophecy is a bit of a stretch and excessive grasping for anything to attempt to cram into the puzzle. 

 

 

freeminer wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That you don't,  says, that you really do not consider scripture as you claimed and consider it all to be true unless otherwise proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

it is in the nature of prophecy that it's scattered through scripture. 

One can find a sentence here and there and paste it all together to prove any claim you'd like. You should go into politics.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I call it slamming

Quote:
I call it slamming square pegs in round holes.

Quote:
If you looked at this in a neutral position

were you about to claim a "neutral position"?

Quote:
Putting words in my mouth now are you?

so you admit to not being neutral but think that others should be?!

It only seems fair that we should examine your 'alternative' interpretation.

Quote:
b)It's not my claim to prove that your God, prophecies and claims are real, it's your place to do that.

 you are deluded.........your eternal welfare is not my responsibility.......I've already more than done my job. The Bible says you must prove God for yourself. 

 

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You advocate

Quote:

 

You advocate 'science'...........and call these bland assertions evidence!!!!!! Verify that codes self-generate, verify that a cow turned into a whale............stories you tell yourself!! According to your prerequisites evolution is not science......... as an advocate of science, I agree!

 

Quote:
Temper tantrum.

nope, just asking questions you have no answer for.

 

Quote:
I am not advocating science. I am just asking to use proper definitions for science and not science.

point out where I've misdefined it.

Quote:
If there will be a strogn evidence that the theory of evolution does not work, then scientists will move over to a new theory.

such as? What do you mean by "does not work".........irrational speculation can be piled up endlessly. Great swathes of sedimentary layers across whole continents are termed "local floods" by evolutionists..........that's the level of your rationality!    

 

Quote:
Now, how about you?  What if we find out there were no Jesus?  Would you move to another religion???  If not, then any religious "thoery" including creationism is not scientific by definition.

you live in a bubble of your own making in which you isolate "science" and delude yourself that it covers the whole of human experience..........it doesn't come close. If it did, you would be chemically determined and I'd be certainly  wasting my time instead of just probably.

 

Quote:
Also, I AM NOT SAYING THAT CREATIONISM IS WRONG.  I AM SAYING IT IS NOT SCIENCE.  If it is science, you should be prepared to change religion.

why should it be ?.......the idea is based on the flawed presupposition that empiricism is the only sort of truth when any half educated person knows it isn't even truth. 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And you don't like

Quote:
And you don't like evidence that might make you think outside of your interpretation. Why does that scare you so?

it's a question of rationality..........nothing else.......where is this "evidence" of an alternative interpretation?

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:And

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
And you don't like evidence that might make you think outside of your interpretation. Why does that scare you so?

it's a question of rationality..........nothing else.......where is this "evidence" of an alternative interpretation?

Again, that's been given. I'm too ill to reinvent the wheel for you yet again.

Rationality would not hold the position that God himself wrote the book (as Gramster does). it would also hold off for evidence that would incontrovertibly point to God. As long as other explanations exist and make sense, why jump straight to a deity?

"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


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
FIRST KINGDOM Quote: The

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation,">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does,">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind">(BI) he shall become great.">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told">(BM) is true, but">(BN) seal up the vision,">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:freeminer

jcgadfly wrote:

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
And you don't like evidence that might make you think outside of your interpretation. Why does that scare you so?

it's a question of rationality..........nothing else.......where is this "evidence" of an alternative interpretation?

Again, that's been given. I'm too ill to reinvent the wheel for you yet again.

Rationality would not hold the position that God himself wrote the book (as Gramster does). it would also hold off for evidence that would incontrovertibly point to God. As long as other explanations exist and make sense, why jump straight to a deity?

you are clearly in a world of your own..........we've seen zilch evidence of anything from you. Atheists assume rationality like a fish assumes water. 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The possibility that

Quote:
The possibility that Daniel was written in the late 2nd century BCE after all the events that occured is extremely probable.

firstly, they haven't all occurred, secondly, I've already demonstrated via the Septuagint that it isn't even a vague possibility.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


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

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Prove that your God is not a construction of the human imagination 

Excellent point JC,

Since Gramps started this thread as "A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths" Proving his god is not a human construct would seem to be the #1 item on his list. That would seem to be the most important thing that Gramps and Freeminer should do. As the other discussions have developed into "I know it's true, it is, it is",  because that is my interpretation and we are saying no. it's not, show me the proof and only more interpretation is given, not proof, these discussion will never progress from a deadlock.

