Posts by seedy3

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

Pete,

I JUST LOVE them Televangelists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwel are 2 of my favorites. I'll watch them everytime I need a GREAT laugh.

Here's some of my all time favorites from Patty boy

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."
--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

Hmmmm, little did he know that 5 of the first 6 presidents was not christian. not much into history is he. (OH and neither was Araham Lincoln)

"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."
--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981

Little does he know that the author and many signitory to that document were diests.

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
--Pat Robertson, newsletter as quoted by Federal News Service, Sept. 11, 1992

I try to tell my wife that one all the time, but she never listens, typical Christian (he he he)

[When asked "Does the Bible specifically tell us what is going to happen in the future"]
"It sure does, Ben, it definitely does...this is definite...it specifically clearly, unequivocally says that Russia and other countries will enter into war and God will destroy Russia through earthquakes, volcanoes..."
--Pat Robertson when asked the question "700 Club" December 2, 1981

Guess he didn't forsee the fall of the comunist block in Euorpe

"The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry; they sacrificed their children; they had all kinds of abominable sex practices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals; they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God.
"God told the Israelites to kill them all -- men, women and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it? Or isn't it?"
"Well, let us assume there were 2,000 of them, or 10,000 of them living in the land, or whatever number there was of them. I don't have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, 'Kill them all.'
"Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? That would be 10,000 people who would probably go to Hell. But, if they stayed and reproduced, in 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 100 more years, they could conceivably be -- 10,000 would go to a 100,000 -- 100,000 could conceivably go to a million. And then, there would be a million people who would have to spend eternity in Hell! And it's far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a 100 years down the road, and say, 'Well, I have to take away a million people that would forever be apart from God, ' because the abomination was there like a contagium. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change; their hearts weren't going to change; and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth."
"So, God, in love, took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number."
--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club" May 6, 1985

OHHHHHH!!!!! Now I understand why God had all those people slaughtered, it is so clear now.

What an ASS

Seedy

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

P>Actually SwedishChef point 2 and 5 both give room for specualtion I will highlight what I mean

Point 2 - I suppose Belshazar was acting as King so it is possible that he could have been refered to as King. But doubtful. Also Nabonidus returned a little before the fall of Babylon by Cyrus and retook his throne. But was then deposed by the persians

Point 5 - But 2 kings 24 and secular history puts it in the year of 598. Now if Daniel was haled off to Babylon when it fell, wouldn't you think he knew when it really happened?

In point 5 I did not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem that happened in 587, But that the captivity mentioned in 2 kings Chapter 24 started in 598bce according to 2 kings, but is given the date of 606 in Daniel.

In point 2 Belshazar "played" King for 10 years, so it is possible that someone could refer to him as "King" in a sence, but the arguement that his title was erased by his father really makes little sense, as it would have been 10 years of record he would have had to destroy. None the less, I guess if I had had a wako period during my reign, I would have erased that more so then the record that my son ruled along side me for a period. Becasue, there are records of Belshazars regency ( I know that is actually a modern term, but it best describes the situation), which he would have had charge of the Army in his fathers absence. He also would have made all decisions in his father's name as though it came from Nabonidus himself.

Interesting line of thought though

Seedy

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

Hey pete,

The explanation I offered does not fly in the face of reason, yours does by presuming supernatural soothsaying.

Actually Pete, it was not his response, it was a quote from the same book that that started this entire thread. it entire collection of "The Fundamentals" can be found at http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/index.html and the book he is quoting from is at http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter13/wilson.html

I guess, I wish he would paraphrase the quotes, if they are going to be so dang long and credit the book with the comment, instead of copy and pasting the entire thing, soon he'll have the entire book on this thread.

Anyhow, I said yesterday that I would do some research on the idea that Belshazar and Nebonidus were somehow related to ol' king Neb, well after a lot of reading, searching and such (that's actually how I found the above mentioned links) I came upon a debate on infadels.org in the magazine the Skeptics Review based on the book of Daniel. This is what I learned after reading both sides, which included a few people not just 2.

