Just Ask Grandpa - A Christian answers tough questions and debunks common myths
Offline Way too many "delusional myths", and unanswered questions on this site. One cannot rationally disbelieve something unless they have a clear picture of what it is that they do not believe. Since I do not see these myths and false perceptions answered properly in terms of simple reasoning I shall attempt to do it myself.
Myth #1. God will burn "sinners" in "HELL" throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. This is not supported in the bible. It is merely a false doctrine that entered the church during the dark ages. It has it's roots in paganism. Unfortunately most Christians still believe this myth. Ultimately those who choose to accept Gods gift of eternal life will go on to live forever in a world without all the suffering and horrors of this world. Those who do not accept His gift will cease to exist and have nothing to do with God as they have chosen and wished for. Sounds pretty fair to me!
If God were indeed to burn anybody throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity (including the devil) He would be the most terrible monster one could imagine. I myself would join the movement in defying and blasting God. Fortunately we have a loving creator God that will not and would not do that.
Rather than writing a 20 page study on the topic of death and hell, I will just give a website that those interested can visit that will clearly and definitively clear this myth up. It is hell truth.com.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Poor grams, my "dirty mind", as you call it, comes from reading the Bible and knowing the history of the region. Neither are anywhere near as noble as you like to claim.
The rules that didn't allow rape? You mean the one that forced the victim to marry her rapist with the provision that he couldn't divorce her? Would that even apply since her father was likely dead (so he couldn't pay the fine)? Even so, what a terrible punishment for him.
I'm not blasting God - I'm blasting his creators. "Chayah" also means "to cause to grow". By "giving life" inside the girls' wombs, maybe? I'm selecting definitions from the same list you did.
Funny how God keeps letting his 'inspired word" get so screwed up.
"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
Normal
0
I responded to this in post 1065. as follows:
You never responded to these comments.
I wonder how you can copy Bible verse and still screw it up and change the words, what's with that? None of the translations I found misused words or typo-ed them.
JPS version v5 "Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on the bank of the river on this side, and the other on the bank of the river on that side.
v6 - "And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river: 'How long shall it be to the end of the wonders?"
In what is described here, there are 2 others, one on each side of the river. Then someone is mentioned clothed in linen above the water, not on either bank of the river. The guy above the water is asked how long til the end of the wonders, not fulfillment as NASB or TNIV or whatever version you are using indicated. Sometimes it looks like you are popping back and forth with different translations and not indicating which you are using. You should always indicate which translation with each quote of verse especially if you bounce from version to version as you seem to do.
See TG Baker's post 1132 - How do you know for sure which language this was originally written? Aramaic or Hebrew? And how do you know the Hebrew word "narphats" indicated the original intent of the writer if it was in Aramaic first?
You conclusion here is conjecture.
The JPS version - v 7 "And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."
Instead of shattered or disperse it uses "breaking in pieces" the power of the people. This again is referring to Antiochus and his endeavors against the Jews which will have an end. Still fits in the 2nd century BCE.
Love how you just assert things like this. Could you possibly meticulously detail an outline how you get to the end of time from the 2nd century BCE. A flow chart would be nice with decision blocks.
If there is no symbolism then we are talking about only days in these verses and that has long since passed hasn't it?
More assertions and jumping to conclusions on your part. You are so far gone in the land of never was and never will be here. It matters little what I say, I may as will type it in my 2nd language as it won't matter.
No hay ninguna evidencia física que Daniel escribió en el siglo 6th BCE. Sus afirmaciones y las relaciones con el Cristianismo están completamente justificada trayendo innumerables problemas.
Exactly where in Daniel does it discuss the 2nd coming of the Jesus?
JPS v 9 - "And he said: 'Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end. "
It uses the "time of the end" not "the end of time". The time of the end is expressly discussed and refers to the end of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus.
NIV and NASB don't use the words "end of time" either, "time of the end" and "end time" both clear in meaning the end of the persecution by Antiochus.
Did the god give you an insight into what happens at the end of the world? You are using the heretical Sci-Fi- fantasy of Revelation inspired by 1 Enoch and the failed prophet Ezekiel with misconstrued application of the writing of Daniel? What if instead the Sci-Fi fantasy "Apocalypse of Peter" was accepted and the Apocalypse of John aka Revelation (written by an unknown writer in the 2nd century CE or later) was not accepted as canon?
You assert without basis and assume you have made a point. What you do though is open countless more issues and questions. As for example: The end times described where" In the Reg Veda, in the tales of Enki, in the Mayan calculations? You are obviously using Christian interpretation and only a narrow version at that.
V10 really describes the situation in Judea at the time. Wicked Jews (according to the writer anyway) had become Hellenized and had joined with the pagan infidels suppressing the pious.
And 1,290 days takes you where from the point the sacrifices are halted by Antiochus?
And isn't that what occurs in the end after the Jewish wars?
JPS v 13 - "But go thou thy way till the end be; and thou shalt rest, and shalt stand up to thy lot, at the end of the days."
Does this really indicate that it specifically indicates he dies and is resurrected?
If addressed in general to the pious Jews in Judea in the 2nd century, NO.
If Daniel is meant, then whatever fantasy beliefs held without basis has no merit. As the writer had written this entire dialog using the name of a guy claimed to be in the distant past he needed a proper ending and this was it.
Daniel is in the words of Bart Ehrman, is a forgery written for the purpose of inspiring hope for the readers. See Forged by Bart Ehrman. Actually sometime this Summer when I finish his book I will start a thread to discuss it.
It still discusses the end of the days, not the end of the world.
You assume far too much gramps.
And a princess can spin gold from hay.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Normal 0
Propaganda Mythical Legends & Alleged Mayhem
As the incident claimed in Numbers is unsupported by anything other than the propaganda book there's no point in this discussion.
1- All ancients took slaves especially the women.
2- The slaves were taken against their will when their villages or tents as in this case were captured.
3- The Hebrews were responsible for killing the loved ones and those that provided support & protection. Hence per their code in the same mythical story lines they were responsible to provide for the survivors of their genocide campaigns. But not always, sometimes they killed them all. Though it isn't really a good idea to keep a young girl or a virgin woman if you killed all of her relatives and friends. . In the referenced incident, the order is also to kill all the male babies as well. Did you somehow miss that?