 

You must be blind. I am proving that God is not a human construct. If God can look into the future than He certainly can not be a human construct. I have shown specifically that the powers shown in Daniel 7 came true just as they were predicted to. This being written in the 3rd century BC could not have been known without divine revelation. I have not said "I know it's true, it is, it is", I have proved it is backed by irrefutable history.

I stopped short with Rome and the breakup of Rome since there was so much crap being thrown around. That is far enough to prove that God is the author of Daniel. Now I have challenged the assertions that there are many interpretations that can fit this prophecy. Well, let's see one.

I have made the challenge to either prove my interpretation does not work, or show me one that does. You can not. That is why all you can do is "fart around". Once again. Put up or Shut up.

And you haven't proved that your god can look into the future. You simply believe that he can. The basis of your belief is an interpretation long after the fact that "God really meant this one empire when he said <x>"

By claiming that interpretations other than your own you consider "crap", you've shown yourself incapable of doing other than ignoring opposing views. I have "put up" as have others. Your reasoning for dismissing them is "Well, they can't be right because...they just CAN'T".

God wrote Daniel? You'd think he'd have the testicular fortitude to stand by his words instead of couching it in symbolism. They haven't come true as a new empire has not reformed as you claim. The EU (the countries you are touting as the reformed Roman Empire) is not an empire. It's not even an impressive trade union as there are much stronger ones out there. Personally, I'm waiting for these "predictions" to be re-interpreted and moved to Asia. china and Japan are easily more bad-ass in commerce than the EU. China also has its own nukes.

I never even hinted that some empire called EU was the next great empire to follow the Roman Empire. I don't even believe that. Once again you are arguing with something I never said. I pointed out from historical evidence that there were 10 kingdoms specifically referred to that arouse from the remnants of the Roman Empire. Three of these were wiped out as predicted. The other seven are still with us today as predicted. If you are looking for a great empire that followed Rome you haven't read the text very well.

As for considering other interpretations "crap", I'm still waiting for one. You don't have one. That's why you're still stalling.

As for God not having the "testicular fortitude" not to use symbolic language, I already addressed that. He had the wisdom to use symbolism. It is YOU that lack the "testicular fortitude" to actually address these prophecies. That is why you are stalling. So let's have it WEASEL BOY!

The only kingdoms or powers I see mentioned here are China and Japan. If these are the countries in your interpretation you will need to explain.

So PLEASE QUIT STALLING AND ACTUALLY PUT UP! If there are "other interpretations" that can fit the prophecies in Daniel 7 let's have one. There are none. So either put up or admit defeat.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:I call

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I call it slamming square pegs in round holes.

Quote:
If you looked at this in a neutral position

were you about to claim a "neutral position"?

Quote:
Putting words in my mouth now are you?

so you admit to not being neutral but think that others should be?!

You should definitely go into politics, you have the right personality.

 

freeminer wrote:

It only seems fair that we should examine your 'alternative' interpretation.

The correct method to use is the standard Faux News line-

"Some people say....."

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
b)It's not my claim to prove that your God, prophecies and claims are real, it's your place to do that.

 you are deluded.........your eternal welfare is not my responsibility.......I've already more than done my job. The Bible says you must prove God for yourself.  

Preaching will not get you any reply.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote: You

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

 

You advocate 'science'...........and call these bland assertions evidence!!!!!! Verify that codes self-generate, verify that a cow turned into a whale............stories you tell yourself!! According to your prerequisites evolution is not science......... as an advocate of science, I agree!

 

Quote:
Temper tantrum.

nope, just asking questions you have no answer for.

 

 

Then where is the question mark?  Smiling lol

Or is it because you are already convinced that your questions cannot be answered?  I think specialists in psychiatry  can help me to find a medical term for this. 

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
I am not advocating science. I am just asking to use proper definitions for science and not science.

point out where I've misdefined it.

You attempt to explain physical world and phenomena by idealistic concepts.  It may work only if you confine your conclusions to poetry or something alike. 

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
If there will be a strogn evidence that the theory of evolution does not work, then scientists will move over to a new theory.

such as? What do you mean by "does not work".........irrational speculation can be piled up endlessly. Great swathes of sedimentary layers across whole continents are termed "local floods" by evolutionists..........that's the level of your rationality!    

