Martian:


PA1982 also said, the amount of gold needed for such a monument would have been impossible to procure during that period and that's when YOU introduced the "Anciet Aliens" to "fill in the gap".

You just don't get it, do you!! Aliens brought the gold for the statue. The flew it in from the epiphesian galaxies where the gold is of specially high quality. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

Of course you're right!
When does the mothership arrive to take us 'home'?

Pastor AIO:

You just don't get it, do you!! Aliens brought the gold for the statue. The flew it in from the epiphesian galaxies where the gold is of specially high quality. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

I think because you didn't include the fact that they stored the gold on Mars and I'm the last of the "Ancient Aliens".

Martian:

I think because you didn't include the fact that they stored the gold on Mars and I'm the last of the "Ancient Aliens".

Take me to your leader!!!!!!

Joagbaje:

You made a great point deep sight . The bible is not only a spiritual book. It's also a hystorically accurate documentation, the bible had actually helped apmany archeologists in their findings.

Didn't you read about the historical contradictions in the Book of Daniel?
After all, the thread is about the Book of Daniel, not the contradictions in the NT.
Can we please stay on topic?

PA1982:

Take me to your leader!!!!!!

Unfortunately, he left earth a few thousand years ago on a fiery chariot. His earthly name was Elijah but we call him [b]25%AD---tyX/b]. Don't worry about the pronunciation, your human brain will explode. 

Noah

Tupac

Jesus,his disciples, ressurection and floating of inot space?

Stylin' all over you!!!

Who keeps sending spacecrafts all over that solar system over there?

^ O please would you stop messing up the thread with these pictures? Kindly go back to my original comment and recognise that there is no place for this ridiculous self-mockery of yours. The issue was about staggering ancient  feats - someone sought to discredit the book of Daniel on account of a reported staggerring feat. The details of such a feat aside, I have simply pointed out that the pyramids were another staggering feat - so staggering that some have alluded to extra-terrestial involvement - and the point remains that -  the fact that a feat is staggering is not enough grounds to discredit a book! - or the existence of the claimed writer for that matter. You may discredit such on other grounds, but certainly not on that ground. For if the pyramids had been destroyed, then probably one would have discredited any accounts of them as being improbable!

Now that is the crux of the point, and nothing else. The silly posts of yourself and the posters above mock only yourselves if you are not able to make an intelligent response to that.

^^^
Come, come, the construction of the pyramids has been explained again and again, and the many foolish claims and falsehoods about them have been debunked any number of times.
Are you actually suggesting the Babylonians had access to that amount of gold the Book of Daniel cites?
Have you really not understood the historical inaccuracies I took the trouble to post?

Martian:


PA1982 also said, the amount of gold needed for such a monument would have been impossible to procure during that period and that's when YOU introduced the "Anciet Aliens" to "fill in the gap".

I introduced ancient aliens to fill in the gap? You must not be reading. I stated that the pyramids are so astonishing that there are now theories of extra terrestial involvement. Now sir, in case you cannot read, that translates to a definition of how stupendous the pyramids are - so stupendous that people have developed such theories. Now that answers PA1982's issue on the stupendous nature of a described feat. Oh, gosh.

Is it possible that's ALL you took in of my post?
While the pyramids ARE awesome, there are human works much more so, I think.
Why don't we talk about the historical errors in the Book of Daniel, since you think the amount of gold supposedly used and the size cited are believable?

PA1982:

^^^
Come, come, the construction of the pyramids has been explained again and again, and the many foolish claims and falsehoods about them have been debunked any number of times.

No madam, as a matter of fact whereas there are many explanations bandied about, there still does not exist a satisfactory explanation of the quarrying and construction methods deployed.

Are you actually suggesting the Babylonians had access to that amount of gold the Book of Daniel cites?

To be sincere, i have no idea what amount of gold the babylonians may or may not have had access to. Nor do I think that that impinges upon my point. Fabulous amounts of treasure are described regarding the ancient Aztecs. I do not know what amounts they actually had either.

But I will give you an example of what I mean.

It is reported that in one of their human sacrifice rituals, they sacrificed 84, 000 people. This is an incredible figure. Studies on the logistics of doing such actually concluded that this figure was impossible - and that they probably sacrificed only about 2000.

Nobody can tell the truth about this matter - but my point is simply this - NOBODY can discredit the story on the ground of the stupendous figure mentioned. At all events what may be agreed is that some number of people were ssacrificed.

In the same way with the Daniel story, even if the size of the gold involved is disputed - and mark you - there could be discrepancies in the weights being written and the way we inteprete them today - certainly we may not seize upon that as a ground fr discreditting the book. The size may simply have been different. Aand even that we cannot tell for sure!

Have you really not understood the historical inaccuracies I took the trouble to post?