4- As the Spartacus slave rebellion showed the Romans this could actually be a problem. Slaves can rise up against their masters.
5- As I think this story is propaganda legend meant to intimidate I don't consider it a god ordering rape, murder or genocide. It is the vicious nature of man expressed in the verses discussed. Basically, if your people cross us the god Yahweh's people, these things might happen to you. The stories affiliated with such, mentioning only a few such as the Midianites, Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21), and the Amalekites (1 Samuel) were exaggerated legends and are unsupported by history. Perhaps there were cases where one group of warriors from a village attacked another and took all the virgins for booty, though they'd need to watch their backs so a dagger wasn't placed in it by the virgin girl.
However, consider this example: a group of warriors comes to your village. They pillage, and kill your mother, father, your married sisters, your brothers but you are 13 years old and captured. Do you think perhaps the girl taken or being "kept for themselves" isn't considering putting a dagger into the loins of the SOB that killed mommy and daddy?
All ancients pillaged, raped and murdered when they conquered a village, town or city. Even the blessed Christian Crusaders supposedly fighting for the Jesus did so 2,000 years later though they also went further and ate who they killed. The difference here is these people are supposedly doing so with orders from the god Yahweh according to the OT book of propaganda. Though the book does not say to rape, it definitely orders the murder of many per Moses alleged words. The problem here is the god he represents supposedly is loving, good, caring.... basically perfect. Ordering babies to be killed as in v 17 and having captured females taken against their will "kept" against their "free will" would seem to be in conflict. The male babies had unformed minds and could have been taught anything, though instead they are supposedly killed. This is a just god? No, it is the practice of eliminating your enemies and their descendants, as done even in the New World. Not that this little mythical story from Numbers happened at all, but if so it was a small little raid of a few dozen, not the thousands claimed. Though this was another time, it does not set the Hebrews as much different than any other ancient group of marauding tribes does it? They actually are indicated as far worse practicing genocide.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Dear Gramster,
How strange that you think making a few predictions that more or less work out in time would prove the existence of some omniscient entity (=God).
If that were true, then the Grandma who said "I give those girls three months as roommates" is God because, sure enough, one of them moved out after only two and a half.
If that were true, then H.G. Wells who predicted the invention of the submarine in his writings, is God.
If that were true, then any modern-day psychic who tells her gullible client "You will be getting some unwelcome news in the near future" is almost certain to be God, because the likelihood of it happening to anybody over the next day/week/month/6 months is almost 100%.
And the fact that Babylon and other ancient cities no longer exist? Hell, I'll go on the record right now as predicting that MANHATTAN NEW YORK will some day cease to exist! Yeah, I said that! So in another five thousand years or so, your descendants are gonna have to come back here and tell me I'm the deity, dude.
"Love is everywhere, I believe it." John Denver
Make the time!!!!!!
I for one applaud any Theist' willing to "defend" the morals of Yahweh (especially as it pertains to the OT.). Simply because, I have yet to see it at all (on this forum).
At the risk of losing my street cred, w/ that last "Noah's Ark" comment I made people are starting to wonder, Might I suggestion something to help "you" out if you are going to w/ the remarkable peculiarity of this. IMHO, The easiest and most accessible ancient culture to cite is the 'Hurrian" or "Hittite Empire" without necessarily being a ANE historian or a Classics major. Please provide us with some information? The other one is the Mesoamerica 'Aztec', but that is not even in the "OT".
:
Gramps believes because he wants to believe. And I would also guess he is afraid of dying and just being dead. He really wants to believe the fantasy of having an immortal soul.
I'm old, too. And I don't see why people get hung up on this. What do I remember about not being born? And I believe it will be the same when I die.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
** **** **
StarWARS Quotes -- Luke SkyWalker: "I don't believe it." Yoda: "That is why you fail." As seen in the making of"StarWars'", Is this the powerful wisdom of the long-fringed white robed one or the marionette with a hand up its' bum? You have to pay attention to the things not being addressed. Like what I just pointed out. You might at least give it the old college try.
Normal
0
I have not yet read what Cowles has to say about this. We both agreed that Cowles was ignorant, poorly informed, and less than accurate in his interpretations.
I have been looking into your faulty historical claims you posted earlier. I will get back to that shortly.
Now I will respond to the above.
It must be noted that since you just "zoomed" past numerous road signs along the way here in the earlier chapters, you cannot possibly be anywhere near the right course in chapter 12.
Daniel 12:1. At that time (Strongs H6256 "eth"
includes the following "a fit or proper time", "in it's time", and "a certain time".
Following from chapter 11, we are simply following down in time to "the time of the end", as Daniel has repeatedly been doing all along.
Vs 2. "many would awake to everlasting life", shows that Daniel, like most Christians today, believed in the resurrection of the dead followed by eternal life. You say he believed it would occur at some point? Yes, that is obvious. Daniel seemed to believe this was far off into the future.
Vs 3. Your point?
Vs 4. This is still a very good portrayal of our modern times. "dead nuts on" as you say.
Welcome movemens
Many of the predictions in the book of Daniel can be interpreted more than one way. Some however, cannot. One prediction that can be interpreted rationally only one way is that of Alexander the Great, and the 4 way split of the territories he had just conquered.
That prediction also can not be rationally argued to have been a chance guess. If the book of Daniel were written before the death of Alexander the Great, this would be strong evidence of the existence of one who can see into the future. That is why skeptics so avidly insist that this book was written in the 2nd century BC.
What this Daniel discussion will ultimately boil down to is the date of authorship. All of the discussion about the interpretation of the text matters primarily as evidence in the dating discussion. If it was written in the 2nd century BC, the content should match up logically to that premise. If it were written in the 6th century BC the content should match up logically to that premise.
There is also the historical accuracy discussion. If the book of Daniel were written in the 6th century BC it should be very accurate historically. If it were written in the 2nd century BC one would expect numerous historical blunders. And the language of the text will also factor in. So we still have a ways to go.