 

By "does not work" I mean there is material evidence that contradicts the theory.  Then we need a new theory.  Is it too difficult for you to understand?

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Now, how about you?  What if we find out there were no Jesus?  Would you move to another religion???  If not, then any religious "thoery" including creationism is not scientific by definition.

you live in a bubble of your own making in which you isolate "science" and delude yourself that it covers the whole of human experience..........it doesn't come close. If it did, you would be chemically determined and I'd be certainly  wasting my time instead of just probably.

So, please answer my simple question: is there ANYTHING that would lead you to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist?  Yes or no?  

 

freeminer wrote:

Quote:
Also, I AM NOT SAYING THAT CREATIONISM IS WRONG.  I AM SAYING IT IS NOT SCIENCE.  If it is science, you should be prepared to change religion.

why should it be ?.......the idea is based on the flawed presupposition that empiricism is the only sort of truth when any half educated person knows it isn't even truth. 

 

I suggest you re-read your posts before posting.  I don't understand what you are talking about.  Your English is too bad.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 BTW,Why does freeminer

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  


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

 

freeminer wrote:

FIRST KINGDOM

 

Quote:
 
The first kingdom being Babylon is universally agreed upon as Babylon. 
 
Since this story is set in the Babylonian period that's a good guess.

 

so we all agreed on the first kingdom.

SECOND KINGDOM

 
gramps then said:

Quote:

 
The second kingdom is believed to be Medo-Persia, but some split these up into the second and third. Gramps believes that splitting them into two separate ruling kingdoms is not valid and will demonstrate why later. Thus we will mark this at a point to verify at a later date.

you then said:
 

Quote:
There are several other choices as well for the 6th century BCE.
 
Egypt - As this dream supposedly occurred in about 603-4 BCE, Egypt was still quite powerful. In 609 Egypt campaigned up to the Euphrates. In 605 BCE they were defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish but not invaded or conquered.  In the 580s BCE, they were invaded by Babylon. Egypt continued thereafter until Persia invaded them in 525 BCE.
 
Lydia - Located in what is now western Turkey it survived until defeated by Cyrus II in 546 BCE. - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia
 
Sparta - One of the most powerful Greek City States - beginning its ascent o power in about 650 BCE it was one of the 4 major powers that opposed Persian ambition in the 6th century BCE along with Lydia, Egypt and Babylon. When Lydia fell in 546 BCE the coalition came apart.

you also said:

Quote:
If the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE the history of the time would have the Persian Empire, followed by Alexander, ie. you believe the second kingdom could be Alexander's

 

so which of these are you going to opt for? Rome has now disappeared entirely!...............I wonder why?!!! .........even though the prophecy is given to Israel!!!!!!

Daniel says:

Quote:

Here is the second kingdom according to Daniel 8:

 20As for">(AY) the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of">(AZ) Media and Persia

 

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the second kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 tells us:

Quote:
2 "Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.

these were:

1] Cambyses 530-522 BC

2]Pseudo-Smerdis of Gaumata 522 BC

3] Darius 1 522-486 BC

4] Xerxes 1 486-465 BC.

 

 

gramps said:

Quote:

 
The third kingdom would be Greece,

you said:
 

Quote:
I assume you must mean Alexander and Macedonia unless you consider the alliance of Greek City States to be a country called Greece when they fought against the Persians in the 5th century BCE, which it wasn't
 
which separated into the Seleucid and Ptolemies and were both quite substantial world powers. 
ie. you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies.

 

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the third kingdom according to Daniel 8

 21And">(BA) the goat[e] is the king of Greece.

 And">(BB) the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22">(BC) As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his[f] nation,">(BD) but not with his power.

where on earth is the rationality of disputing the third kingdom when the Bible itself tells you which it is? 

Furthermore Daniel 11 say:

Quote:
3 Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. 4 After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

ie. Alexander the Great.

then Daniel 11 says:

 

Quote:
5 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies.

the king of the South was Ptolemy 1 Soter 323 -285 BC. The commander was Seleucus 1 Nicator 311 - 280 BC. His own kingdom was  Babylonia initially but he added territories to east and west. 

