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
Offline Quote:So my question to you would be why? Why do you believe the stories in the bible about talking snakes, and not other stories with supernatural claims not found in your holybook of choice? If you are able to believe these kinds of things without evidence, why not believe in other supernatural claims not found in the bible?
in question order:
a] because it offers the most rational, coherent world-view and because of personal experience.
b] because other "holy books" don't offer a coherent rational world-view and latterly because I recognise spiritual deception when I see it.
c] I don't believe anything without evidence........no-one has offered me evidence that granny will come back as a tree-frog. I do recognise supernatural claims not found in the Bible ........one just has to be discerning with regard to their source.
1. How is "magic man done it" rational and coherent? Are your personal experiences from God only if they are positive?
2. From my readings, all "holy books" are equally incoherent? Is it spiritual deception only because it isn't from the God you like? Doesn't that put you above your God?
3. No one will ever off that evidence about your granny (though I think if it came from a Rev. in a church you like you'd take it more seriously). On what is your discernment of the supernatural based? "I like it/It affects me positively so it's from God"?
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline gramster wrote:Are we still disputing any of the first three kingdoms. That being Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Alexander the Great's Empire under what ever name one wants to use? If so we can now go on to the 4th kingdom (Rome). If not what kingdom or kingdoms are being suggested as possible "suspects"?
I am now using explorer instead of mozilla. We will see if this works better.
[/Look above for Rome's replacement - a truly divided empire.
A case could also be made for the satrapies could well be considered separate countries and Darius (who ruled pre-Cyrus) could have been made a grab for the territory.
I know you hate speculation unless it's in the Bible...oh wait, this is. Darius is listed as a seplarate ruler.]
As for the kingdoms presented in Daniel 2 we need to get back to business. Even though it is a long shot, for the sake of argument we will leave open a slight possibility that Darius, the Turks, Satrapies, China, Peru, or some other planetary colony may be referenced here.
As Paul John was kind enough to point out, this prophecy gives reference to the later days. There were roughly 13 kings over Babylonia during the Medo-Persian empire, and 14 kings during Hellenistic Babylonia. If we try to make each one of these fit we will never make it to the later days.
I have considered all of the other kingdoms mentioned so far. None of them make any sense to me. It seems rational for us to examine the ONLY kingdoms or empires that historians would list as successive.
Ask a historian. What kingdom followed Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. He will tell you Medo-Persia, Persia, or the Achaemenid Empire. Ask what kingdom was next. He will tell you Alexanders Macedonia or Greece. Ask what kingdom followed that. He will tell you Rome. If you ask for a detailed history of each of those kingdoms you would then get a lesson on all of the other individual kings, rulers, conquests etc.
Going forward I will be examining those kingdoms that are the most obvious. As we go along we can see if any of the other kingdoms mentioned can "hang in there" as possible "suspects", or if they are eliminated along the way.
This is not picking and choosing the powers that fit and validate MY PERSONAL views. As we go forward we will see that the "proof is in the pudding". The powers that Daniel is referring will fit like hand and glove. Otherwise we have the wrong ones.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:gramster wrote:Are we still disputing any of the first three kingdoms. That being Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Alexander the Great's Empire under what ever name one wants to use? If so we can now go on to the 4th kingdom (Rome). If not what kingdom or kingdoms are being suggested as possible "suspects"?
I am now using explorer instead of mozilla. We will see if this works better.
[/Look above for Rome's replacement - a truly divided empire.
A case could also be made for the satrapies could well be considered separate countries and Darius (who ruled pre-Cyrus) could have been made a grab for the territory.
I know you hate speculation unless it's in the Bible...oh wait, this is. Darius is listed as a seplarate ruler.]
As for the kingdoms presented in Daniel 2 we need to get back to business. Even though it is a long shot, for the sake of argument we will leave open a slight possibility that Darius, the Turks, Satrapies, China, Peru, or some other planetary colony may be referenced here.
As Paul John was kind enough to point out, this prophecy gives reference to the later days. There were roughly 13 kings over Babylonia during the Medo-Persian empire, and 14 kings during Hellenistic Babylonia. If we try to make each one of these fit we will never make it to the later days.
I have considered all of the other kingdoms mentioned so far. None of them make any sense to me. It seems rational for us to examine the ONLY kingdoms or empires that historians would list as successive.
Ask a historian. What kingdom followed Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. He will tell you Medo-Persia, Persia, or the Achaemenid Empire. Ask what kingdom was next. He will tell you Alexanders Macedonia or Greece. Ask what kingdom followed that. He will tell you Rome. If you ask for a detailed history of each of those kingdoms you would then get a lesson on all of the other individual kings, rulers, conquests etc.
Going forward I will be examining those kingdoms that are the most obvious. As we go along we can see if any of the other kingdoms mentioned can "hang in there" as possible "suspects", or if they are eliminated along the way.
This is not picking and choosing the powers that fit and validate MY PERSONAL views. As we go forward we will see that the "proof is in the pudding". The powers that Daniel is referring will fit like hand and glove. Otherwise we have the wrong ones.