O, nobody denies this. But are there not also many historical accuracies contained therein?

Even the writings of standard historians do contain innacuraccies, no?

O, and by the way, just as I said - there is yet NO satisfactory explanation for the construction of the pyramids, so kindly cease to bandy the falsehood that it has been sufficiently explained -

The unknowns of pyramid construction chiefly center on the question of how the blocks were moved up the superstructure. There is no known accurate historical or archaeological evidence that definitively resolves the question. Therefore, most discussion on construction methods involves functional possibilities that are supported by limited historical and archaeological evidence.

Historical accounts for the construction of the Egyptian pyramids do little to point definitively to methods to lift the blocks; yet most Egyptologists refer to these accounts when discussing this portion of pyramid construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

^^^^
This thread isn't about pyramids, ancient aliens or Aztecs, but rather the Book of Daniel.
The historical 'accuracies' in the Book of Daniel are no more significant than the historical accuracies in Gone With the Wind

Why are you side-stepping the historical inaccuracies it contains?

Deep Sight:

^ O please would you stop messing up the thread with these pictures? Kindly go back to my original comment and recognise that there is no place for this ridiculous self-mockery of yours. The issue was about staggering ancient  feats - someone sought to discredit the book of Daniel on account of a reported staggerring feat. The details of such a feat aside, I have simply pointed out that the pyramids were another staggering feat - so staggering that some have alluded to extra-terrestial involvement - and the point remains that -  the fact that a feat is staggering is not enough grounds to discredit a book! -

Staggering feats that are not found in myths are believed by people, what rational skeptics do not believe are the staggering feats mentioned in mythology like the Bible. So no one will discount a staggering feat but when the accomplishment is not logical i.e the amount of gold needed, smelters etc (read PA1982's post again) and is found in a religious book, then one should ask for evidence. Staggering feats like this monument of yours stand the test of time don't they? So if the pyramids still exist, where is your golden giant? Have you watched ant NATgeo series on that? maybe the aliens took it.

Deep Sight:

For if the pyramids had been destroyed, then probably one would have discredited any accounts of them as being improbable![/color]

Now [b]that is the crux of the point, and nothing else. The silly posts of yourself and the posters above mock only yourselves if you are not able to make an intelligent response to that.

Only incredulous people would think they were impossible. If there were no evidence of the pyramids left, Architects could use the dimensions given and decide if it's possible. People in the know have taken the dimensions of your mythological giant and found it wanting. That's what everyone's been saying and it was your incredulity that brought out the "Ancient Aliens" angle. AND WHEN DISCREDITED, YOU CLAIMED THERE WAS "HISTORY AND SCIENCE" INVOLVED IN A SHOW CALLED FREAKING "ANCIENT ALIENS". That's why we joked about it!!

Deep Sight:

I introduced ancient aliens to fill in the gap? You must not be reading. I stated that the pyramids are so astonishing that there are now theories of extra terrestial involvement.

Well, as you can see, you are the one who brought up ETs on THIS thread by citing the people who think aliens were involved.

Deep Sight:

2. The pointers to ancient extra-terrestial or other bits of information are quite alot. There are dozens of ancient artworks of things that could only be described as spacecraft. The minimum that is obvious is that there is a huge gap in history somehwere.
4. I would not accept your assessment of the quality of the Ancient Aliens Series. A great deal of history and science is involved in the production.

History professor Ronald H. Fritze observed that pseudoscience as offered by von Däniken and the Ancient Aliens program has a periodic popularity in America: "In a pop culture with a short memory and a voracious appetite, aliens and pyramids and lost civilizations are recycled like fashions

Deep Sight:

Now sir, in case you cannot read, that translates to a definition of how stupendous the pyramids are - so stupendous that people have developed such theories. Now that answers PA1982's issue on the stupendous nature of a described feat. Oh, gosh.

And I keep saying if you look at human history (not some spiritual pseudohistory BS), these staggering feats are not so mindblowing and I also said, if this civilization can build something like the ISS, it's not farfetched or "stupendous" that the pyramids where built by BUT you keep using reality to try to justify mythology.

Deep Sight:

. Oh, gosh.

Be still,

Deep Sight:

O, and by the way, just as I said - there is yet NO satisfactory explanation for the construction of the pyramids, so kindly cease to bandy the falsehood that it has been sufficiently explained -

The unknowns of pyramid construction chiefly center on the question of how the blocks were moved up the superstructure. There is no known accurate historical or archaeological evidence that definitively resolves the question. Therefore, most discussion on construction methods involves functional possibilities that are supported by limited historical and archaeological evidence.

Historical accounts for the construction of the Egyptian pyramids do little to point definitively to methods to lift the blocks; yet most Egyptologists refer to these accounts when discussing this portion of pyramid construction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

Yea, I know, we all know but you are the one who commited the alien fallacy. There are educated guess, then there are "craziness" like the History channel series YOU cited.