Quote:
The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power [a] will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father [b] and the one who supported her.

the daughter was Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II  Philadelphus 285 - 246 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was Antiochus II Theos 261 -246 BC.  The alliance was a treaty based on the marriage of Berenice to Antiochus. His power didn't last because Antiochus' former wife, Laodice, conspired to have Antiochus and Berenice put to death.

 

Quote:
7 "One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. 9 Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country.

the one from her family was Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes 246 - 221 BC. of Egypt who did away with Laodice. The king of the North here was Seleucus II Callinicus 246 226 BC. of Syria. His fortress was either Seleucis which was the port of Antioch, or Antioch itself.

Quote:
His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

His sons refers to Seleucus III Ceraunus 226 - 223 BC. and Antiochus III [the Great]. His fortress was at Raphia in southern Israel.

Quote:
 11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. 12 When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. 13 For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. 

The king of the South here was Ptolemy IV  Philopator 221 - 203 BC. of Egypt. The king of the North was  Antiochus III - defeated at Raphia in 217 BC. Slaughter of many thousands - the historian Polybius records that  Antiochus lost nearly 10,000 infantry men at Raphia.

Quote:
 14 "In those times many will rise against the king of the South. The violent men among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. 15 Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans [c] will not succeed or help him.

the king of the South here was Ptolemy V Epiphanes 203 - 181 BC. of Egypt. Violent men among your own people - Jews who joined the forces of Antiochus. Without success - the Ptolemaic general Scopas crushed the rebellion in 200 BC. Fortified city - Mediterranean port of Sidon. The invader - Antiochus, who was in control of  Israel by 197 BC. Daughter in marriage - Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra 1 in marriage to Ptolemy V in 194 BC.

 

 

 

Quote:
  18 Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back upon him. 19 After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more.

he - refers to Antiochus. Coastlands -  Asia Minor and possibly mainland Greece. Commander - the Roman Consul  Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus who defeated Antiochus at  Magnesia in Asia Minor in  190 BC. Stumble and fall -  Antiochus died in 187 BC while attempting to plunder a temple in Elymais.

 

Quote:
20 "His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.

His successor - Seleucus IV Philopator 187 - 175 BC. Tax collector - Seleucus' finance minister, Heliodorus. He will be destroyed -  Seleucus was  the victim of a conspiracy engineered by Heliodorus. 

 

Quote:
21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. 24 When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.

Contemptible person - Seleucus' younger brother, Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175 -164 BC. Not given the honour of royalty - Antiochus seized power while the rightful heir to the throne , the son of Seleucus,  later to become Demetrius I,  was still very young. Kingdom - Syro-Palestine. Prince of the covenant - Either the high priest,  Onias III, who was murdered in 170 BC. or, if the Hebrew for this phrase is translated "confederate prince" Ptolemy VI Philometor  181 -146 BC of Egypt. He - refers to Antiochus in v23.     

 

Quote:
25 "With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. 26 Those who eat from the king's provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. 27 The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. 28 The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country.

Richest provinces - of Palestine or of Egypt. Two kings - Antiochus and Ptolemy who was living in Antiochus' custody. Against the holy covenant - in 169 BC Antiochus plundered the temple in Jerusalem, set up a  garrison there and murdered many Jews in the city.

Quote:
 29 "At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. 30 Ships of the western coastlands [d] will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.

Ships of the western coastlands - Roman vessels under the command of Popilus Laenas. Those who forsake etc - apostate Jews.

Quote:
 31 "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. 32 With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him.

Abomination that causes etc - the altar to the pagan god, Zeus Olympius, set up in 168 BC by Antiochus Epiphanes. 

Quote:
 33 "Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

those who are wise - the leaders of the Jewish resistance movement, the Hasidim. A little help - the early succsses of the guerilla uprising which originated in Modein, 17 miles north -west of Jerusalem, under the leadership of Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus. In December 165 BC the altar of the temple was rededicated.

 

but no doubt you'll come up with your own scenario!

 

 

FOURTH KINGDOM

gramps said:

Quote:

 and the fourth Rome which would relate to the legs of iron. The feet of iron and clay would than be the powers that follow the breakup of Rome. At this point we probably already have some disagreement.

you said:
 

Quote:
Already by this point I find complete disagreement with all you have claimed and your simple analysis of complex history and politics.