I see the book of Daniel relating powers and events down through time until the 2nd coming of Jesus, as alluded to in chapter 12. JPTS does not see this as extending past the 2nd century BC when he suggests the book was written.
Currently things are still a bit "jumbled", but will become more clear as we wrap up all of the remaining issues and make our summaries. It will be up to the reader to decide what makes rational sense. I don't expect on an atheist website to end up with an overwhelming number of supporters. I am too rational for that.
Thank you for your comments.
Gramps.
Greetings Danatemporary
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the "Noah's Ark" comment? I must be getting "old".
Your point is well taken. I will see what I can dig up on some of these cultures.
Gramps.
I love how you try to put me in your pocket.
Go back and read what I say about Cowles.
He was hardly ignorant based on the meticulous detail he wrote. I don't agree with his view which you also hold that Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE. He did however conclude the writer was discussing Antiochus IV and the Jewish wars against the Seleucids.
He was ill informed mainly due to the loss of knowledge about several ancient cultures that as of his time had yet to be rediscovered.
He was not in agreement with either of us 100% so no he was not 100% accurate in his interpretations of the sketchy book of Daniel.
You do that.
It must be noted that you are projecting here. You are the one that disses anything that might possibly detract from your assumptions. In realty Daniel was written as apocalyptic literature to give hope to the persecuted Jews of the 2nd century BCE. If so, your whole world disintegrates and you have lived a life based on misconstrued views and false ideas. That is a very powerful reason to diss anything that might put cracks in your beliefs because then you won't know what to do with yourself. The world then is not based on a god's hidden plans but based in the harshness of reality. A reality that may scare you because you are unable to grasp how to face it without a god directing your life. It is as in the Matrix movies, take the red pill or the blue pill. Should you choose to see reality it will be a very difficult road. The imaginary steak is not real. I have been down that road myself and rejected reality for years, until I no longer could. If your beliefs are what gets you up in the morning then feel free to lie to yourself. Live long and prosper Gramps. It is not my job to jolt you out of the centuries of misinformation and brain washing that have constructed your imaginary dimension.
If my views can be shown to be ill conceived with real proof not interpretations of ancient apocalyptic literature I'd consider other possibilities. I live in the real world not a construct where magic happened once upon a time long long ago. Prove your assertions. Show me real proof not assertions that fit your preconceived notions. Show me a man walking into a furnace and not being consumed in a puff of smoke. Show me a disembodied hand writing on a wall. Show me angels that float above a river. Show me a dead person coming back to life that has been in the ground for centuries. Show me the magic is not magic but a god who can do anything. Until then, your interpreations of what someone in the ancient world believed are nothing but conjecture. I don't take the word of any writer that makes claims that are magical and involve impossiblities in the real world.
The end of the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus and the Seleucids which he has repeatedly shown that you misconstrue.
My point is these are unproved assertions which you left out of your quoting - "Both are unproved beliefs held by an ancient writer lacking knowledge in many things."-PJTS
This introduces the unproved concept of life after death. Resurrection and eternal life have not been shown to be possible. If you think they are provide actual proof not written assertions from ancient writers that may think these things could be, rather real honest lab proof. Bring back the dead and prove it.
I'm still waiting for that detailed flow chart of how you get from the 2nd century BCE to our time including decision blocks. Until you provide it with substantial documentation this comment of yours is nothing but an assertion without basis.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Back from spending some time with family out west. Little "nippers" become Big "nippers", and have Little "nippers" of their own. Instead of poking at each other with sparklers, they sword fight with glow sticks. Safer I guess. Some things just pretty much stay the same. Had fun, but it's good to be back home.
Let's see. Where does one start with a list of assumptions, bad history, and misinformation such as above. I think I will start with Nebuchadnezzar's madness.
You like to trumpet about a lack of secular sources. As if one would expect there to be plenty on just about every event in history. Such is not the case.
Take for example Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre 585-572 BC that lasted 13 years. One would expect ample records of an event such as this. It was mentioned in Ezekiel 26:1-14 and 29:17,18. But as for secular records we have precious little. There are a few cuneform tablets that show that Tyre was indeed in the hands of Nebuchadnezzar some time after 570, and 1 broken tablet referring to food provided to the kings soldiers in their march against Tyre. That's about all we have.
Scanty fragments of cuneform tablets is all we have relating to Nebuchadnezzar's military campaign against Egypt in 568/567 BC.
One would not expect to find much if anything about such a humiliating affliction that Nebuchadnezzar went through. This is not the kind of thing a Babylonian king would go around bragging about.
Fortunately we do have one tablet that speaks of a period of time where Nebuchadnezzar seems to have had some kind of bout with mental illness that was pretty bad. It is in the Brittish Museum #BM 34113.
Nebuchadnezzar "considered his life of no value to him".
Evil Merodach (Neb's eldest) seems to have had to take over control and act as temporary Regent. "And the Babylonian speaks bad counsel to Evil Merodach".
"...than he (probably Nebuchadnezzar) gives an entirely different order but...."
"He does not heed the word from his lips..."
"He does not show love to son or daughter..."
"...family and clan do not exist..."
"His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil and Babylon."
"He prays to the lord of lords, he raised his hands in supplication..."
"He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the great gods..."
"His prayers go forth to..."
Even though this tablet is in pretty bad shape, and the beginning and or end of several lines are not readable, and several lines completely missing or not readable, this still gives a pretty vivid portrayal of mental illness. It's too bad we do not have the whole tablet in tact.
This tablet is strongly suggestive that there was a period of time where Nebuchadnezzar completely lost the mental ability to perform his duties as king. Evil Merodach probably had to step in and act as regent.
Interesting how official records of state do not reveal this. There is no break in the official record or any hint that this took place. It did however happen.
Yes, there is a secular source to help confirm the madness of Nebuchadnezzar. And like always, the bible stands at the end of the day. Amazing that a 2nd century BC author would know about this one?
Maybe well discuss "Darius the son of Ahasuerus" next. That should be interesting.
Ah, the classic "I don't have to source anything that I say but my opponent MUST source his claims".