PA1982:

^^^^
This thread isn't about pyramids, ancient aliens or Aztecs, but rather the Book of Daniel.
The historical 'accuracies' in the Book of Daniel are no more significant than the historical accuracies in Gone With the Wind
Why are you side-stepping the historical inaccuracies it contains?

It seems he prefers myths and superstition to historical accuracies. He started a thread about the  "Spiritual significance of WW2"  and sought the perspective of the grail message people. Well, he also found spiritual significance in "Pocahontas on Pandora" aka Avatar, so it's not surprising.

Please after you help him with this quest, I need help in confirming the existence of Gilgamesh's Cedar forest and the location of the Tower of Babel. Also, I need help in recovering the chariots at the bottom of the red sea.

^^^
No worries.
Conspiracy folk inevitably out themselves.

I need help in confirming the existence of Gilgamesh's Cedar forest and the location of the Tower of Babel. Also, I need help in recovering the chariots at the bottom of the red sea.

One of those three things is real.

Martian:

Yea, I know, we all know but you are the one who commited the alien fallacy. There are educated guess, then there are "craziness" like the History channel series YOU cited.

O please be done with this falsehood already. If you cannot comprehend simple grammer I cannot help you there. At no time did I commit any alien fallacy: indeed another poster - Mazaje specifically put the question to me as to if I was suggesting alien involvemnet and I set him right with a capital No. The comments are there to read, and if you and other posters are bent of makng jackasses of yourselves over that then the joke forcefully rebounds on you mate.

Deep Sight:

O please be done with this falsehood already. If you cannot comprehend simple grammer I cannot help you there. At no time did I commit any alien fallacy: indeed another poster - Mazaje specifically put the question to me as to if I was suggesting alien involvemnet and I set him right with a capital No. The comments are there to read, and if you and other posters are bent of makng jackasses of yourselves over that then the joke forcefully rebounds on you mate.

Yea, I guess it wasn't you I quoted saying there is "history and science" behind the production. As if you didn't say "pointers to ETs are quite a lot". I made it all up.

Martian:

It seems he prefers myths and superstition to historical accuracies. He started a thread about the  "Spiritual significance of WW2"  and sought the perspective of the grail message people.

Please this has nothing to do with you son.

Well, he also found spiritual significance in "Pocahontas on Pandora" aka Avatar, so it's not surprising.

Yes? And so? Please lets get serious. That remains my very adamant view and it certainly has nothing to do with this thread.

Please after you help him with this quest, I need help in confirming the existence of Gilgamesh's Cedar forest and the location of the Tower of Babel. Also, I need help in recovering the chariots at the bottom of the red sea.

See this man.

Martian:

Yea, I guess it wasn't you I quoted saying there is "history and science" behind the production.

Of course there is.

As if you didn't say "pointers to ETs are quite a lot". I made it all up.

Of course there are.

And stop acting like the statue is the only reason the story is BS. What about the guys that walked around in a furnace and survived unscathed and the other ridiculous claims.
The fact that moses, jesus and whoever else you mentioned could have existed doesn't  preclude that these stories are myths.

The historicity of Gilgamesh has been more or less confirmed usinig different sources, but no one talks about his epic as if it actually happened even though he was a CONFIRMED king of one of the first civilizations.

Deep Sight:

Please this has nothing to do with you son.

Is Hitler the oneness of infinity's disciple? Did you get "enlightened" by the grail message? Did you, kid?

Deep Sight:

Yes? And so? Please lets get serious. That remains my very adamant view and it certainly has nothing to do with this thread.

Of course its your adamant view borne out the delusion called spirituality.Try Star Wars next.

Deep Sight:

See this man.

What? You can talk golden statues and I can't talk about "sky high" towers?

Deep Sight:

Of course there is.

Of course there are.

when you talk to them , tell them I said Hi. Make sure you take Giorgio with you.

Martian:

And stop acting like the statue is the only reason the story is BS. What about the guys that walked around in a furnace and survived unscathed and the other ridiculous claims.
The fact that moses, jesus and whoever else you mentioned could have existed doesn't  preclude that these stories are myths.

The historicity of Gilgamesh has been more or less confirmed usinig different sources, but no one talks about his epic as if it actually happened even though he was a CONFIRMED king of one of the first civilizations.

Ohhhh! Calm down joor!

The issues are very simple. I believe I stated this in the OP. Anyone who knows anything about me on this forum knows very well that I do not hold the bible to be my creed. I stated as early as the third post or so on this thread that I regard the bible to generally contain alot of myths. Anyone who knows me infact neednt have waited for me to state that. It has been my mantra for years.