This could also be discussing the breakup of Alexander of Macedonia's Empire into multiple kingdoms, easily done, as it had already occurred when this historical prophecy had been written.

so you think the fourth kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies. But you've already said you believe the third kingdom could be the Seleucid and Ptolemies and used the duality of the second kingdom to attempt to justify it. Now you wish to use it to justify the multiplicity of the fourth kingdom! So if the fourth kingdom is Alexander's:

Daniel says:

Quote:
Here is the fourth kingdom according to Daniel 8:

23And at the latter end of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their limit, a king of bold face, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24His power shall be great—">(BE) but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction">(BF) and shall succeed in what he does,">(BG) and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. 25">(BH) By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind">(BI) he shall become great.">(BJ) Without warning he shall destroy many. And he">(BK) shall even rise up against the Prince of princes, and he shall be broken—but by no human hand. 26The vision of">(BL) the evenings and the mornings that has been told">(BM) is true, but">(BN) seal up the vision,">(BO) for it refers to many days from now."

1] Who is the strong king who shall arise?

2] Who are the saints?

3] Who is the Prince of Princes who broke the strong king?

4] Who are the transgressors who reached their limit?

 

as for this:

Quote:
As some form of the Roman Empire remained until the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, I'd disagree with your dating. Formally the Roman Empire ends in 1461 when the Ottoman Turks that you also ignore conquered it.

I suggest you put these dates for the Roman Empire to an historian! I've never seen a more ludicrous attempt to re-write history........you make yourself look an idiot. 

 
 

 

*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country. It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride. My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance. If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out. Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless. If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer

freeminer wrote:

 

 .........your eternal welfare is not my responsibility.......I've already more than done my job.

 

 

    Oh you kindhearted man.  Thank you for stooping down to enlighten the wicked and degenerate infidels here at RRS. ( I never realized that simply bickering with atheists on a message board constituted fulfilling your Christian duty, though. ) 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Just a Thought

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.


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

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.

Possibly.

However, that's not what freeminer is doing.

Personally, I think "lack of belief in any gods" precludes "I'm a Christian but I still have questions".

I realize that Christianity doesn't like people asking questions but I wouldn't kick people out if they did. Shame on you if you would.

 

"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
Mods- Freeminer Admits to believing in God

gramster wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 BTW,

Why does freeminer have "atheist" badge?  

I already asked this about 50 or 75 posts ago.

Freeminer's views are clearly that of a Christian or Theist.

I often have had the same question. However by definition of your own website, anybody that even has the slightest bit of doubt could call themselves atheist. I think that definition a bit extreme and prefer the extreme atheist as a better definition. But, by your websites definition just about anybody could claim that title if they wish.

Let's consider what Freeminer has said in this thread for example:

freeminer post #289 wrote:

yes, this is a common approach among atheists.........the attempt to re-define the question in their terms from the outset.

This would suggest he's not one.

freeminer post#302 wrote:

you sought to redefine the question by eliminating any event outside the cause/effect framework from the outset thereby contradicting the very definition of "God" and negating the whole point of the discussion.

Seems to be taking a side here.

freeminer post #309 wrote:

Based on the discussion thus far, I see no pressing reason to "salvage a position". The answer is that the Bible concerns itself with both in prophecy. A 'skim' reading of Revelation will confirm this. Since the purpose of prophecy is to give us "signs" by which we may "discern the times", this is only logical.  

AND - I fail to see why the lack of consensus impinges on the veracity of scripture any more than the lack of consensus on climate change impinges on scientific method.

It seems he considers the Bible to have 'signs' where 'we may discern the times'. That sounds a bit theistic to me.

freeminer post #311 wrote:

Depends what you mean by a "literalist" ie I don't believe my God is "a rock"....but generally, yep, I believe in all that fun stuff!

OK, this is admission to believing in a god.

What more is needed to reclassify him???

freeminer post #316 wrote:

 You see, Jesus made it quite clear that he was establishing a kingdom, he said, "now is the Kingdom of God among you..... " Revelation makes it clear that he will turn that spiritual kingdom into a physical one. To attempt to airbrush Christ out of prophecy is to avoid the whole point....... which is perhaps what you feel a need to do.

He believes Jesus established the "kingdom of god"

Does this sound like an atheist??

freeminer post #319 wrote:

 

the Bible helpfully point out that the genuine prophet is marked by the fulfillment of his prophecies! But Daniel's prophecies dovetail with others also.

see above. Whether the "latter days" have arrived may yet form part of our discussion.

