.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
Do you think it's possible that they "thought" they ruled the whole world?
Do you think it's possible that God also "thought" they ruled the whole world?
Like I mentioned above, the testimony comes from two different sources:
So here we have both Biblical as well as secular testimony that attests to these governments as having exercised universal rule..
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
I've challenged you in two areas. 1. Continuity of culture and literature. These other civilizations, Chinese and Mayan, (but there are hundreds of others) did not absorb any features of the Roman or Babylonian cultures; either in language, food, or any other feature. There are no monuments in these countries in the style of Babylon or Rome. -- jgnat.
And THAT is actually supposed to prove something?
2. Proof of existence pre-Babylonian. Their calendars go back before the Babylonians. This is certain, even if minor features are not.
Okay, lets suppose you're right about the Chinese peoples existing at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. Why do you think it's impossible for them to have been under Babylon's jurisdiction? Oh, yeah, that's right, as you've already said: 'There are no Babylonian monuments etc. to be found in China'. What nonsense!
Since you're one who seems to place a lot of confidence in history and archaeology, here are a couple of items for you to consider:
http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon05.html#Cyrus
The image above is what is know as the Cyrus Cylinder, which is kept in the British Museum in London. It has Cyrus proclaiming himself to be ruler of the world: "I am Cyrus, king of the world." Notice that Cyrus didn't say that he was king over "part of the world". And then there is Cyrus' words as found in the Bible at Ezra 1:2. It reads this way: "All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah ... has given me."
Now how about Assyria, was all the world subject to it's rule before Babylon took control? According to Sennacherib, the answer is yes. Archaeologists claim to have found Sennacherib's words inscribed upon a relief in his palace: "Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a throne and passed in review the booty taken from Lachish."
Also, this hasn't been mentioned yet: With regards to Rome (the 4th beast), Daniel 7 says that it was to "devour all the earth and ... crush it."
So here we have both Biblical as well as secular testimony that attests to these governments as having exercised universal rule.
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
But maybe I should question the source, I mean why should I trust dictionary.com.
I would be surprised if the dictionaries we use are flawless. But who needs a dictionary to learn the most important things in life? A dictionary doesn't teach us the reason why we and our loved ones die. A dictionary doesn't inform us of where we are in the stream of time. Actually, a dictionary isn't even an absolute necessity. God though IS an absolute necessity. What hope would we have without God? And the written communication from him, the Bible, is also an absolute necessity. Where would we be without the Bible? Without it, everthing would be left to the imagination. I personally would find that to be an awfully uncomfortable spot to be in.
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
What we have here is one person that no one else on this board sees fit to agree with. -- startingover.
Oh but how wrong you are, startingover! Fact is that Gumby agrees with me that I'm a bastard.
Definition of "bastard": A person who is held to be disagreeable.
Hmmm ... that must mean that you're a bastard too, eh startingover? Heck, by definition we all must be bastards!
Yup, I so disagree a lot. Why? 'Cause jgnat and Gumby don't know what the hell they're talking about most of the time.
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
Ah, I get it now. Schizm says that these peoples did not have a rich pre-bible history. You claim they simply did not exist and these parts of the earth were uninhabited. -- jgnat.
You're wrong on both counts. I honestly don't know whether they existed or not at the time we're concerned with, and I don't think you do either.
Another site which you pointed me to: Nebuchaddnezzar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II_of_Babylon
Can a person depend on what's said at that site? At that site we read this:
W IKIPEDIA M AKES N O G UARANTEE O F V ALIDITYWikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.
And did you notice the part at the bottom, 'The content of any given article may have been altered by someone with a different opinion.'
Is "history" really debatable? Is it so undependable that it's subject to personal opinion?
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
jgnat,
Legal disclaimer
While we have used our best efforts to verify that the information contained herein is accurate, we make no warranties to that effect, and shall not be liable for any damage that may result from errors or omissions in this exhibit.
You point me to a site that won't guarantee the accuracy of the information that's found there. Why should I or anyone else put faith in what can be read there?
Gumby,
If Schizm can find supporting evidence from the Mayan or Chineese writings that Jehovah gave them a whoopin for not following orders from the Babylonian King....I'll eat his shorts.
Gumby
Since I can't point to a history book (other than the Bible, that is) that says that the first man and woman were Adam and Eve, does that prove they weren't the first humans?