You mean "ask a lay Bible historian" don't you? Other historians would probably know more than hobbyists.
However, I look forward to reading how you will shoehorn this into your personal views (while claiming you're 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
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Jews do not consider Daniel to be one of the 55 prophets and his book is included in the writings section of the Tanakh not the prophetic section. According to the Jews his writings were aimed at a future age and not deemed to be prophetic. see Judaism 101.yes, that is correct, the Christian view is different from all but Messianic Jews. You wouldn't expect them to believe prophecies relating to Christ for instance!
The point here is your divergent view is in opposition to the beliefs of those who established the god and scriptures you hold to be literally true yet you consider the Jews to error in their understanding and only Christian misconstrued interpretation from the original Jewish concepts are correct. You need to show how the Jews error to establish your basis and do so with substantial evidence not hearsay claims of the NT. In other words, some point in the past, whether it be at the time of Isaiah, Ezra, or Daniel Jewish understanding of their god's prophets failed to comprehend what was given them by the prophets in their expectations of the mashiach.
Quote:Since your beliefs follow further down the road after Judaism explain why there is such a divergence?my above comment should largely explain - they still await the Messiah.......Daniel is far too close to the bone for them.
This is not an explanation but is an assertion. The Jews do await the mashiach because Jesus doesn't fit what they understood.
Explain why and how they took a path that is incorrect.
freeminer wrote:Quote:See above, Jews do not consider Daniel to be a prophet. Keeping this in mind, why do you?
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.
Quote:The latter days have been claimed to be the current times countless times in the last 2000 years. The NT in both the Gospels and Paul's writing seem to indicate it is upon them. And again and again many have thought the end was nigh ever since. Yet, we are still here and the world progresses down its path.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.
back later!
You have many details to address in your claims the Jewish people did not understand what was given them by their prophets before you go into any attempt to show there are current signs the latter days approach. You need to remain focused and not go in so many directions at once, we can discuss current signs once you establish you have the foundation and clear evidance to show Jews misunderstood their prophets at some point in the past, using their scriptures, not Pauline doctrines or NT hearsay claims.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:gramster wrote:Are we still disputing any of the first three kingdoms. That being Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Alexander the Great's Empire under what ever name one wants to use? If so we can now go on to the 4th kingdom (Rome). If not what kingdom or kingdoms are being suggested as possible "suspects"?
I am now using explorer instead of mozilla. We will see if this works better.
[/Look above for Rome's replacement - a truly divided empire.
A case could also be made for the satrapies could well be considered separate countries and Darius (who ruled pre-Cyrus) could have been made a grab for the territory.
I know you hate speculation unless it's in the Bible...oh wait, this is. Darius is listed as a seplarate ruler.]
As for the kingdoms presented in Daniel 2 we need to get back to business. Even though it is a long shot, for the sake of argument we will leave open a slight possibility that Darius, the Turks, Satrapies, China, Peru, or some other planetary colony may be referenced here.
As Paul John was kind enough to point out, this prophecy gives reference to the later days. There were roughly 13 kings over Babylonia during the Medo-Persian empire, and 14 kings during Hellenistic Babylonia. If we try to make each one of these fit we will never make it to the later days.
I have considered all of the other kingdoms mentioned so far. None of them make any sense to me. It seems rational for us to examine the ONLY kingdoms or empires that historians would list as successive.
Sir, my point still remains, that Daniel and those of his time had no idea that the world was as vast as it is. You on the other hand know there was far more to the world at the time because you have the benefit of looking back with that knowledge. Since you choose to ignore it and take only the knowledge of those who were ignorant of reality, you do so with the intent to fit these supposed sayings (not prophecies though as the Jews don't agree they are) to build your foundations for your beliefs. Clearly Daniel and the people of the Middle East at this point had no idea they were in error and so too would Nebuchadnezzar if he thought he ruled the world, as he did not.
Ask a historian. What kingdom followed Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. He will tell you Medo-Persia, Persia, or the Achaemenid Empire. Ask what kingdom was next. He will tell you Alexanders Macedonia or Greece. Ask what kingdom followed that. He will tell you Rome. If you ask for a detailed history of each of those kingdoms you would then get a lesson on all of the other individual kings, rulers, conquests etc.
Yes, in regard ONLY to the history of the Middle East and Mediterranean, these kingdoms did follow each other except you still leave out the kingdoms that split up from Alexander, namely Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms. The Seleucid Kingdom lasted for nearly 250 years in some form, yet you are dismissive of it. It was the largest of the kingdoms after Alexander lasting in a very huge territory for many years longer than Alexander, yet you are dismissive of it. Why?
If you ask a historian to detail the largest kingdoms and empires in the ancient entire world, the Chinese and others will be included. So what you are doing, is creating a subset to accept the ignorance of those of antiquity that made future predictions ONLY for a small portion of the entire world though they claimed it was the Whole Earth, Daniel 2:39, which is not true for any kingdom of the Middle East then nor later.