Fragments of anything beat the nothing you've brought.
Where does being mentally incompetent to rule become eating grass and growing your nails into talons?
"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
Ah, it looks like you could use a pair of glasses.
I did source this. This clay tablet is in the Brittish Museum #BM 34113.
If you have trouble finding it. It was published by AK Grayson in his "Babylonian Historical-Literary texts, Toronto 1975, pp. 87-92.
This was in answer to PJTS claim in his post #1113 regarding "Bad History" 6b.
He claimed there is NO secular evidence of Nebuchadnezzar's madness.
The claim that is frequently made is that Daniel mistook Nebopollassar's mental illness and projected it onto Nebuchadnezzar.
Much is missing from this tablet. We do not have the complete description of this incident in readable form. What we do have is strong evidence that Nebuchadnezzar indeed did have a serious episode of mental illness that affected his ability to rule Babylon. We also have evidence that suggests Evil Merodach likely took over for some unknown period of time.
Even though we do not have all of the details of this episode of "madness", we do have secular evidence supporting that this did indeed happen.
And a 2nd century BC author would not have known this.
Once again the Bible stands the test of time. No bad history required.
Once again the skeptic interprets his own ignorance as evidence of biblical historical blunders. This practice is unfortunately far too common.
Yes, you are right that Ahasuerus aka Xerxes would have been over 50 years off if indeed that were the person being discussed here. That is an assumption without merit.
Ahasuerus appears to be a fairly common name or title that comes from an unpronounceable Persian name or title that has been used to refer to several different rulers in history.
Ahasuerus was used to refer to Xerxes (486-456 BC), Cambyses II (529-522BC), Cyrus II (525 BC), and to an earlier figure Cyraxares I (625-585 BC). And these are only ones we know about.
In Tobit 14:15, the invasion of Nineveh by Cyraxares I and Nabopolassar is told, only the term "Ahasuerus" is used instead of Cyraxares. Usually the interpreters just insert Cyraxares name instead of Ahasuerus to prevent any confusion.
Xenophon (430-354 BC) claims that Cyaxares II was Cyrus' uncle, and that Babylon was set aside for him by Cyrus.
Not much is know about Cyaxares II. Much of the secular history is questionable or conflicting. Many of the terms used to refer to a ruler are names or titles that were used by earlier rulers. Such seems to be the case with Ahasuerus, and Darius as well.
I think that the Darius of Daniel is likely Cyraxares II. I cannot prove that, and it may well be someone else. What is obvious is that there are several "suspects" that can "fit the bill". The Darius of Daniel could very well be someone we know about from history, or even someone less important in history we know nothing of.
Once again, it is not rational to claim "bad history" based only upon our own ignorance. The assumption that the Ahasuerus mentioned in Daniel could only refer to the Xerxes that ruled (486 to 456 BC) is just plain "nuts".
Once again. No bad history required.
Another "Brilliant" observation.
1. Hand writes on wall mysterious and unknown text.
2. Belshazzar "freaks out".
3. His best and most brilliant can not read or interpret.
4. Daniel is called in.
Please note Daniels response. There are two things he is addressing. First, the unknown writing on the wall. Second, the interpretation of this writing.
Daniel 5:25 KJV "This is the writing that was written Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin". Here Daniel is simply interpreting the writing on the wall into Aramaic for Belshazzar. The actual writing was not readable by the Babylonians and could have been in modern English as far as we know. Obviously not in Arabic. Daniel had to interpret it into Aramaic.
Now what did the writing on the wall literally say?
Mene - Literally a measurement. Probably 50 shekels.
Tekel - To be weighed.
Upharsin - To split up or divide.
So we have something like this. "50 shekels, 50 shekels, to be weighed (or just weighed), to be split up or divided.
Belshazzar would still be confused. So Daniel gave him the interpretation from God.
Daniel 5:26 KJV "This is the interpretation. Mene - God has numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Tekel - Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. Peres (or Upharisin) Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.
There is no indication that the actual writing on the wall was in Aramaic. Actually the opposite appears to be true.
Once again the book of Daniel stands the test. Once again, no "bad history" is required. Only a misunderstanding of the text as usual.
The post you are quoting is from #1113 nearly 30 days ago. You have fallen behind. I note that your came out West, I'm heading that way myself to Denver from Florida but I'll keep up with you on the way based on Internet availability. One of the reasons I wait to respond to you is you seem to lag behind and I don't want you to be too far back.
Now let's see what you have in response.
OK, I assume you are going to go back later and address the points in items # 1 through 5?
So now we get to discuss the failed prophecies of Ezekiel 26. Apparently you think this failed prophet of numerous mistakes is going to add credibility.
Not so my friend.
The particular doom that he predicted for Tyre did not occur as claimed in chapter 26. Rather after years of siege he failed to take the island portion of Tyre as Babylon had no ships. In the end Tyre became a vassal by treaty. Even the failed prophet Ezekiel noticed as in Ezekiel 29:18 - JPS "'Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled; yet had he no wages, nor his army, from Tyre, for the service that he had served against it."
see - http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/983front.html
see a religious view that says he failed - http://www.crivoice.org/ezekieltyre.html
Tyre was not totally destroyed forever more, it was around for Alexander to conquer and still exists today. He didn't conquer it even the failed prophet Ezekiel admits it.
So he goes on to Egypt and fails again.
And we don't even have anything to indicate he even managed to extract booty. Once again Nebuchadrezzar failed to meet Ezekiel's doom prophecies.
Ezekiel claimed that Nebuchadrezzar would devastate Egypt such that it would be desolate for 40 years.
And in 29:19-JPS "therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her abundance, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army."
And also in 30:20-26 JPS where he gives more detail on how Babylon would break Egypt, which does not happen.
He supposedly gave up on Tyre in 573/572 BCE and the invasion of Egypt is supposedly around 567 BCE yet -
Apries was Pharoah 589-570 BCE deposed by the usurper Ahmose II
Ahmose II (Amasis II) reigned 570-526 BCE - the supposed invasion would have been during his reign.