1- One of the Christian apologist said "Nebunidus was "Neb's" son in law. Well he provided no reference for this and no evidence to support the fact, the reason being there is none. As it appears today with current archeolgy (The Babylonian Chronicals) of the area, there is nothing to suggest that the 2 were even remotly related.

2- Belshazar was never King of Babylon, although he did spend 10 years as Regent and Crown Prince for his father, The nabonidus chronicle does make the statement that Nabonidus "Gave the kingship to his son Belshazar", BUT, it also mentions that the aniku (New Years celibration) was suspended for those 10 years becasue the King was not there and he was the ONLY one that could start the celibration. Now in his fathers absence, I suppose Belshazar was acting as King so it is possible that he could have been refered to as King. But doubtful. Also Nabonidus returned a little before the fall of Babylon by Cyrus and retook his throne. But was then deposed by the persians

3- Daniel seems to have made a lot of commentary about Neb's Wako period and even made it look like he fortold it, but there is no where in the Chronicals that supports this. However there is record of Nabonidus going nuts for about 10 years, ran away from Babylon to bask in the Sun of the Arbian desert, then returned to resit on his throne.

4- Between Neb's rule and Nabonidus there is nothing mentioned about any other ruler, in the book of Daniel, giving the appearence that Neb's "son" Belshazar was the next ruler, which is totally not true, there were a few other rulers in between and infact none of Neb's family had sat on the throne since 560 bce. The fall of Babylon was in 539 bce. The line of Kings is a follows, we will start with Neb's death in 562 bce the throne is handed to his son, Amel-Marduk, who is assassinated by brother-in-law Nergal-Sharezer in 560 bce, Nergal-Sharezer passes his throne to his son, Labsi-Marduk in 556 bce, he doesn't even have time to use the Royal Privy before Nabonidus deposes him (he ruled less then a year) and then Nabonidus ruled Babylon for 16 years, 10 of it from Arabia, with Belshazar as Regent. Funny though other books of the bible mention a couple of these Kings that Daniel seemed to have passed over.

edited to add the section in red above

5- There is a problem with the dating of the fall of Jerusalem (Not the destruction) to Neb's army. 2 Kings 24 indicates that Jerusalem fell in the last year of the rule of Jehoiakim, as does secular history. Yet Daniel puts the Fall in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's rule. That would have put the fall of Jerusalem in the year 606, one year before Neb was King. But 2 kings 24 and secular history puts it in the year of 598. Now if Daniel was haled off to Babylon when it fell, wouldn't you think he knew when it really happened?

How did he screw up the dates?
How is it that a prominant "Governer" of the babylonian area (Daniel) didn't know of all the changes in rulership and actually confuse them?
How is it that there is nothing recorded, outside of Daniel of the Wako period of Neb, yet Nabonidus' wako period is there for all to see.
Why is there no record in Daniel of the 4 other rulers that sat on the throne of Babylon between Neb's rule and when Babylon fell?

Oh yeah and Who the Heck is Darius the Mead? Where does he fit into this History lesson?

Seedy

Edited by - seedy3 on 8 January 2003 20:30:15

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

Actually SC, I didn't read all of it, it was so long and boring as I said earlier, my eyes started to cross while reading it.

So now having said that........

If he were the grandson through his mother the same language would be used, and the undisturbed reign of Nabonidus in turbulent Babylon is accounted for in this way."

Although I could agree with this reasoning, it does not fit the picture. Where does this guy get the information that Nabonidus, Belshazzar and Neb were related in this way? It actually gives mere speculation. Why would the book of Daniel Praise a cousin of Neb's rather then his actual son, it really amkes no sence, I mean really if they knew that Nabonidus was going to be next in line for the throne I would have praised him during the reign of Neb. I am sorry that is no arguement.Outside of the bible and one apochraphal book, there is no line of relationship. I will investigate this more, but I fear I will not find much on it.

Seedy

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

I was just looking back through the archives of this site and the threads that SwedishChef has started in the past and I must say he has started some good threads, a lot of great discussion from many people. Although I heartly disagree with his beleifs, I have enjoyed may of the discussions he has started. Keep them coming SC, it's actually fun

Seedy

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

SwedishChef

For centuries critics accused the writer of Daniel for making up the historical figure Belshazzar, until records of him were found in excavations. This is always the kind of "proof" that critics offer. Mind telling how a forger would know about this figure in history before the records of him were found? This adds only to the authenticity of the book.