Going forward I will be examining those kingdoms that are the most obvious. As we go along we can see if any of the other kingdoms mentioned can "hang in there" as possible "suspects", or if they are eliminated along the way.
This is not picking and choosing the powers that fit and validate MY PERSONAL views. As we go forward we will see that the "proof is in the pudding". The powers that Daniel is referring will fit like hand and glove. Otherwise we have the wrong ones.
And by the way, the claim Nebuchadnezzar was a greater king than any of the Persians is also not true. Daniel 2:39 says the kingdom that came after his would be inferior to his. If we go with the Medes-Persians, their kingdom lasted until Alexander conquered most of it by 331 BCE or for over 225 years. Nebuchadnezzar only ruled for 43 years and Babylon ceased to exist as a separate Empire in 539 BCE.
So far, the gloves don't fit.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. How is "magic man done it" rational and coherent?
Quote:can I politely suggest that the standard atheist "sky fairy" stuff isn't conducive to mature discussion? To anwer your question with a question......why should the notion of events emanating from outside the cause/effect closed system be irrational?
Quote:Are your personal experiences from God only if they are positive?they are all positive even when they don't appear to be.
Quote:2. From my readings, all "holy books" are equally incoherent?your reading is wrong..........no shame in that, the only mistake a man can make is not to be genuinely seeking.
Quote:Is it spiritual deception only because it isn't from the God you like? Doesn't that put you above your God?there is only one.......this simplifies things a good deal.
Quote:3. No one will ever off that evidence about your granny (though I think if it came from a Rev. in a church you like you'd take it more seriously).you appear to believe you know me. To presume me to be a fool is a mistake.
Quote:as your Bible would tell you, it's based on the indwelling Holy Spirit.On what is your discernment of the supernatural based? "I like it/It affects me positively so it's from God"?
'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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Mods? Why does a very open theist like Freeminer have an Atheist label?
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline 1. How is "magic man done it" rational and coherent?
rcan I politely suggest that the standard atheist "sky fairy" stuff isn't conducive to mature discussion? To anwer your question with a question......why should the notion of events emanating from outside the cause/effect closed system be irrational?
Are your personal experiences from God only if they are positive?
they are all positive even when they don't appear to be.
2. From my readings, all "holy books" are equally incoherent?
your reading is wrong..........no shame in that, the only mistake a man can make is not to be genuinely seeking.
Is it spiritual deception only because it isn't from the God you like? Doesn't that put you above your God?
there is only one.......this simplifies things a good deal.
3. No one will ever off that evidence about your granny (though I think if it came from a Rev. in a church you like you'd take it more seriously).
you appear to believe you know me. To presume me to be a fool is a mistake.
On what is your discernment of the supernatural based? "I like it/It affects me positively so it's from God"?
as your Bible would tell you, it's based on the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Apologies for setting everything off in quotes - words were running together for me.
1. You said it yourself - cause/effect is a closed system. Having an uncaused cause is an invocation of magic. It's also a logical fallacy called special pleading - "Everything must play by the rules except..."
2. So you give God credit for the bad experiences because you've been indoctrinated in "all things work together for our good..."? That's one way to release God from his doing evil.
3. Not even Christians agree on their being one God - hence denominationalism. They all add their tweaks.
4. I don't know you but I know a lot of people like you. They're the types that I grew up with. The church was struggling to survive and they asked the pastor to take another job (as many of them were doing to help the church). All the lazy schlub said was "Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-jireh". Well, The lord didn't provide, he's out of the faith and the pastorate and the church no longer exists. Way to go God! NB: Before you start on "You're an atheist - you want churches gone" - no, I'd like to see them taxed as functioning members of society but the institution does have some redeeming qualities in the social realm.
5. Yeah, the Bible can't keep any of its positions on mundane matters consistent. I doubt if I could trust it on the supernatural.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline
It is not only Daniel that is a problem but all of the misconstrued views of ancient writings of but one culture of the ancient world.
but I have presented evidence to show that Daniel is not a problem. No-one forces anyone to believe anything but rationally, all the evidence points to the authenticity of Daniel as a prophet. At the end of the day, however coherent the evidence, people don't believe if they don't want to, regardless of the evidence. Ultimately the question is not one of rationality or evidence. That it why Jews dismiss Daniel and render Isaiah an incoherent mess!
Everyone is entitled to their own form of understanding that enables them to get up in the morning. Whether it affects "an eternal" destiny or not is clearly unsubstantiated.
what you mean is that it's unsubstantiated by you.
Claiming that you have the interpreted knowledge derived only from ancient writers which you claim is the truth is very arrogant. It would be far better to say it was your opinion based on your interpretations than to make such a unprovable assertion.
but your notion that it is an "unprovable assertion" is your very own "unfounded assertion" What you mean is that if I adopted a relativistic mindset, it would sit more comfortably with your own sensibilities. However, the Bible says, "the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge", not the beginning of "opinion".