 

AND - yes but annoyingly, this is precisely what the Bible predicts people will say! I'm happy to discuss current "signs" in due course if you wish.

He believes in prophets and prophecies. He believes the Bible predicts what people will say. He believes the current signs are of the latter days.

Is this the views of an atheist???

freeminer post #328 wrote:

 all the evidence points to the authenticity of Daniel as a prophet. 

AND - the Bible says, "the fear  of God is the beginning of knowledge", not the beginning of "opinion"

AND - I know you must find it difficult to come to terms with the idea of God's omniscience. God didn't tell Daniel as much as he's told us!!!

AND - it ain't rocket science!!!!! We are given the time frame.......we land bang on the ministry of Jesus who quite explicitly states that the "kingdom of God is among you" and even gets his title nailed up on his cross! What analysis would you like? Revelation 19, Ezekiel and Zechariah 14 all detail his return to establish a physical kingdom after Daniel's 70th week. 

He claims Daniel is a prophet.

He considers the fear of god to be the beginning of knowledge.

He claims the ministry of Jesus brought in the kingdom of god and it was all foretold.

Does Freeminer need to be baptized on You Tube and post a link to be reclassified to a Theist or what???

 

There's a lot more he has posted that shows he is a theist.

If he is not a theist and is an atheist he is a Troll.

One last quote.

freeminer's tagline wrote:

In God we trust, all others we monitor

Please reclassify Freeminer.

Luminon got changed for his woo-woo spiritual ideas, this one has expressed his beliefs in a god in  many places.

 

Thanks.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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
I don't know, pjts.There's

I don't know, pjts.

There's something kind of refreshing about him posting his crap and having a badge that screams "I'M A LIAR" while he does it.

Well, it gives me a good laugh anyway. Especially when he insists on keeping it.

"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
jcgadfly wrote:I don't know,

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't know, pjts.

There's something kind of refreshing about him posting his crap and having a badge that screams "I'M A LIAR" while he does it.

Well, it gives me a good laugh anyway. Especially when he insists on keeping it.

In fairness though, Lumionon argued and whined and still was labeled a theist though he believes in woo-woo not a god.

Though I see your point, his badge says, I don't believe in no god, yet he posts beliefs in one.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't know, pjts.

There's something kind of refreshing about him posting his crap and having a badge that screams "I'M A LIAR" while he does it.

Well, it gives me a good laugh anyway. Especially when he insists on keeping it.

In fairness though, Lumionon argued and whined and still was labeled a theist though he believes in woo-woo not a god.

 

hmm...  Maybe Lumi should get a woo-woo badge.  Perhaps we need more options.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

freeminer wrote:

 

 .........your eternal welfare is not my responsibility.......I've already more than done my job.

 

 

    Oh you kindhearted man.  Thank you for stooping down to enlighten the wicked and degenerate infidels here at RRS. ( I never realized that simply bickering with atheists on a message board constituted fulfilling your Christian duty, though. ) 

 

"doing my job"..........when you call a plumber, is he "stooping down to enlighten you"? What oddly perverted thought forms you trail around. Jesus commissioned his people to preach the gospel, to inform and seek to convince. You "bicker" if you want to. 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:*[start

 

 

Quote:
*[start lesson]*

Either you are intentionally chopping and pasting quotes or you are unable to grasp how to properly use the edit and quote function.

Either way, I'm not going to fish through them anymore.

You obviously know when you put quote in [] it opens a quote. You surely can see that when you quote someone it is quote=name in []. you seem to also grasp that /quote in [] ends the quote.

You can also use copy/paste on windows OS using ctl c and ctl v.

In the future if you quote me and it doesn't have my name on it. you will not get a reply.*[/end lesson]*

you can always tell when you nail an atheist because he starts whining about irrelevancies, trying to create diversions and looking for an escape route!

Does this mean we won't be treated to your own paradigms backed by "evidence"? What a shame! I'm sure gramps was looking forward to it as much as I was.

Quote:
My objection to the entire Daniel scenario is the "pufffed up" view it has of a group of goat herders (or olive farmers) in an insignificant country.

the other thing the atheist does is to flail around using terms like "goat herders", "insignificant", "bronze age" "ignorant" and "illiterate".........in short, they suddenly develop an inexplicable enthusiasm for demonstrating their own ignorance of history! You probably haven't noticed, but the world doesn't currently regard Israel as "an insignificant country"! This is just as well since it is presently engaged in an attempt [as prophesied - I can give references] to "divide the land". This process has implications because unfortunately God has a territorial side to him and has voiced certain objections which those purporting to do it don't appear to have noticed.