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
jgnat says:
The Chinese calendar goes back to 2637 B.C.E http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-chinese.html
Yet the source she pointed to said:
Legend has it that the Emperor Huangdi invented the calendar in 2637 B.C.E.
Now, the definition of "legend" is:
(l µ j "… nd) n. 1.a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.leg·end
Makes me wonder just how much more of what jgnat believes to be truly historical but is in reality only unverified stories.
Then jgnat says:
The Mayan calendar goes back at latest to 3114 BC http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
Let's take a look:
The authorities disagree on what 13.0.0.0.0 corresponds to in our calendar. I have come across three possible equivalences:
13.0.0.0.0 = 8 Sep 3114 BC (Julian) = 13 Aug 3114 BC (Gregorian)
13.0.0.0.0 = 6 Sep 3114 BC (Julian) = 11 Aug 3114 BC (Gregorian)
13.0.0.0.0 = 11 Nov 3374 BC (Julian) = 15 Oct 3374 BC (Gregorian)Assuming one of the first two equivalences, the Long Count will again reach 13.0.0.0.0 on 21 or 23 December AD 2012 - a not too distant future.
The date 13.0.0.0.0 may have been the Mayas' idea of the date of the creation of the world.
"Authorities disagree"; "possible"; "assuming"; "may have been" .... hummm.
Those are all expressions of uncertainty. Are not expressions like these fairly common in such reports? There are some people who will accept what they read as factual simply because they see it in print. To them, if it wasn't really true then it wouldn't be in a "book". Please tell me you don't subscribe to those tabloids we see in a lot of stores, jgnat.
Not really impressed by all this stuff myself, jgnat, but if you wish to place your confidence in things that the "authorities" "assume" are true then that's your prerogative.
Oh, before I forget, I thought this was interesting:
Legal disclaimer
While we have used our best efforts to verify that the information contained herein is accurate, we make no warranties to that effect, and shall not be liable for any damage that may result from errors or omissions in this exhibit. -- http://webexhibits.org/calendars/credits.html
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
Once again, I stand vindicated. The kingdom of Persia exercised universal rule, even as did itssuccessorBabylon. -- Schizm.
I should have said "predecessor" rather than "successor".
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
Gumby,
I actually have those commentaries by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. And if my memory serves me right they include comments by Matthew Henry. They consist of two huge books that each wiegh every bit as much as Miss Piggy. After having consulted them on several occasions I came to the conclusion that my money could have been put to better use.
Matthew Henry,The extent of his dominion is set forth (v. 38), that wheresoever the children of men dwell, in all the nations of that part of the world .... There were other powerful kingdoms in the world at this time, as that of the Scythians....
And just how does Massa Henry know such things to be factual? Well, he doesn't really say THAT does he! Which seems to be a fairly common practice for our so-called scholars and authorities.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.37. Thou . . . art a king of kings... Nebuchadnezzar.... Not that he actually ruled every part of the globe, but that God granted him illimitable dominion in whatever direction his ambition led him, Egypt, Nineveh, Arabia, Syria, Tyre, and its Phoenician colonies (Jeremiah 27:5-8). Compare as to Cyrus, Ezra 1:2.
But what do the scriptures cited at Jeremiah 27:5-8 actually say? Well, let's just see:
5 ‘I myself have made the earth, mankind and the beasts that are upon the surface of the earth by my great power and by my stretched-out arm; and I have given it to whom it has proved right in my eyes. 6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’8 “‘“‘And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘until I shall have finished them off by his hand.’
I see nothing there other than what would support MY side of the argument.
Now let's take a look at the other scripture that was cited, Ezra 1:2
2 “This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
Once again, I stand vindicated. The kingdom of Persia exercised universal rule, even as did its successor Babylon.
Scofield Reference: 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.wheresoever the childrenThis is universal dominion. It was never fully realized, but power was given for it.
And just how does Massa Scofield know what he says is factual? Well, like the others, he doesn't reveal THAT does he! Which, and I repeat, seems to be a fairly common practice for our so-called scholars and authorities.
Thanks, Gumby, you did good!
.
.
weeks earlier,jews and proselytes from at least 15 regions of the roman empire had packed jerusalem to celebrate the passover.. on the next page,it seems to show arabia ,media,elam and parthenia as part of the roman empire.. i thought the romans never conquered arabia or persia.
am i right?.
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?
.
