WT,DEC 1 2005,PP22-23;IS THIS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT?

by badboy 147 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jgnat

  My supposedly unanswered questions.

  Do you actually think there were inhabitated places that were out of the reach of the Roman empire? Yes. Answered.

  Do you really think that Rome itself wasn't able to also go where any such peoples might have ventured out to? Yes. Answered.

  Can you prove that any such peoples were never subject to Roman rule? Yes. Answered.

  So what you'd have me believe is that there were peoples who found their way across oceans in order to take up residence elsewhere in the world ... while Rome's government wasn't paying attention? Yes. Answered.

  Rome imposed their own form of order wherever they conquered. Roman roads. Roman language. Roman administration. Not until Marco Polo's return in 1295 CE was there an economic/cultural exchange between China and Rome. The impact was immediate and pronounced. All of a sudden, Italians had pasta.

  As Leolaia has painfully explained to you, your outrageous claim carries the burden of proof. All the links I provided are abundant evidence that there were cultures that remained untouched by Roman influence through the entire period under discussion.

  Schizm, there's a difference between an agressive and a reasoned response. I prefer the second.
• 

  Schizm

  Rome imposed their own form of order wherever they conquered. Roman roads. Roman language. Roman administration. Not until Marco Polo's return in 1295 CE was there an economic/cultural exchange between China and Rome. The impact was immediate and pronounced. All of a sudden, Italians had pasta.

  I'm glad that you were there to personally witness all of the above, jgnat; for otherwise we'd all have to rely upon the questionable records of men (so-called "history books") and those "professors" who teach from them. By the way, since it appears that you are prone to accept as truth just about everything that you read from the "history books," are you also inclined to believe that Man is the product of "evolution"? Please tell me that you believe in a Creator! For you, the 'last word' is whatever it is the "history books" have to say, or your perception of what they said. For me, the 'last word' is what the Bible has to say. And, afterall, the Bible DID say "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling". Of course you're not so concerned about that pesky little fact, because you haven't any respect for the Bible anyway. .
• 

  gumby

  I'm glad that you were there to personally witness all of the above, jgnat; for otherwise we'd all have to rely upon the questionable records of men (so-called "history books") and those "professors" who teach from them.
  
  It appears that you are prone to accept as truth just about everything that you read from the "history books,"

  
  That's right Jgnathead, .......your not allowed to use secular history in this discussion as a means of proof because secular history is in the hands of Satan who had misrepresented the true facts just for the sole purpose of proving the bible god a liar. Personally, I don't even trust the dictionary when it comes to relying on word spelling and their definitions....specially if it's a bible word.
  
  I think we should all throw out our history books and just use the bible since it's really the only truthful book on the planet.....don't you?
  
  Schizm, you chickened out like a big chicken. You got humiliated that you were proved wrong and to save face, you used the lazyass, typical copout all thumpers do when their arse is in a corner....."just believe.... regardless whether it makes sense or not"
  
  Ha ha.....Schizm got showed up by a girl.....what a big sissy!
  
  Gumby
  
• 

  jgnat

  Well, Schizm, I see you have an agenda and will not be put off with facts. You have obviously not read my posts. Many of my links are to contemporary documents. Also un-eraseable by the sands of time are the Roman public works such as roads, aqueducts, walls, and outposts. We have a very good idea where they've been because Romans built things. They built things to last. No Roman works, no Romans.

  Repeated, for your benefit.

  http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/Ancient%20Web%20Pages/116B.html

  http://www.rice-paper.com/uses/calligraphy/history/han.html

  M.J. also supplied:

  Are you suggesting, Schism, that ungodly professors forged these documents and monuments? It is far more likely that you applied literatism to a bit of prophetic hyperbole.
• 

  stevenyc

  schizm wrote :

  I'm glad that you were there to personally witness all of the above, jgnat; for otherwise we'd all have to rely upon the questionable records of men (so-called "history books") and those "professors" who teach from them. By the way, since it appears that you are prone to accept as truth just about everything that you read from the "history books," are you also inclined to believe that Man is the product of "evolution"? Please tell me that you believe in a Creator!
  For you, the 'last word' is whatever it is the "history books" have to say, or your perception of what they said. For me, the 'last word' is what the Bible has to say. And, afterall, the Bible DID say "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling". Of course you're not so concerned about that pesky little fact, because you haven't any respect for the Bible anyway.