The truth is. Daniel wrote many things which are clearly open to interpretations.
if you mean, people can come up with all sorts of alternative stories, then yes, this is quite so. Whether any of them can be rationally held by any thinking person is another matter.
In your case, you accept them as they are part of the foundation that builds Christianity. The Jews however see this in a very different perspective than you. Others, whether it be atheists or believers in other religious persuasions don't see what you claim either.
yes, but you see, I never was one to run with the herd. As I said earlier, consensus is not synonymous with truth. Jesus said the opposite would be the case.
I did read where you claim to be a literalist, which helps in understanding exactly where you come from in your views.
I explained the sense in which I am not a literalist but as opposed to theological liberalism.......yes. Does knowing which box to put me in make you feel more comfortable?
I'm not entirely convinced of the awareness the Babylonians had of Eastern China. Perhaps there was awareness of India, as the Egyptians have been shown to have been involved in trade, and it appears so too was ancient Iran. That trade had occurred for 100s if not thousands of years by 500 BCE is not questioned, what is is exact understanding of the real vastness of China and East Asia. I have seen little in ancient Mediterranean history that supports a view that anyone prior to Rome in the early 1st century had a clue of the vast empires and civilizations that were in Eastern Asia. Alexander got as far as India and was far from the population centers of the Chinese.
yes, well Iran is a modern construct of course........I think we would find considerable Babylonian interest in India. I suspect that, as you say, detailed knowledge of the far east was probably lacking but I also suspect that trade was far mmore extensive than is thought.
I don't deny that Nebuchadnezzar would think as if he was the king of the world, it indicates his lack of knowledge of what the world actually was at the time. He saw that he was the strongest king in the area he dominated and had no idea how little of the world it actually encompassed. And as I said, neither did Daniel, or his god if it was inspired.
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!!!
In the 3rd quote, Daniel claims the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. As this hasn't actually occurred as of yet except in puzzle piece fitting Jesus as instituting it, which is for another discussion, unless you really want to send this thread down a new path.
I'm not sure why you consider it a "new path"unless you wish to positively avoid an understanding of prophecy. Does it unsettle you? How tough are you feeling? 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.
Again you interpret into support of your opinions what is meant by "the kingdom of god" from the NT with no details or analysis.
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.
Extensive explanation and evidence is required. Written unsupported assertions by either you or ancient writers is not evidence.
I am not the one making "unsupported assertions" here, quite the contrary. What are these "other interpretations"which are so well supported by evidence? I am very happy to give you a full run down of Daniel's correlation with historical events if you want it.
Revelation is an interesting discussion and re-visitation of not only Daniel but also Ezekiel and 1 Enoch and should be handled specifically in its entirety and not just by quote grabbing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "quote-grabbing" . We have the major and minor prophetic books and Revelation. Psalms also ccontains prophecy as do the Gospels. It is in the nature of prophecy that it requires disentangling.
It on it's own discredits itself, which we can discuss later if you wish.
well this is bang on topic. If you can show that Daniel "discredits itself".......go ahead.
For now, Gramps was working down a path to show us how Daniel is supposedly relevant, you should try to remain focused in his support and not be divergent upon multiple paths of discussion. So far, Gramps has done very little to provide substantial substance to his opinions and your support has done little to move most from a neutral position.
I am more than happy to remain with Daniel for the moment. I have put up an independent argument for the authenticity of Daniel by relating it to the known dating of the Septuagint. This has nothing to do with "interpretation", simply straightforward logic applied to the accepted dates. My case remains unrefuted. Therefore, if it has "done little to move you" an examination of your own neutrality may be in order. Bear in mind that you are an atheist on a site with the avowed aim of destroying theism!!! A consideration of the logic of the schema you've put forward might be a good idea. Are you proposing it as a total fabrication? If so what would the agenda be? Is it supposed to present a coherent picture with other prophecies or would you like to come up with alternative paradigms for ALL prophecy? Prophecy sets out to warn you. It would seem easier for you just to ignore it but if we're going to do this, let's submit your idea to rigorous analysis. I am very happy to support gramps' line of reasoning where necessary.
'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.
- Login to post comments
Offline I discovered while I was addressing Freeminer's comments he manipulated what I said by making it appear I was discussing something other than what I referenced.
I consider him to be dishonest at this point and will wait for an apology. If he does not make one, I'm done with him as he has shown his true colors as a manipulative individual.
**Edit deleted comments and quotes to Freeminer except the manipulated section***
Quote:It on it's own discredits itself, which we can discuss later if you wish.well this is bang on topic. If you can show that Daniel "discredits itself".......go ahead.
What you did here is dishonest manipulation and is cause to end all discussion with you unless you admit your are dishonest and apologize and you never do it again.
Revelation is an interesting discussion and re-visitation of not only Daniel but also Ezekiel and 1 Enoch and should be handled specifically in its entirety and not just by quote grabbing. It on it's own discredits itself, which we can discuss later if you wish.