The 40 years of desolation would have been during his entire reign.
Ezekiel = FAILED PROPHECY.
Psamtek III reigned 1 year 526-525 BCE when the Persians not Babylon conquered Egypt.
So if Nebuchadrezzar had attacked Egypt it was a rather feeble attempt. Ahmose II according to Herodotus made Egypt extremely prosperous and made no mention of an invasion.
see - http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/classics/pharaoh.htm
I can spend more time showing you how Ezekiel was a failed prophet, something others noticed as even he mentions but you are supposedly trying to make Daniel be a prophet and examining the failed prophet Ezekiel is only going to cause harm to your position.
Instead of your assumption that Nebuchadrezzar was mad I'm going to just assume there was a traitor in the court and show how that can be made to fit into the vague missing text in a fully satisfactory manner.
Actual translation:
LINE 1 IS MISSING
Could there be something important in line 1?
Such as perhaps a traitor?
2 [Nebu]chadnezzar considered […..]
3 His life appeared of no value to [him...]
The name is likely Nebuchadrezzar though it's not readable. There is damage after the word that means considered and the word is not known.
The last word in line 3 is not known and assumed by your view to be him though it could have been even the god Marduk
Perhaps the king considered the person mentioned in line 1 to have no value to Babylon?
LINE 4 IS MISSING OR INCOMPLETE
Actual translation:
5 And Babylonian speaks bad counsel to Amel-marduk […..]
Does Babylonian mean the king Nabu-kudurri-usur (aka Nebuchadrezzar) or perhaps traitors in the court?
I don't see from this line where Amel-Marduk is made the regent. Please present your proof and evidence for this statement.
Perhaps a traitor or traitors in the court approached Amel-marduk?
Actual translation:
6 Then he gave an entirely different order but [………]
Who gave an entirely different order?
The last line mentioned Amel-Marduk not King Nabuchadrezzar.
And but [ . . . ] what? Or who does not ???
The traitors gave orders and the king or Amel-marduk reversed them?
Actual translation:
7 He does not heed the word from his lips, the cour[tiers……]
Who does heed the words from who??? the courtiers ??? Amel-Marduk?? Or Nebuchadrezzar??? Or some traitor?
PLEASE NOTE:
LINES 8, 9 , 10 ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE
Actual translation:
after skipping 3 lines that were missing
11 He does not show love to son and daughter […..]
As to who is being discussed not showing love after skipping 3 lines is a pure guess and there is missing text at the end as well.
Perhaps it is further admonishment of a traitor in the court??
Actual translation:
12 …family and clan do not exist [………]
Missing text at the end.
And this is also further admonishment of a traitor in the court??
Actual translation:
14 His attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]
The words and Babylon are assumed but it could also be another temple similar to Esagil or even the god Marduk's welfare.
And who's attention was not directed?? Nebuchadrezzar?? Or someone else?? Such as a traitor??
This could also be further admonishment of a traitor in the court??
LINE 15 IS MISSING OR INCOMPLETE
Actual translation:
16 He prays to the Lord of lords, he raised [his hands in supplication….]
[HIS HANDS IN SUPPLICATION] is assumed but was missing from the text.
And this could be more admonishment of a traitor in the court. See the god won't answer him??
Actual translation:
17 He weeps bitterly to Marduk, the g[reat] god [……]
I don't know how you got a plural gods. Missing word at the end.
And this could be more of a traitor being admonished.
Actual translation:
18 His prayer go forth, to [………]
No idea who was praying and to who.
Please detail how you get anyone having mental illness from this. I don't think any reasonable person can find that in here at all.
I easily came up with someone being a traitor in the court by reading the same text with missing lines and words.
There is insufficient complete text to make your conclusions.
No where in this text does it say Nebuchadrezzar was mad. No where does it say Amel-Marduk was made a regent.
You can interpolate anything into this text. It has far too much missing.
Please detail how you made this conclusion.
I always love how you twist, distort and puzzle piece fit to attempt to make your fantasies have basis in the real world.
This entire tablet could have been a rant against a traitor and not have anything to do with Nebuchadrezzar.
If I haven't suggested it to you before you should go to google online books and find S.R.Driver's commentary and introduction on the Book of Daniel ©1900. He sees Daniel as a 2nd century BCE product as well.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
IN JPS Daniel 5:8 - "Then came in all the king's wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation."
This suggests it was not of a language that could be understood. It also indicated they could not interpret it either.
If you can't read it, just how can you interpret it?????
NOPE.
The JPS does not indicate the writing was translated from an unknown language into Aramaic. It simply says this:
"And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN"
This is Aramaic. It does not give anything else. It does not say the writing was translated to be "....." It says this was what was insribed.
This is an assumption outside the text on your part.
The interpetation can be to invest in olive presses, so what, the writer wrote after the fact.
Since this was written after the Persians invaded the writer knew what occured.
You cannot prove what language the supposed "magic" fantasy hand wrote. You are using assumptions here in your argument that have no basis.
The text does not support the language was not Aramaic, it indicates it was.
Try Again.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
This is all opinions of convenience on your part.
You admit you can't prove who was meant but chose to view it in a way that conforms to your desire to have errounous free predictions and not bad history.
OTOH - It as I suggested can indicate the writer messed up in his history from about 400 years earlier, since the Internet was still far far in the future and he was too far to travel to the nearest library.
Your view calls for assumption on who was meant, mine calls for a skeptical view of the correctness and who was actually meant.
What gets me is you recognize the point it can be wrong but immediately discard it as it might weaken your basis.
Skeptical points mount up with Daniel and sink the ship from all the holes put into it.
Though in this case the most well known person of these names were Darius who ruled for a very long time (522-486 BCE) and Ahasuerus aka Xerxes (486-465 BCE) who is mentioned as the king with a Jew as a wife named Esther.
The errors don't help your cause nor do multiple choices for who is meant in the text.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
I won't get into your errors and false assumptions in regards to Ezekiel at this time. That would be a sidetrack that could take weeks.
The first part of the name (Nebu)chadnezzar is missing. The chadnezzar is there and readable. Not too much question who the tablet is referring to here.