 

Quote:
It is understandable that the priests and shamans of the Jews would want to continue to propagate the scam whereupon they received free food and riches. All shamans and priests take advantage of the human weakness originating in "is there nothing more" to scam the ignorant out of a free ride.

ok, we could take a serious look at the "scam" hypothesis, since the OT is claimed to be the history of the Jewish nation. Let's start by establishing the detail of your idea. Are you saying Jews have no genuine history at all or that only 'bits' are true? I think we need you to delineate "the scam" before we start. Presumably Moses is your prime suspect..........it would be good to nail him because Jesus said, "if you don't believe the words of Moses, how will you believe my words?" Presumably Joshua and all the subsequent judges of Israel were in on this as well ! So they were all liars to a man, whether or not they were Levites and had anything to gain! So, huge swathes [at least] of Jewish history are fabrication and they couldn't find one honest cove [like your good self] to challenge the deluded nation! Please set out your argument.

Quote:
My points to Gramps and you is there is far more to the world than the itty bitty slice that the writer of this book observed in his ignorance.

you see?..........I just knew the word "ignorance" would crop up before very long! It would appear that Daniel evinced certain administrative skills since he was apparently trusted in this role. A reasonable inference would be that he possessed an average or above level of intelligence. "Ignorance" is about knowledge. The theme of the book is that God gave Daniel certain knowledge which we wouldn't possess otherwise. The claim is that it does indeed encompass more than the immediate events around Babylon; that it covers events up to the present day and beyond which affect all mankind. I thought it was the very scope claimed which is at the heart of your objection!

Quote:
If you wish to suck yourself into the same scam that the ignorant ancient goat herders bought into, knock yourself out.

ah! "ancient"..........yes, I forgot that.......yes, along with "fable"... ....that's another. Atheists seem to exist on a diet of cliches. I thought the purpose of the exercise was, by the application of the "rationality" so much vaunted on this site, to elucidate who is being "scammed" and by whom. However, such reasoning powers as you possessed appear  to have formed a gelatinous blob on the floor.

 

Quote:
Since this priest/shaman had no idea how vast the world really was, and had no clue in the regard to kingdoms in both the Far East (China) and any of the Western Hemishpere, I consider his supposed prophecies to be written in complete ignorance and meaningless.

did you know that the last words of every deluded fool disappearing into Hell are, "I consider"? I think both you and I would be unable to prove the precise extent of Daniel's geographical knowledge. My own opinion, based on a Biblical take on anthropology, is that knowledge was far more extensive than is given credit for. However, you appear not to have grasped the nature of the book. Firstly, the Biblical claim is not that these are Daniel's ideas but were given by God. You might at least have the sense to assess it on the basis of the actual claim it makes rather than claims you make up for it. Secondly, the prophecies were, as I said, initially aimed at Israel and events concerning Israel. I'm sorry that it doesn't fulfill your appetite for things Chinese but that's because China doesn't have a role until the 'last days' and we haven't got there yet.  

 

Quote:
If the god of this shaman was really all-knowing the real truth of the vastness of the Earth would have been actually included. Since this history, not prophecy does not include what there really was for all the world it is nothing but the writing of a shaman promoting his ethnic religion to keep the scam going and the free ride for the priests that follow him.

we await the elucidation of your "scam" case. The vastness of the earth is indeed included.

Quote:
As to the Roman Empire - See Warren Treadgold, "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" 1997, 1020 pp

The popular view is Rome lasted from the time the Etruscans were overthrown in 550 BCE until 476 CE. This is true for the Western part.

yes, that'll be the one leg then. Can we deal with the fourth kingdom now?

 

Quote:
However, the Roman Empire lasted in some form until the Muslims conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE. There remained bits and pieces that still claimed to be the Empire until 1461 when the Turks eliminated every state that could claim descent from it. See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire which double dates the end as 476 CE/1453 CE

............. well quite!.........it's the equivalent of me claiming the British Empire still exists because we won't let the Spanish have Gibraltar back!!!!!..........quite absurd!

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't know,

Quote:

I don't know, pjts.