You took a comment in regards to Revelation and made it seem like I was discussing Daniel.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The most specific prophecy to Babylon's destruction is Isaiah 13. Isaiah claims the Medes would utterly destroy Babylon. He predicted extreme violence and death, v18. In v19, "And Babylon the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency shall be as when God overthrew Sodom & Gomorrah." - KJVThe problem with this prophecy is it did not happen that way.
Babylon welcomes Cyrus with green twigs and leaves as a liberator, not a conqueror. The king of Babylon, Nabondius who isn't even mentioned in the Bible flees and eventually surrenders.
Babylon is used by the Persians as a capitol city and later on by Alexander the Great who dies there in 329 BCE.
This all invalidates Isaiah's false prophecy, one of many he screwed up.
Ah, thanks for find it.
"She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there, no shepherd will rest his flocks there." Isaiah 13:20 - NIV
Well, now that I have the actual Bible verse instead of just gramp's unsupported blabberings, it's pretty clear that this prophecy is long falsified. I wonder if he can come up with a weird response to this.
Firstly:
The name of the Babylonian king Belshazzar (Daniel 5) appeared for the first time in a text found in a foundation deposit of the temple. Scholars once said the Bible was wrong in naming Belshazzar as king when the Persians conquered Babylon, since the known records indicated that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon.
What the foundation deposit tablet, along with other subsequently found texts, revealed was that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and coregent with his father. While Nabonidus was away campaigning, which he loved to do, Belshazzar was left to run the country from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar offered Daniel the position of “third highest ruler in the kingdom” if he would decipher the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:16). This was the highest available office in the kingdom, since Nabonidus was number one and his son Belshazzar was number two. Instead of being in error, the Bible precisely reflected the political situation that existed in ancient Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians.
ok, this is an aside but just "en passent".......Isaiah 13 reads:
17Behold, I am going to ">(AI)stir up the Medes against them,
Who will not value silver or ">(AJ)take pleasure in gold.
18And their bows will mow down the ">(AK)young men,
They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb,
Nor will their ">(AL)eye pity children.
19And ">(AM)Babylon, the ">(AN)beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride,
Will be as when God ">(AO)overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20It will ">(AP)never be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation;
Nor will the ">(AQ)Arab pitch his tent there,
Nor will shepherds make their flocks lie down there.
21But ">(AR)desert creatures will lie down there,
And their houses will be full of owls;
Ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there.
22Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers
And jackals in their luxurious ">(AS)palaces.
Her fateful time also will soon come
And her days will not be prolonged.
just love the "green twigs" story!........who came up with that gem?
Scholars believe that this portion of Isaiah was completed not long after 701BC. Understandably, you haven't understood eschatological exegesis. The simplest way to explain is probably:
Verses 17-18. Did they happen? yes, ie we have no contrary evidence.
Verses 19-22 Did they happen? Yes, we know this.
The point is, one cannot understand prophecy by presuming that events are necessarily concurrent..... sorry! A classic case is Daniel 11 where his prophecy of Antiochus runs straight into his prophecy of the Antichrist.
'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.
- Login to post comments
Offline I discovered while I was addressing Freeminer's comments he manipulated what I said by making it appear I was discussing something other than what I referenced.
I consider him to be dishonest at this point and will wait for an apology. If he does not make one, I'm done with him as he has shown his true colors as a manipulative individual.
this looks like a rapid backtracking on your part and your unsubstantiated complaint looks like a particularly feeble excuse. I require a demonstration of where I have "manipulated" anything. I won't waste my time requesting an apology because I perceive that you don't appear to have the requisite honour.
It on it's own discredits itself, which we can discuss later if you wish.
well this is bang on topic. If you can show that Daniel "discredits itself".......go ahead.
What you did here is dishonest manipulation and is cause to end all discussion with you unless you admit your are dishonest and apologize and you never do it again.
did you or did you not state that "Daniel discredits itself"? Now back it up or withdraw it.
Revelation is an interesting discussion and re-visitation of not only Daniel but also Ezekiel and 1 Enoch and should be handled specifically in its entirety and not just by quote grabbing. It on it's own discredits itself, which we can discuss later if you wish.
You took a comment in regards to Revelation and made it seem like I was discussing Daniel.
prophetic passage can appear as "quote grabbing" to the uninitiated because it is not laid out sequentially in one place, the references to the same event occur all over the place. Enoch contains some valid history but it not part of the Reformed canon. I agree that Revelation is sequential in large part which is why I personally believe post- Tribulation paradigms to be nonsense. That doesn't prevent quotes from Revelation being used to show how they relate to other prophecies.
'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.
- Login to post comments
This is in reference to ex ministers #294.
1844? Are you referring to BCE, BC, AD, or CE? If you are referring to BC or BCE I have no idea. If you are referring to AD, or CE than we are getting down to the last days. Since most at this point are still trying to make China fit into the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel, or to split Media and Persia, it is a bit premature to talk of last day prophecies.