You are right that there is not proof positive that this is discussing the madness of Nebuchadnezzar, but there is a strong possibility that it is. The text is entirely consistent with that view.
Unfortunately, our fragmented records of ancient history are frequently not as clear as we would like them to be.
Fortunately, more discoveries are continually being uncovered. Like in the case of Belshazzar, we will look forward to more light being shed on this one.
But until then, the lack of historical evidence that you perceive makes your view of Daniel correct?
Sorry, there's no such thing as winning by default here.
"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
Just very interesting in light of the narrative we already had. But still unproven.
Then why did you bring it up as proof that the Daniel narrative was correct and prophetic?
"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
Never claimed it "proved" anything. Just that it was very consistent with the narrative in Daniel.
There's not enough of it to be consistent with anything. The only consistent thing is your desire to make Daniel what it's not.
"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
We can discuss it after you complete the Daniel misinterpretation if you like.
This is actually line 2 in the tablet. Nabu is missing as you say and -kudurri-usur is there.
Line 1 could be an opening discussing a Babylonian traitor for all we know. Nabu-kudurri-usur isn't brought into the text until line 2.
As I showed this text can be about anything. You "puzzle fit" it to support your view and you have nothing to support doing that.
I don't have a clue what this text is discussing. All I can decipher is several names. What the point of it was about is just guessing due to the missing text.
I don't think this particular text (BM #34113) is ever going to be fully understood, unless other tablets are found that detail what was meant in it. Possible, but so much of Iraq has been torn up and destroyed in recent years I doubt it.
I'll check back later, time to get back on the road.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Opinions of convenience? Interesting, we both agree that one can't prove who is meant, but my view that actually fits the text is assumption and your view which does not is "correctness". I guess that is "critical analysis" at it's best.
The Darius and Ahasuerus you choose to believe the author was referring to would likely be the "most well known" in the 2nd century BC when you choose to believe the book was written. These certainly would not have been the "most well known" in the 5th century BC as they were still in the future.
In the 5th century BC the earlier persons that were referred to as Ahasuerus would have been the "most well known". To suggest that they would not likely be the ones being referred to since they were not well known in the 2nd century BC is strongly "akin" to circular reasoning. And we all know "that ain't gunna float".
What we do know is that somebody was put in charge of Babylon for a short period of time while Cyrus was busy conquering the rest of the territories. Interesting, we don't know who this was?
It is also interesting that the author of Daniel also seemed to know this fact. It appears he was more knowledgeable on that period of history than we are today as well as writers in the 2nd century BC.
Daniel was ahead of us on Belshazzar, seems to be ahead of us on Darius, and also likely on Nebuchadnezzar. One can not go marching down main street trumpeting victory based entirely upon our own ignorance of history.
Our lack of knowledge does not equal bad history for the book of Daniel.
Still no evidence of "bad history" in Daniel.
Grams,
Isn't the issue that while your view fits the text neither your view nor the text fit the history that we DO know?
Shouldn't you deal with that before you go off on a "We don't know so I must be right" celebration?
"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
Exactly!!! You use what makes your "interpretated puzzle piece" view seeam real and ignore any and everything that detracts from it.
Your text also has "magic" where I define "magic" to be things that go against the reality we see and observe. This puts the text into the realm of legends and myths if it is supposedly real. Which I say it isn't.
Or it makes it "apocalyptic literature as I mentioned, written to inspire hope to the people in the 2nd century BCE to help them deal with the hopelessness and terror they are experiencing. The point of it, is there is hope through the god that will right all wrongs and be there for the "just Jews" in the end.
Yes, in the 2nd century BCE the most well known characters of Darius and Ahasuerus are those I mentioned.
And no, they wouldn't have been known in the 6TH, the 6TH the 6TH century BCE.
You constantly screw up the centuries.
If you really mean the 5th, they both would have been very well known as they both ruled in the 5th century BCE Darius ruled 522-486 BCE and Ahasuerus aka Xerxes 486-465 BCE which means it was in the 5th century BCE.
Gramps, you can't even keep your centuries straight. The 5th century BCE is from 401 to 500 BCE. The 6th is from 501 to 600 BCE. See above, Darius and Xerxes ruled in the 5th century BCE.
This is like the 5th or 6th time I've pointed out this error of yours.
You have no clue what was knowledge and what was 'creative storytelling' to engross the reader in the Apocalyptic tale.
Many things have been lost in history or misunderstood. What we now know of the time still does not support the purported tales to be true in Daniel.
You fervantly want it to be true so you can have some reason to buy into the god stories, but not so my friend.
You still have all of this to address:
And you have to place Daniel in Babylon somehow with secular sources:
Go ahead and try to address at least 6 c), 6 d), 6 e), and 6 f).
I really doubt you can address #1, secular sources placing Daniel in Babylon.
More later, 500 miles to go today.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
Where can I start. I'm just an average high school/Navy educated fool, but I'll let you know what I think of your post.
How can you tell someone they do not understand what they are believing when there is no standard for christianity to start with. The "word" can be interpreted any way the reader chooses. This is why we have multiple sects of the same basic religion. So once you can prove that your interpretation is more accurate over the one I have been taught, or anyone else's, that argument is void.
Myth number one is not supported in the bible? Its in the bible. And of course I know is false doctrine, because its in the bible. Along with the talking donkey, killer bears, man swallowing fish. It simply sounds like you have come up with an interpretation that sits right with you. Just like every christian does.
God is a horrible monster. Just look at my quote. This is dumb, I quit.
"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4
Really? Open a dictionary.
This is not "We don't know so I must be right". First I am answering to the absurd claim that "we don't know so Daniel must be wrong" that the "skeptics" keep promoting.
The false assumption keeps being put forward that "bad history" in the book of Daniel is a proven fact. That is not the case. It is only an "assumption" based entirely upon ignorance. To me that is not rational.
Welcome marshalltenbears
How very nice and convenient. You pull a single text out of the bible. It is no longer viewed in context. You are evaluating this some 3000+ years after it was written. And build your whole view of God from that.
To me that is not rational.
