Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 215 of 317 (421953)
09-15-2007 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by pbee
09-15-2007 1:48 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
Pretentious people will loosely claim that the bible is nothing more than a book of legends, however it has proven on many fronts to be historically accurate. Taking for example, the Israelite King David. Until recently, our knowledge of his existence was solely through the Bible. Although mainline historians accepted him as an authentic figure, skeptics dismissed him as a legend invented by the Jewish people. However, in 1993 archaeologists uncovered remnants of the house of David in the ruins of the ancient Israelite city of Dan. Inscriptions were was part of a shattered monument from ninth century BCE, commemorating the victory over the Israelites.
There are some substantial errors here. All that was found was a stele - a stone marker - containing a scripture which probably mentions the "House of David" - although this is not at all certain. And this is the sum of the archaeological evidence that David ever existed.
Nevertheless even the majority of skeptics accept - as they always did - David as a legendary figure. One whose achievements have been greatly magnified, but still rooted in history.
quote:
The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 BCE. The Macedonian King Alexander the Great(born 180 years later), conquered the Persian Empire. He was the great horn between the eyes of the goat. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. It concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander’s empire took after his death in 323 BCE.
The first sentence is false. The dating of Daniel has it completed in 160 BC AFTER most of the events it "predicts". This conclusion os based on the fact that Daniel is NOT accurate about the Babylonian empire nor is it accurate about the end of Antiochus' reign.
quote:
This is but a few of hundreds of accounts that the scriptures provide us with to conclude the validity of its claims. The point of it being, it is anything but a simple compilation of books. The fact alone that it holds more records than any other literary works places it in a class of its own.
Both examples bring out inaccuracies in the Bible. The stories of David are not confirmed and appear to be exaggerated. Even if we assume that the Tel Dan stele does refer to the Hpuse of David and that "David" is a proper name, all it tells us is that the founder of the ruling line of Judah at that time was named "David". Daniel is inaccurate about the Babylonian Empire and is not a useful source for the history of the time when it was supposedly written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 1:48 AM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 11:39 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 225 of 317 (421994)
09-15-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by pbee
09-15-2007 11:39 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
This is after all the purpose of this thread. However, your case rides on the combination of ignorance and chosen facts.
No, it rests on knowing things that you don't want known. That's not ignorance.
quote:
You can read more on the details of the findings here: Loading...
As you will see, we are not only looking at a simple piece of rock as some would contest.
There's nothing there that contradicts my point.
quote:
As for Daniels writings, The Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that the book of Daniel was once generally considered to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. The encyclopedia claims that in reality, however, Daniel was written in a later time of national crisis when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It dated the book between 167 and 164 BCE. This same work asserts that the writer of the book of Daniel does not prophesy the future but simply presents events that were past history to him as prophecies of future happenings.
WHich is the view of mainstream scholars. So your assertion that the Book of Daniel was completed far earlier is one that has been rejected by informed experts.
quote:
We have much at stake here. We are not just talking about the reputation of this ancient book but also the future that is involved. If the book of Daniel is a fraud, its promises for mankind’s future would end up as hollow words at best. But if it contains genuine prophecies then everything changes.
Unfortuantely for you it says nothing about out future. The time of Antiochus is Daniel's "End Times". The Book of Daniel promises nothing to us.
quote:
Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown(Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30). Critics long assailed this point, since Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings.
And they were correct. The historical Belshazzar was never King. Nabonidus - who Daniel does not even mention - was the last ruler.
And pardon me if I don't trust your assertions about what the critics said. Christian apologists have a tendancy to misrepresent - or even fabricate - the positions of anyone who disagrees with them. So bear in mind that if you are using apologetic sources they are highly unreliable.
quote:
Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for grandfather or grandson(son of) can mean "grandson of" or even "descendant of".
Where is the evidence that Nabonidus married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, that Belshazzar was a child of this woman - and that the author of Daniel intended to reprsesent the relationship as anything more than a straightforward father-son relationship ? After all Nabonidus is not mentioned by Daniel although he reigned for 16 years.
quote:
So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of badly garbled history. On the contrary, Daniel offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries.
You must be joking. Leaving out Nabonidus is hardly a mark of a detailed account !
And let us note that you provide not one solid piece of evidence for an early dating. All you have is conflicting opinions.
quote:
As I said earlier, it can be no other way. Even if we would of exhumed a corps with a sign saying "King David was here", we would be dealing with charges of fraud, inaccuracy and the likes. This is the nature of the beast. No matter what we unearth or discovery, we will(must) always face free choice in matters. Behold the power of human nature!
You're right it can' be any other way. THose determined to prove the accuracy of the Bible will twist, distort and misrepresent the evidence to "prove" their beliefs. Well I'm not falling for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 11:39 AM pbee has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024