I can't wait to get into last day prophecies. If you agree with me on the early kingdoms than you can help speed things along by adding your expertise. If you are as confused as some than there is no point at this of jumping down to the last days.
I appreciate the support on my views thus far by freeminer. It will be interesting to see what his views are as we proceed down in time. It is rare that Gramps gets any support on an atheist site like this one. Sorry for the first person reference. I'll not make a habit of it since some find it so offensive.
I did the "download thing" PJTS suggested. Sure hope it worked. I guess we will see.
sorry, still not following the logic of this. Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews - what's it got to do with China? The significance of the empires dealt with are that they impact on the land and nationhood of Israel!
BTW.......I wasn't aware that this is a private section of the forum.
I look forward to your substantiation of this assertion at a convenient point in the discussion.
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.
This doesn't stand up for the simple reason that Daniel's 70th week remains unaccounted for. Furthermore, the text with regard to the 4th Empire is explicit as regards the eternal kingdom and the anointing and death of Christ AND the fact that Daniel's 70th week ALSO applies to this empire.
'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.
For my part I will indeed be happy to oblige when convenient.
As for your dispute of the list I posted, you are proceeding from the assumption that your interpretation of Daniel must be correct. That's neither critical nor analysis.
"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
Are we still disputing any of the first three kingdoms. That being Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Alexander the Great's Empire under what ever name one wants to use? If so we can now go on to the 4th kingdom (Rome). If not what kingdom or kingdoms are being suggested as possible "suspects"?
I am now using explorer instead of mozilla. We will see if this works better.
Look above for Rome's replacement - a truly divided empire.
A case could also be made for the satrapies could well be considered separate countries and Darius (who ruled pre-Cyrus) could have been made a grab for the territory.
I know you hate speculation unless it's in the Bible...oh wait, this is. Darius is listed as a separate ruler.
"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
no, I have explicitly NOT done so. I have pointed out that since the Septuagint translation was commenced around the third cenury BC and completed in 132 BC, Daniel was certainly present in the Masoretic text BEFORE the Maccabean period. That is a very conservative view. Unless some wild eyed joker turned up in Alexandria shouting, "hold the presses", it seems clear that in 300BC the Jewish scholars were in possession of the full text.
Regarding your assertion that this does not constitute "critical analysis", I would point out that
a] The above is based on straightforward deduction from the historical facts and has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal opinion.
b] Your line of argument is based on the modern [ie post-Enlightenment] philosophical assumption that long range predictive prophecy is impossible - hardly objective.
Bible scholars put the date of completion of Daniel at circa 530 BC, shortly before the capture of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC.
I would further point out that:
1] It is clear that the author himself viewed the Medo-Persian empire as just that; a joint enterprise. [cf text generally, eg Ch 5:28].
2] The characteristics of the language argue for a date earlier than the 2nd century. Linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain authentic samples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the second century BC. demonstrate that the Hebrew and Aramaic chapters of Daniel must have been composed centuries earlier. Furthermore, the Persian and Greek words in Daniel do not require a late date. Some of the technical terms which appear in Ch3. were already so obsolete by the second century BC that translators of the Septuagint translated them incorrectly.
3] Several of the fullfillments of prophecies in Daniel could not have taken place by the second century anyway. The symbolism relating to the fourth empire make it unmistakably predictive of the Roman empire which did not take control of Syro-Palestine until 63 BC. The prophecy of the "Anointed One" 483 years after, "the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" works out to the time of the ministry of Jesus.
Regarding the identity of Darius:
Daniel 6:28 (New American Standard Bible)
28So this ">(A)Daniel enjoyed success in the reign of Darius and in the reign of ">(B)Cyrus the Persian.
Scholars believe that Darius may be another name for Gubaru, referred to in Babylonian inscriptions as the governor that Cyrus put in charge of the newly conquered territories. Alternatively, it may have been Cyrus' throne name in Babylon. Here's another example of this:
1 Chronicles 5:26 (New American Standard Bible)
26So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of ">(A)Pul, king of Assyria, even the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and he ">(B)carried them away into exile, namely the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought them to Halah, Habor, Hara and to the river of Gozan, to this day.
Secularists poured scorn on the notion that anyone called Tilgath-pilneser ever existed until, in recent times, an inscription of the name was found and it was realised that it was a name used by Pul.
The Bible is not simply concerned with "statehood", the governing secular power, when dealing with prophecy. It is also concerned with the "ecclesiastical" aspect. This may be seen if one analyses Revelation. Rome "ecclesiastical" is already divided into east and west.
'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.
In reverse
1. Why would a story about military empires be concerned with church rulers? Or is this just an attempt to salvage a position?
2. Some scholars do mention Gubaru - I don't believe there is consensus. That doesn't look good for the Bible, though.
3. No, my view is based on Daniel's prophecies likely being written after they occurred (of which there is scholarly consensus, iirc).
4. You're only 400 years off. The events happened in 6th century BCE. The book happened much later (makes it a lot easier to get 100% accurate prophecies).