If you go back and read what was going on, and what really happened, another picture emerges.
First, what is quoted in Numbers 25:4 never actually happened. The statement did however get the peoples attention.
Second, we are talking about a people who were out of control and in danger of losing all reference of human dignity. There was always a "bigger picture" that had to happen or ALL would be lost. Sin, and all of it's horrible consequences were in danger of being eternalized. That would be the most monstrous thing that could happen.
Third, we are dealing with bloody, cruel, and perverse cultures. Sacrificing screaming babies on burning alters was fairly common in that era.
It is quite likely that our own "more civilized" views of behavior can be attributed to the way God handled these situations. Christianity has largely shaped the values world wide for the better. And that would not have happened if the ancient Israelites had not survived as God's special people.
It is so easy to build a single text theology. It is much more difficult to use ones "gray matter" and think a little more deeply into what was really going on and the enormous consequences of not "getting it right".
As always, your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.
Gramps
Neither is taking Daniel as the truth despite what history actually shows. That's what is actually happening (your straw man to the contrary).
Your approach is "What do I have to do to get Jesus to fit here?" as opposed to "Where do Daniel and history meet?"
"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
As opposed to your creation of a context that is not there, Gramps? It is interesting how you chose to assume that the impaling didn't happen because it wasn't mentioned? Are you the only one who can do that?
"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
Wrong again. Instead of assuming that anything in the book of Daniel we do not know for certain is evidence of "bad history", I look to see if there are figures or events in history that actually do fit the text. Interestingly when one does look into the historical aspects of Daniel in this light, things seem to match up remarkably well.
The skeptic assumes Daniel to be written in the 2nd century BC, and goes from there down the wrong path with blinders on chasing shadows of his own imagination.
I did not say that impaling did not happen. It is clear from the text that it did. What we were discussing was decapitation. According to the text, that did not happen.
Numbers 25:6 A brazen Israelite brought a Midianite woman (the daughter of a Midianite chief) into his tent right in front of Moses and the repentant, weeping Israelite congregation to have sex. (paraphrased)
25:7,8 Phinehas, Aarons grandson went into the tent and impaled them both and the plague ended. (paraphrased)
Here is where impaling took place.
God's "wrath" subsided, and no more action was needed. Read the whole thing for yourself.
Interesting footnotes:
The Midianites were into Baal worship. Baal was a Caananite fertility deity. The fertility rituals often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution. It appears the Midianites were attempting to lure the Israelites into forsaking their own God and to join themselves with Baal.
There is a good article with references about Baal on the Encyclopedia Mythica site. Just google Baal Peor and you will find it easily.
This is something that could not be permitted to continue. So God acted swift and severe.
And yes, I did paraphrase for both brevity and clarity. One only has to read the whole chapter for themselves to "get the picture".
And you jam those historical figures in whether the text supports it or not. Have you forgotten that I've read the whole thread?
"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
Very hard to impale heads without decapitating them. Baal is a Canaanite fertility deity and is the brother of Yahweh (a Canaanite thunder and war god).
Explains why Jesus hated families as well.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I do this real moron thing. It's called thinking. And that does not make me a very good skeptic.
Since you have read my whole thread, you should know that every historical figure I suggest fits the text actually does fit the text. Unlike AE IV who does not, and therefore skeptics are forced to make excuses like "Well, the writer of Daniel was not a very good historian".
Since you have read the whole thread you already know that I addressed this early on. God does not and did not hate families. I do not believe that He hated Midianites either. I am sure that he hated their vile acts that leads to the degradation of their society and even further debased human behaviors. Like human sacrifice.
Do you suppose that it is just possible that a group of people may be able to become so degenerated and diseased that it would not be in even their own best interest to allow them to continue in their misery?
Some 3000 years later we have no way of knowing what condition that group of Midainites were in. As far as we know the culture could have been infected with aids or even something worse. In that time in history, were that to be allowed to spread into the Israelite population and other tribes in the area it would be absolutely devastating.
When we judge God to be a "monster" because of a couple of seemingly cruel and hart less acts done some 3000 years ago, we make the assumption that we know ALL of the facts. That is not rational.
I could not allow myself to believe anything that is not rational.
We have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. The overwhelming majority portrays a kind and loving God. It also gives us a narrative that helps us to put all this into perspective. To just pull things out and make judgements one or two single events taken out of context is once again, not rational.
Interesting how you like to "clutter up" your assertions with obviously non-issues to make it look like you have more evidence on your side. This seems to be a bad habit of yours.
First, we do not know whether or not this god was given a name. All we know is that the writer of Daniel did not tell us if he did have one or not. It is quite irrational to assume that if this image had a name the writer of Daniel would certainly have told us.
It seems pretty apparent to me that this image was a defiant response to the earlier image in the dream. The image in the dream had a head of gold representing Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon, followed by other metals representing successive kingdoms.
Nebuchadnezzar, not liking the idea of his kingdom coming to an end apparently made an image of only gold to signify his kingdom lasting forever. Having everyone worship this image would "drive home the point". This would not necessitate the image having the name of a god.
I do not see the absence of a reference to a pagan god name as having any significance at all. You really think this is a rational basis for anything???
Second, concerning the Greek Loan Words.
It was originally suggested that the Greek words "cithara, psaltry, and symphonia" were not known or used before the 2nd century BC. It has come to light however that Pythagores born in the 6th century BC used the word symphonia.
I do not believe that there are any serious critics that take use this argument anymore.
It is also known that Greek mercenaries and slaves served in Babylon during that era. Musical instruments are among the first aspects of a culture to penetrate into another culture. It would be very difficult to find any ethnic group of peoples living anywhere at any time without their cultural music.
No need to post references here as this common knowledge is easily found on Wikipedia.
This may be your most lame attempt yet in trying to make a "bad history" case against Daniel.
Oh yes, arguments of omission. The skeptic's favorite weapon.
1- Finding a reference to Daniel among the numerous fragments of relics from that era would be like finding a needle in a haystack. There are major wars and events that we have precious little if anything on. Even Belshazzar, who was the son of Nebonidus that was co-regent or a king was doubted to have existed for many years. It is no big mystery that we have not as of yet found a reference to Daniel.
