A few things I don't understand about the bible

by Leander 64 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LittleToe

  Jan:
  Sorry, my friend, you are creating straw men.

  My main contention was that the rise of the Roman empire was predicted.
  The Roman Empire did not seize control of Syro-Palestine until 63 B.C.

  You're making this up now, aren't you?

  
  You know that I'm not making it up.
  If you don't like my sources, then say so, but don't accuse me of invention.
  Your whole demeanor, on this thread, has been condescending. There really is no call for that. You are very naughty.

  You have taken one theory regarding the date of the book's authoring and proposed it as fact. The main argument for this theory is that the comments in Daniel are too precise.
  The truth is that there are many theories, dating all the way back to the 6th Cent. B.C., some of which seem to gain additional support in the light of the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls (placing a copy of Daniel in Qumran around 160 B.C.).

  LT

  Now bottoms up, there's drinking time aspoiling
• 

  JanH

  lt,

  You know that I'm not making it up.
  If you don't like my sources, then say so, but don't accuse me of invention.

  You haven't posted any sources. You have posted assertions without references, arguments or facts.

  You have taken one theory regarding the date of the book's authoring and proposed it as fact. The main argument for this theory is that the comments in Daniel are too precise.

  Nonsense. If Daniel was living in the 6th century BC, how come he didn't know the king who conquered Babylon was Cyrus, and that the Persian king Darius came later? It's fun to watch the fundies try to explain the "Darius the Mede" screwup. The story about the later Persian kings is incomplete and contains errors. Only about the diadoci is there a level of accurracy, but the author is wrong about Epiphanes death. You haven't provided any counter-arguments. Also, stylistic and lingioustic arguments do not support an early Daniel. There is a long line of other arguments against an early dating. See, again, NJBC.

  I have challenged you to justify your assertions about Daniel talking about the Roman empire. You have not done this.

  If you want to provide support for your assertions, you should provide arguments, not merely repeat your claims ad neauseam.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  LittleToe

  Hi Jan,

  You've attacked another straw man, since I never stated that Daniel was around in the 6th Cent. B.C., only that "there are many theories, dating all the way back to the 6th Cent. B.C.".

  I have posted the reference works, just not chapter and verse.
  If you really want, I'll get them for you.

  You challenge me to justify my assertion about the Roman empire, so this I will attempt to do, since that was the only point that I suggested was "compelling".

  Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to further support your stance on 164 B.C., in light of the carbon dating data.

  Finally, is there any way of moving this portion of the thread into "Biblical", since it has to be annoying the hell out of the "Main" forum?

  LT

  Go on - Tak a drink!!!
• 

  JanH

  LT,

  When you use terms like "straw man", it surely helps if you understand what it means. You surely advocated the theory that Daniel was written before the events "prophecied" about. Daniel purports to be written by the legendary Daniel (many other apocryphal and now-lost documents tell stories about him, btw) who lived in the 6th century. If it is not, and evidence tells us that it was not, then it is what we today would call a fraud.
  

  Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to further support your stance on 164 B.C., in light of the carbon dating data.

  Again I have seen no references. Now THAT is surprising, since you are always so careful to provide references and evidence.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  LittleToe

  Hi Jan,

  As I posted previously, I'm not a proud man...
  Kindly take this post as a full retraction.
  Feel free to be smug about it, you have little to learn from me.

  I'm neither infallable, nor would I expounding any "truth" other than the Christ.
  I believe that the OT points to Christ, and the NT explains Him. Beyond that, the scriptures are merely a signpost. I'm not an inerrantist, simply a traveller who followed the signs and arrived at what I feel to be an appropriate waypoint.

  To be frank, I don't enjoy threads with no banter - I'm just starting to enjoy life at last.
  Neither do I enjoy aggressive, humourless, or condescending posts - I've been to too many dour elders meetings.
  You may look down on me or take this as me running for cover, if you wish, but the truth is that this thread has become less enjoyable with each post. I've given up pursuing things that bring me no joy.
  To be absolutely honest I found the most enjoyable post, for me, to be from Shelby.

  I'm man enough to accept that there is plenty of evidence for nearly every viewpoint under the sun. We all take what we want from that rich tapestry and fashion our own world view.
  If there is one thing that I believe is true it is that a stagnant and dogmatic world view is the saddest position of all.

  I hope you find nothing to offend you, in this post, since that is not my intention. Thanks for the experience.
  I bid you good day, kind sir.

  LT

  Wipes brow, throws another log on the fire, and reaches for Guinness