"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
If the prophecies are aimed only at the Jews and pertain only to the period from Babylon to the Roman Empire explain this found in the following quotes.
Also since you apparently like the NAB version, I used it for your convenience:
1- Daniel 2:28- "However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days This was your dream and the visions in your mind while on your bed."
2- And Daniel 2:39 - "After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth."
3-Then Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."
In this first quote, it is apparent the prophecy is for the latter days, implicitly meaning at the end of time or end days of the world. Since 2500 years have passed and the world continues one cannot only consider this only refers to the few hundred years from the 6th century BCE to the time of the Roman Empire. The latter days have not arrived and it is conjecture to puzzle piece fit this prophecy to the empires in ancient times. Unless of course at some point the world ended and we all missed it.
In the 2nd quote, none of these kingdoms ruled all of the Earth as claimed by Daniel, that was the point of China. If an Empire such as the Zhou Dynasty concurrent to Babylon existed ruling a substantial portion of the Earth's population and civilization then the Medes, Persians and Greece did not meet this claim. The Han Empire in China ruled over an area equal to Rome with a similiar population, therefore Rome also did not rule over all the earth. Therefore. Daniel again is wrong, or you are trying to puzzle piece fit this alleged prophecy to any of these ancient kingdoms.
In the 3rd quote, Daniel claims the god will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. As this hasn't actually occured as of yet except in puzzle piece fitting Jesus as instituting it, which is for another discussion, unless you really want to send this thread down a new path.
I suppose this is directed at me because I wasn't very joyous at your condescending attitude. As I said before, thanks for bringing your totally objective views to this thread, thanks for coming.
Also, to help all of us understand exactly who you are talking to, please learn to make better use of the quote function. If you need further help or understanding how to use it, please visit the following thread or ask how to do it so it's clear who you are answering or questioning.
See - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/7011
*edit fixed typos*
____________________________________________________________
"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.
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.
thanks..........there are many issues, sacred and profane, upon which there is "no consensus". 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. No-one believed the Hittites existed until we found their capital.
but this is merely a restatement of your position. The only "consensus" you will find for it exists between those of a particular philosophical mindset, as I pointed out. That mindset dispenses with the notion of objectivity as a fundamental premise so those throwing their hats into that particular ring should be aware that the discovery of 'truth' is not even a distant hope.
'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.
So freeminer, you seem to be fairly knowledgable on the bible. Do you believe it is all true, are you a literalist? Do you believe in worldwide floods, adam and eve and the talking snake, all that fun stuff?
aaw.......cool hounds. 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!
'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.
I read this three times. Surely, you wouldn't make such an obvious mistake, but no, you really did.
530 BC is nine years AFTER 539 BC. You count backwards, remember?
-- 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.
yes "after" is correct of course........thanks
So my question to you would be why? Why do you believe the stories in the bible about talking snakes, and not other stories with supernatural claims not found in your holybook of choice? If you are able to believe these kinds of things without evidence, why not believe in other supernatural claims not found in the bible?
So Daniel was written AFTER the capture of Babylon. To be clear.
-- 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.
Isaid:
"Daniel's prophecies are aimed firstly at the Jews"
ie sequentially........but also "primarily" until the Church Age.
Thanks, yes I like the NAB for its accuracy of nuance....... Re the first quote, as I said, we can only account for 69 of Daniel's 70 weeks which takes us up to the ministry of Jesus. ie 483 yrs. Thus we have "one week of years" during which, in the last days, a restored Roman empire will rule, that is a confederation based on Rome and occupying the same territory.. Daniel was NEVER told that all 70 weeks would be sequential. Also we have to be careful. Daniel should be understood along with all other prophecy...ie. while one expects it to fit into a coherent overall picture, it should not be read alone. If we await Daniel's 70th week, we should be expecting to see the fulfillment of other prophecy, which we do of course.
see above. Whether the "latter days" have arrived may yet form part of our discussion.
ok, allow me to stop a moment and ask you how interested you are in truth? You see, if an atheist wishes to comfort himself with the notion that Daniel is false on the grounds that Greece didn't rule from Tahiti to Greenland, then he is at liberty to do so, but if, along the way, he misses the actual truth that is being communicated and he proceeds to lean his eternal destiny on it...... then it may just be a bit of a hollow triumph! I was just asked whether I am a "literalist". Ask yourself what is being communicated and to whom. We can reasonably assume that the Babylonians were aware of the far east kingdoms but Nebuchadnezzer had no political or military interest in China..... his territories were extensive enough! I think the "whole earth" may reasonably be read as applying to those in which he did have an interest. Such rulers develop an interest in their legacy.
Thank you for your warm welcome. My comment was prompted by the fact that you apparently required "neutrality" of others having already [if I'm not mistaken] already confessed, with disarming honesty, to bias of your own!
Apart from the occasional "f off" everyone is so polite! Thanks for your advice note!
'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.