  Schizm, given the context of the discussion, ancient far Eastern history, do you actually believe what you are writing, or are you just having argumentative fun? What has history book research to do with evolution?

  steve
• 

  Schizm

  36 “This is the dream, and its interpretation we shall say before the king. 37 You, O king [of Babylon], the king of kings, you to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the might, and the strength and the dignity, 38 and into whose hand he has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and whom he has made ruler over all of them, you yourself are the head of gold.

  39 “And after you there will rise another kingdom [Medo-Persia] inferior to you; and another kingdom [Greece], a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.

  40 “And as for the fourth kingdom [Rome], it will prove to be strong like iron. Forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so, like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these.

  From the above text (Daniel 2:36-40) it is obvious that even as Babylon exercised universal rule, so did Rome.

  "Wherever" it was that mankind might have dwelt Nebuchadnezzar was ruler over them all. The scriptures plainly show that the same was true of Rome.

  And what does my opponent, jgnat, have to say about the statement "wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling"? Why the very thing one would expect to hear out of a person who clearly has no respect for the Bible, and who is an atheist to boot. Yes, she says:

  It is far more likely that you applied literatism to a bit of prophetic hyperbol [in other words, an exaggeration.

  So according to jgnat the word "wherever" must be an exaggeration of the extent of Babylon's and Rome's rule, simply because her understanding of history doesn't support a literal application of the word "wherever". Personally, I don't buy your argument; and I don't expect that I'll someday wind up regretting it.

  You can complain that I've attacked you all you want, but the fact that you reject the Bible as well as deny the existance of a Creator explains a great deal regarding the difficulty you have in accepting a plain statement such as this one in the Bible at Daniel 2:38.

  .
• 

  jgnat

  Ever seen "The King and I", Schizm? The King of Siam insisted Anna teach that Siam was the centre of the world. And of course, from his perspective, it was. We've forgotten, in our modern era, that the ancients did not segregate sacred from profane, secular from religious. The Sorcerers were the scientists of the day, and kings were Gods.

  Of COURSE, from Babylon's perspective, they were masters of all the earth. As they knew it. They did not have satellites. They had not stood on the moon and marvelled at the earth in all her globular majesty.

  I will not deny the evidence of my own eyes over that book. God made my eyes, too. That does not mean I deny the book's sacred writings, only that if I think that earth-wide domination by Babylon or Rome is the only acceptable interpretation, then my thinking is wrong.
• 

  jgnat

  By the way, hyperbole is an artistic exaggeration, not to be confused with lying. As in, the Greatest Garage Sale Ever.
• 

  Leolaia

  Pointing out a fallacy in your argument does not make me a referee. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept of burden of proof:

  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

  Let's say someone claims that after Rome fell, the tiny island of Samoa in the Pacific exercised universal rule over the entire earth. This person feels that there is no need to prove such a claim, the burden instead is on the naysayers to prove otherwise that Samoans did not hold a hegemony over Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia, etc. Most would regard this as a ridiculous claim and demand some evidence to substantiate the claim in the first place. Otherwise, in the absense of evidence, one might as well claim that space aliens held universal rule over the earth. Why do you feel it is unjustified to ask for a scintilla of evidence supporting the view that Babylonians were ruling over the Malaysians, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Siberians, Xhosa, and various Native American peoples? How about descriptions of these places in Babylonian literature, Babylonian goods and products in Asia or the Americas, mention of Babylonian soldiers in Chinese histories, anything??
• 

  Schizm

  Why do you feel it is unjustified to ask for a scintilla of evidence supporting the view that Babylonians were ruling over the Malaysians, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Siberians, Xhosa, and various Native American peoples? -- Leolaia.

  You never heard ME make the claim that during Nebuchadnezzar's day that such peoples even existed. It is YOU making THAT claim. Now, do you feel it is unjustified for me to ask you for a scintilla of evidence supporting your claim that such peoples were in existence during Nebuchadnezzar's day? Can you, Leolaia (or jgnat), provide the evidence needed to back up your claim? Can you actually PROVE that the "Native American peoples" were in fact living over on this continent when Nebuchadnezzar ruled?

  .