2 - I like the vagueness of this one. I am sure that it would take a massive volume of encyclopedias written by the author of Daniel to cover ALL of the events and historical figures good enough to satisfy this one. Once again, the book of Daniel was not written as a complete historical record of the Babylonian kings and their exploits. It was a narrative about certain events in the life of Daniel, some close friends, and a prophetic outline of relevant powers down through history. To try to make it anything else is not rational.
3 - Interesting, we do have the reference to a Daniel in Ezekiel that fits the description at the time when Daniel was supposed to have lived. And we do have that reference in 1 Mac where it appears that Daniel must have been well known about in the early part of the 2nd century BC. That's not too bad since "parchment" does not weather the centuries too well.
4 - I'm not so sure we have many "manuscripts" prior to the DSS at all. Like I pointed out in 3, parchment does not weather the centuries well. It's too bad everything was not recorded on clay tablets.
5 - Yes, you have demonstrated your remarkable ability to "puzzle fit" many interpretations into the text of Daniel. Including China and the West. When we get down to Alex the Great however, there are no other powers one can find to fit this one.
Looks like just more "grasping at straws" to avoid facing the God reality.
What you fail to understand is nothing is a non-issue. Every bit of Daniel should be examined and compared to what is known about the time. You are the one trying to convince people that Daniel prophesied in the 6th century BCE remember. Anything that makes it cloudy or difficult to fit is subject to questioning.
Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians were very respectful and descriptive of their gods. For a representation to be made and not be named is unlikely. However if a Jew wrote later on after the god trashing done by other writers/prophets, he'd make all the same mistakes as Daniel including the idea that the representation was "thee god". If you research the ancient gods of Mesopotamia you will see that the Daniel 3 narrative is ridiculous from what was practiced. It is illogical to think that when a god of Mesopotamia was being discussed that it's name would not be included. The only god deserving of the supposed reverance in Daniel 3 would be Marduk and it's name being omitted suggests that this chapter is fiction. There are many books and clay tablets which you can easily find to help you out of this ignorance.
It indicates the writer of Daniel was not in Babylon at all. If so he'd have known all about the gods of Sumer.
And for you to suggest that King Nebuchadrezzar made up a god shows your ignorance of Mesopotamia and it's history.
Your views are based on the misrepresented writings of the OT and in fact ignore what is known of ancient Mesopotamia. This is true for much of the tripe you claim. You ignore what was tradition and practiced in Babylon or you simply have no idea as you are ignorant on the subject.
You are quite funny in your ignorance.
Did you make up this interpretation of why and how King Nebuchadrezzar created a god or are you using some Christian web site's distorted view of the period?
Then you'd have to show these words being used in Mesopotamia to support this position. I'm aware there were Greeks in Babylon. So? You have something showing they used these words there?
I've heard this argument before though nothing else in your OT or other writing of the period supports it. You are arguing here for an isolated incident. You'd be better off agreeing the words were later on used when the book was re-copied by scribes to reflect the understanding in the 2nd century BCE. Much like words today are substituted in writing from the 19th, such as the lame rewrite of Huck Finn.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
1. The vile act of human sacrifice? Like Jephthah and his daughter or Yahweh and his son/himself? Guess you're only against human sacrifice when your favorites aren't doing it.
2. No. I suppose that both groups were equally depraved and "history" is always written by the victors.
3. Indeed we do have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. Reading it made me rethink my belief in that God (I'm still thinking about it). Perhaps you should try reading it and thinking as well.
"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
Very hard to impale heads without decapitating them. Baal is a Canaanite fertility deity and is the brother of Yahweh (a Canaanite thunder and war god).
Explains why Jesus hated families as well.
Since you have read the whole thread you already know that I addressed this early on. God does not and did not hate families. I do not believe that He hated Midianites either. I am sure that he hated their vile acts that leads to the degradation of their society and even further debased human behaviors. Like human sacrifice.
Do you suppose that it is just possible that a group of people may be able to become so degenerated and diseased that it would not be in even their own best interest to allow them to continue in their misery?
Some 3000 years later we have no way of knowing what condition that group of Midainites were in. As far as we know the culture could have been infected with aids or even something worse. In that time in history, were that to be allowed to spread into the Israelite population and other tribes in the area it would be absolutely devastating.
When we judge God to be a "monster" because of a couple of seemingly cruel and hart less acts done some 3000 years ago, we make the assumption that we know ALL of the facts. That is not rational.
I could not allow myself to believe anything that is not rational.
We have a whole Bible that tells us many things about God. The overwhelming majority portrays a kind and loving God. It also gives us a narrative that helps us to put all this into perspective. To just pull things out and make judgements one or two single events taken out of context is once again, not rational.
Once again you take an isolated incident out of context, and make unfounded assumptions.
1. Jephthah was thrown out and disinherited by his family due to the fact he was the son of a harlot. That must have been a very harsh reality. It's no wonder he turned out to be "a might man of valor". And had such "attitude".
2. He left that community that rejected him and "hung out" with "bad company".
3. Those "idiots" who had rejected him came "a runnin'" for his help when trouble came.
4. Jephthah agreed to help them if they would make him their leader. It was agreed.
5. Jephthah made a very stupid oath that he would "sacrifice" the first thing that came out of his house if God were to give him the victory.
6. Jephthah had a great victory.
7. Mezpah his only daughter came out to greet him when he returned.
8. Jephthah felt he had to honor his vow, and sacrificed his daughter.
Here we have what appears to be a rough character. We have no indication that he was a great man of God or that his actions were directed or approved by God. In fact, his horrid act was in direct disobedience to the laws that God had already given. This story is a record of what he did, and in no way supports this as a good or righteous act.
Just because some idiot does something horrible, and it is recorded in the Bible, that does not make it something that God approves of or is responsible for.
There is no where in the Bible where human sacrifice is commanded or condoned. Unless you are perverted enough to suggest that Jesus voluntary death on the cross for the sins of humanity is in any way comparable.
And I am sure you are probably just that far gone.