The entire depth and understanding of the Babylonian culture portrays and indicates an eye-witness account - especially when the information could not have been accessible to the "forger", and there are absolutely no inconsistencies. It is a flawless record.

It's interesting you bring this up, this here is a point that Daniel, had he actuall lived during the time of the exile he would have gotten correct, yet he got it wrong. In Daniel chapter 5, Belshazzar is said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar yet this is not true, and if this was written in the days of the actual Belshazzar as it is inticated then Daniel would have known this. According to the inscriptions found in Ur in the middle of the 19th century the father of Belshazzar was Nabonidus. Nabonidus was not related to Nebuchadnezzar he actually was a usurper.

Now it is interesting that there is only one other place that Belshazzar is refered to as the son of Nebuchadnezzar and it is found in the apochrophal book of Baruch 1:11-12

11] and pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and for the life of Belshazzar his son, that their days on earth may be like the days of heaven.
[12] And the Lord will give us strength, and he will give light to our eyes, and we shall live under the protection of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and under the protection of Belshazzar his son, and we shall serve them many days and find favor in their sight.

These appear to be the only 2 places that Belshazzar is refered to as Nebuchadnezzar's son (Daniel and Baruch) So who got it wrong first?? Did Baruch copy from Daniel or did Daniel copy from Baruch? Either way they both got it wrong, so your statement of it being a flawless record is quite incorrect as here is just one flaw in the record. I have many more if you would like, but you brought this one up.

Seedy

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

onacruse

b) There is no proof that the book of Daniel was included in the original Septuagint (LXX):
"Behind the legends lies the probability that at least the Torah (the five books of Moses) was translated into Greek c. 250 B.C. for the use of the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. NIV study bible

I stated wrong, it was the third century BC 250 was not 2nd, my mistake, forgive me ok I'm getting old and senile LMAO

Seedy

Edited by - seedy3 on 7 January 2003 5:27:8

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

Farkel,

Utter bullshit. That's not an argument. That's mere speculation.

I love your posts, straight and to the point LMAO.

50

The Book of Daniel

by SwedishChef in

the following was written by professor johseph d. wilson, d. d., and is about the prophecies and criticism of the book of daniel.

it was published in the four volume book series called "the fundamentals.".

modern objections to the book of daniel were started by german scholars who were prejudiced against the supernatural.

seedy3

SwedishChef,

So far I have only quoted from bible scolars, I mean ones who support the bible, no critics yet, I will soon, but all the quotes I have used so far have been Christian Theologians not critics. So don't go there, I really do not believe you have read any of the quotes I have made, and who they are from. You quoted one dead person and expect everyone to accept it, I quoted one dead, one old (although this guy may have kicked the bucket by now too) and one living.

The idea of Daniel being a forged book is not unusual for the bible at all, many book are forged or psudopigraphically written, there is much evidence to that.

onacruse is quite correct, the way they date many writings is by linguistics, and Daniel is dated to around the 3rd century BC (BCE if your a JW) and not into the 5th century BC. The fact that it was not part of the LXX in the 2nd century is another evidence that it was not part of the Hebrew writings in that day, WHY? Because it was not part of their holy writings then. It was added later on. WHY? Because it was FORGED or psudopigraphically written.

You so far have not shown why there is any reason to not think it was, you have only stated I have no faith in the bible and that is quite true, it is a forged book much of it written by zelious christians, like Irenious, and Papyous to control the masses (refering to the NT) much of the OT is the same.

I will make a few more quotes about this tomorrow when I have my references (they are all at work).

Seedy

6

Scaring off the Dubs

by stichione in

jw
friends

i was in an apartment building today and saw a sign on a door:.

no peddlars.

no jehovah's witnesses.

seedy3

I like to play with them, so I wouldn't do any of that. But I also like to play with fanitical christians too, I think they really are all one in the same.

Seedy