> > >
>> >The fact is that atheists and others including
>> >mainstream Bible scholars very rarely get things
>> >The context determines that the young woman is a
>> The fact is that fundamentalists need to distort the
>> Bible to support
>> their beliefs. The context in no way implies
>In it's immediate context no. That was not what I
>meant. I meant the context of the whole OT. But of
>course you may be quite unable to see that.
If that is true then you can explain it. I very much doubt that you
have any explanation that holds water. It is conspicuous that you
have not answered my points about the immediate context.
>> >> >Can you be specific? I just skimmed Daniel,
>> but I
>> >> didn't
>> >> >see anything there earth shattering, or even
>> >> remotely
>> >> >resembling anything I"m vaguely familiar with.
>> >> Esa clearly only reads Conservative apologetics
>> >> rather than
>> >> mainstream Bible scholarship. In fact the
>> >> strongly supports
>> >> the idea that Daniel was written in the
>> >> period. Esa is
>> >> probably referring to the "predictions" of
>> >> the Great and
>> > > such (e.g. Daniel 8:5-8 as explained in
>> > >
>> >Mainstream Bible scholars refute the inspiration of
>> >the Bible as they read and study it as if it is
>> >totally and purely of human origin. I wonder why I
>> >don't value their opinions so much?!
>> That is something of a caricature. Many Bible
>> scholars are
>> believers. I suspect that you reject their opinions
>> because you
>> place your persona; beliefs ahead of the Bible.
>If you surrender the idea of dynamic inspiration you
>surrender the Bible. An example of this would be the
>interpretation of the word 'yvm' or 'day' in Gen.1.
>Mainstream scholars say the days are not literal 24h
THis example in fact undermines your claim. The "Day-Age" view is
not based on rejecting inspiration - in fact it is based on a view of
the Bible very much like your own. It is one of the ways of
attempting to harmonise Genesis 1 with the clear evidence that the
Earth is very old ("Gap theory" is another).
> That claim is clearly preposterous. Not because
>it contradicts my beliefs but because it contradicts
>the text which defines my beliefs. The text offers no
>proof or reason for the day-age interpretation and
>Moses seems to have done everything possible to
>express the idea that the days were literal.
I disagree with the claim that Moses wrote Genesis 1 but I agree that
the day-age view rests on a strained reading.
> If you
>give up the idea contained in the text which is
>clearly 6 x 24h creation then you can only conclude
>that God is not omniscient or a He is a liar. BTW I
>take what the text says as it is... I read everything
>literally(not literalistically) and also consider
>other ways of reading. My Bible study method includes
>both verification and falsification. That is why I
>reject mainstream Christianity as it is very very far
>off from what the Bible teaches. The Bible should be
>understood and read from the viewpoint of a semite as
>semites wrote it and used the words in the meaning
>thath semites do.
Then you should not be so quick to reject mainstream scholarship.
> Unfortunately mainstream
>Christianity rejects 'sola scriptura' -yes, even
>protestants- and understands and reads the Bible from
>the viewpoint of a platonist.
While Platonism influenced Christianity you are mistaken to assume
that rejection of sola scriptura is based on it. The Catholic and
Orthodox churches - like the Early Christians - also place trust in
tradition (and - as a Catholic site I once read pointed out, without
tradition you have no basis to even identify exactly which books
belong in the Bible).
>> >It seems that you acknowledge that the book of
>> >is accurate about the era it predicts.
>> I do not agree that it genuinely "predicts" anything
> > that happened.
>> >The fact is that Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar
>> >rebuilt Babylon.
>> >If the book of Daniel had been written in the
>> >hellenistic era then noone would have taken it
>> >seriously as all other sources of that era say that
>> >Babylon was rebuilt by Queen Semaritis(I am a
>> >bit unsure if I got the first two vowels in her
>> >right as I have a poor memory) of Assyria.
>> I note that Daniel 4:30 - if that is the verse you
>> refer to - is
>> somewhat vague. Do you have one that clearly states
>> Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt Babylon ?
>> Looking at my books I see that Babylon was sacked in
>> 689 BC and a
>> rebuilding program followed. There is no mention of
>> such a program
>> under Nebuchadnezzar Or are you thinking of
>> Nebuchadnezzar I who
>> ruled from 1125-1104 BC who did move his capital to
>> Babylon but could
>> hardly be the monarch of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar II
>> is credited with
>> some major monuments, but not a complete rebuilding.
>I am of course talking about the Nebuchadnezzar who
>Daniel knew. And yes I am talking about the rebuilding
>that the text mentions. Maybe not complete but
>rebuilding nonetheless which hellenistic sources
>attribute to the Queen of Assyria.
Since there was more than one earlier rebuilding - including one in
which the Assyrians were involved how can you tell that it is the
SAME one ? There is nothing in 4:30 that would allow such an
identification unless it ruled out earlier rebuildings (which would
make it incorrect).
>> > The book of
>> >Daniel says something completely different
>> >The truth that Nebuchadnezzar was the rebuilder of
>> >Babylon was completely forgotten by the time the
>> >hellenistic era came. The information Daniel had
>> >uncovered and confirmed by modern archeology long
>> >after the hellenistic era so the mainstream Bible
>> >scholars have the problem of explaining how the
>> >of the book of Daniel was the only one who had such
>> >knowledge. None of the other sources agree with the
>> >book of Daniel about the identity of the rebuilder.
>> So how come Daniel got so many other details wrong ?
>> For instance
>> why did he think that it was the Medes that
>> conquered Babylon when in
>> fact the Persians had already taken control of the
>> Median Empire
>> first ?
>According to mainstream scholars who already think
>that the book was written in the hellenistic era.
In other words you can only claim that the historical evidence
supports you because you reject all the evidence which contradicts
your view out of hand.
>I believe that Daniel in fact has the details right.
>The book would not have been preserved if the facts
Why not ? And perhaps you should consider the fact that the Jews
classify Daniel with the "Writings" - while his supposed contemporary
Ezekiel is considered one of the Prophets.
>It seems that you are using only mainstream sources.
>And generally speaking mainstream theology, etc. do
>heavily contradict the Bible. Even so much that it is
>impossible to reconcile them with the Bible.
Which only goes to show how strong the evidence against your beliefs is.
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_