Jews do not consider Daniel to be one of the 55 prophets and his book is included in the writings section of the Tanakh not the prophetic section. According to the Jews his writings were aimed at a future age and not deemed to be prophetic. see Judaism 101.
Since your beliefs follow further down the road after Judaism explain why there is such a divergence?
See above, Jews do not consider Daniel to be a prophet. Keeping this in mind, why do you?
The latter days have been claimed to be the current times countless times in the last 2000 years. The NT in both the Gospels and Paul's writing seem to indicate it is upon them. And again and again many have thought the end was nigh ever since. Yet, we are still here and the world progresses down its path.
It is not only Daniel that is a problem but all of the misconstrued views of ancient writings of but one culture of the ancient world.
Everyone is entitled to their own form of understanding that enables them to get up in the morning. Whether it affects "an eternal" destiny or not is clearly unsubstantiated. Claiming that you have the interpreted knowledge derived only from ancient writers which you claim is the truth is very arrogant. It would be far better to say it was your opinion based on your interpretations than to make such a unprovable assertion.
The truth is. Daniel wrote many things which are clearly open to interpretations. In your case, you accept them as they are part of the foundation that builds Christianity. The Jews however see this in a very different perspective than you. Others, whether it be atheists or believers in other religious persuasions don't see what you claim either.
I did read where you claim to be a literalist, which helps in understanding exactly where you come from in your views.
I'm not entirely convinced of the awareness the Babylonians had of Eastern China. Perhaps there was awareness of India, as the Egyptians have been shown to have been involved in trade, and it appears so too was ancient Iran. That trade had occurred for 100s if not thousands of years by 500 BCE is not questioned, what is is exact understanding of the real vastness of China and East Asia. I have seen little in ancient Mediterranean history that supports a view that anyone prior to Rome in the early 1st century had a clue of the vast empires and civilizations that were in Eastern Asia. Alexander got as far as India and was far from the population centers of the Chinese.
I don't deny that Nebuchadnezzar would think as if he was the king of the world, it indicates his lack of knowledge of what the world actually was at the time. He saw that he was the strongest king in the area he dominated and had no idea how little of the world it actually encompassed. And as I said, neither did Daniel, or his god if it was inspired.
Again you interpret into support of your opinions what is meant by "the kingdom of god" from the NT with no details or analysis. Extensive explanation and evidence is required. Written unsupported assertions by either you or ancient writers is not evidence.
Revelation is an interesting discussion and re-visitation of not only Daniel but also Ezekiel and 1 Enoch and should be handled specifically in its entirety and not just by quote grabbing. It on it's own discredits itself, which we can discuss later if you wish. For now, Gramps was working down a path to show us how Daniel is supposedly relevant, you should try to remain focused in his support and not be divergent upon multiple paths of discussion. So far, Gramps has done very little to provide substantial substance to his opinions and your support has done little to move most from a neutral position.
We all have a bias in our perspectives, when clearly opposite perspectives attempt to discuss anything of substance it can only be done from a neutral view. I did not say I required neutrality of others, clearly impossible on this forum, but a neutral stance in approaching an ancient document would be a good way to consider it. So far, this is not happening at all in this discussion. It is obvious that both Gramps and you wish to see Daniel as prophetic in support of your religious beliefs. As one that does not belief, I need to see and understand exactly how Daniel has any relevance at all. When I see claims that someone will rule all the world, yet it is but a tiny portion it does not give me a reason to see it as "inspired" by a god. I see it as a claim by an ancient who had no understanding of the real vastness of his own world. And disparity in reported history or specific confusion does not lead me to accept the version in a document that had the purpose of promoting a specific unsubstantiated god.
Actually, I don't swear and usually don't insult beyond pointing out extreme bias or snarky comments. It is always interesting to listen to how and why someone believes what they do in regards to religion and I'm always willing to listen. But what I won't quietly take is preaching or comments as in
"Does it unsettle you? How tough are you feeling?"
or
" You see, if an atheist wishes to comfort himself with the notion that Daniel is false on the grounds that Greece didn't rule from Tahiti to Greenland, then he is at liberty to do so, but if, along the way, he misses the actual truth that is being communicated and he proceeds to lean his eternal destiny on it...... then it may just be a bit of a hollow triumph"
This is in fact what I see as preaching and is not helpful at all in your own support.
____________________________________________________________
"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 question order:
a] because it offers the most rational, coherent world-view and because of personal experience.
b] because other "holy books" don't offer a coherent rational world-view and latterly because I recognise spiritual deception when I see it.
c] I don't believe anything without evidence........no-one has offered me evidence that granny will come back as a tree-frog. I do recognise supernatural claims not found in the Bible ........one just has to be discerning with regard to their source.
'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.
yes, that is correct, the Christian view is different from all but Messianic Jews. You wouldn't expect them to believe prophecies relating to Christ for instance!
my above comment should largely explain - they still await the Messiah.......Daniel is far too close to the bone for them.
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.
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.
back later!
'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.