There's something kind of refreshing about him posting his crap and having a badge that screams "I'M A LIAR" while he does it.

crumbs!!!!!............ d'you mean the label 'atheist' is synonymous with 'liar'?!..........you'll get kicked out mate!

 

Quote:
Well, it gives me a good laugh anyway. Especially when he insists on keeping it.

... yep, we're all agreed, it's a great joke!

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Then where is the

Quote:
Then where is the question mark?  Smiling lol

yep, I can do pedantry too - an implied question, like a rhetorical one, won't have one.

Quote:
Or is it because you are already convinced that your questions cannot be answered?

be my guest.

Quote:
 I think specialists in psychiatry  can help me to find a medical term for this.

kill two birds with one stone and get yourself diagnosed at the same time. 

 

 

Quote:
You attempt to explain physical world and phenomena by idealistic concepts.  It may work only if you confine your conclusions to poetry or something alike.

please give examples. 

Quote:
By "does not work" I mean there is material evidence that contradicts the theory.  Then we need a new theory.  Is it too difficult for you to understand?

A man has a theory that there are fairies at the bottom of his garden. He has no material evidence which contradicts it. Thus his theory holds good.

 

Quote:
So, please answer my simple question: is there ANYTHING that would lead you to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist?  Yes or no?
 

no 

Quote:
I suggest you re-read your posts before posting.  I don't understand what you are talking about.  Your English is too bad.

"thoery".....is spelt: t-h-e-o-r-y. Strong........is spelt: s-t-r-o-n-g and in English, in this context we would say,"if evolution were to be", not, "if evolution will be"...........but I'm sure your Spanish is better than mine!

 

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:    Is there

Quote:
    Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt ( Adam ) and a human rib ( Eve ) ?  If not why give credence to this equally ludicrous origin of humanity ?  
 yes..........list your own constituents.........you'll soon get the idea. 

  

Quote:
Following biblical tradition, have paleontologists discovered any human skeletons of "pre-flood" era that would verify the people were living hundreds and hundreds of years ( ie, Methuselah, 900+ years ) as part of their typical life span ?   Any forensic discoveries that have verified this utterly biblical assertion ?

The British Museum stores are stacked with 'em.

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:  "doing

wrote:

 

 

 

"doing my job"..........when you call a plumber, is he "stooping down to enlighten you"? What oddly perverted thought forms you trail around. Jesus commissioned his people to preach the gospel, to inform and seek to convince. You "bicker" if you want to. 

    Now you're bickering over having been shown to be bickering.   

 

  Keep it up, even with my "oddly perverted thought forms" I can tell that you are genuinely concerned with my soul, although based upon the passive-aggressive tone of some of your comments I haven't been able to figure out whether you actually want it to go to Heaven or prefer it to burn in Hell.   

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
wrote:Quote:    Is there

wrote:

Quote:
    Is there scientific evidence to verify that the first two humans were created from dirt ( Adam ) and a human rib ( Eve ) ?  If not why give credence to this equally ludicrous origin of humanity ?  
 yes..........list your own constituents.........you'll soon get the idea. 

  I did not ask what humans were constituted of  but how they were created.  You reject "atheistic" evolution as scientifically invalid and instead prefer  your supernatural creation scenario. 

  Were Adam and Eve really magically created ( as adults ) by the intervening hand of God ?  And you can prove this, how ?  I suspect that scientific evidence in support of this theory is hard to come by. 

 

 

  I'm still interested in seeing scientific evidence ( link ? ) that verifies that antediluvian humans frequently lived 700, 800, or almost a thousand years before dying.

 

 

 

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:Quote:I

freeminer wrote:

Quote:

I don't know, pjts.

There's something kind of refreshing about him posting his crap and having a badge that screams "I'M A LIAR" while he does it.

crumbs!!!!!............ d'you mean the label 'atheist' is synonymous with 'liar'?!..........you'll get kicked out mate!

 

Quote:
Well, it gives me a good laugh anyway. Especially when he insists on keeping it.

... yep, we're all agreed, it's a great joke!

 

When the badge is attached to an obvious Christian, yes it implies that you (and you alone) are lying. But I think you understand that - your conscience is just seared to it.

I'm glad you dig the joke - either you're a poe and a good one or you just dig lying for Jesus. That's Ok - the creator of your religion was good at it also.

"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