The question was very simple: why should an atheist demand non-biblical sources for the existence of characters like Daniel, Moses, or Jesus?

Now when you align the issues with this question you wil find that all the issues yourself and PA1982 have raised are rather beside the point - given that I am not a proponent os strict bible historicity - and matter of factly, I never have been - just as you know very well yourself.

The core question that I ask is this - are these not ALL ancient records? Why do we reject them as proof of the existence of the persons referred to? The question is really that simple. Jesus for example has a great many ancient books written about him. Far more than the four cannonical gospels. Why should anyone discount all these writings and demand that secular sources of his existence are produced. He wasn't secularly relevant, and as such that should not arise.

Now I need to further comment that on account of the deficient knowledge of ancients, a great many ancient scripts are ridden with superstition. An ancient writer might write that a god appeared in the sky: this may mean that he saw a comet. One should be careful in interpreting that which is written and fit it with the context of the times. I cannot agree with the position that since magical events are reported in an ancient acript, then the script is an entire lie: it seems far more logical to me to try to absorb the deficient knowledge of the ancients and see what they were in fact trying to describe.

For example there is an atheist on this forum who likes to make a big deal about the fact that in the bible, stars are described as falling to the earth. He says it is laughable because of what we now know of the size and distance of stars. I consider this athiest quite silly for saying this repeatedly because I dont know how else he expects an ancient writer to describe meteors and meteorites.

Overall, the point remains that there will indeed be innacuracies in these writings - heck even secular historians had innacuracies. I have not seen anybody saying that the innacuracies of secular historians renders their entire writings lies.

Deep Sight:

Ohhhh! Calm down joor!

Be still joor!

Deep Sight:

The question was very simple: why should an atheist demand non-biblical sources for the existence of characters like Daniel, Moses, or Jesus?

Because they claim them to be historical figures and claim the bible to be historically accurate when real knowledge nad hisotry contradict the bible. Did they really exist? Possibly. But even if they did, the stories of their deeds are BS.
Moses might as well have existed, but did the creator of the universe give him laws written on stone slabs??

Martian - are there any historical accuracies in the Bible?

If so, how many/ what proportion?

Answer this question honestly and I think that will resolve this debate.

Deep Sight:

The core question that I ask is this - are these not ALL ancient records?

Ancient records or Religious beliefs of some people?? If the bible is ancient record and Moses was real, how come there are no evidence or records of the happening before the Exodus apart from the bible?  If we take the bible is accurate, then Pharaoh was a name, not a title.

Deep Sight:

For example there is an atheist on this forum who likes to make a big deal about the fact that in the bible, stars are described as falling to the earth. He says it is laughable because of what we now know of the size and distance of stars. I consider this athiest quite silly for saying this repeatedly because I dont know how else he expects an ancient writer to describe meteors and meteorites.

Meteors and comets. How smart!!!! What did this same writer mean when he said, angels will hold the four winds at the corners of the earth.

Deep Sight:


,  The question was very simple: why should an atheist demand non-biblical sources for the existence of characters like Daniel, Moses, or Jesus?

Wrong again.
Read the OP again.

Now when you align the issues with this question you wil find that all the issues yourself and PA1982 have raised are rather beside the point - given that I am not a proponent os strict bible historicity - and matter of factly, I never have been - just as you know very well yourself.

Wrong again.
Do I have to quote from the OP to you?

The core question that I ask is this - are these not ALL ancient records? Why do we reject them as proof of the existence of the persons referred to? The question is really that simple. Jesus for example has a great many ancient books written about him. Far more than the four cannonical gospels. Why should anyone discount all these writings and demand that secular sources of his existence are produced. He wasn't secularly relevant, and as such that should not arise. ,

And this proves what about the Book of Daniel?
When are you going to address the historical inaccuracies in the Book of Daniel?

Overall, the point remains that there will indeed be innacuracies in these writings - heck even secular historians had innacuracies. I have not seen anybody saying that the innacuracies of secular historians renders their entire writings lies.

Shifting goalposts, are we?

So- here's another link on the subject of the glaring and obvious inaccuracies in the Book of Daniel.
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/daniel.html

From the link:

Daniel 1:1-2
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord have Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his God.

The passage if filled with historical errors and anachronisms:

   First he god the name of the king of Judah during the seige wrong. II Kings 8-13 showed that it was during the reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, that Nebuchadnezzar laid seige on Jerusalem. Furthermore, the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign would be 606BC. Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon at that time! Nebuchadnezzar only become king in 605BC, the fourth year of Jehoaikim’s reign.,
   


Mistakes Regarding Belshazzar
Daniel 5:1-2
King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, 



   Belshazzar, or more correctly Bel-shar-utsur ("Bel, Protect the King", was never a king. He was a crown prince but never became king of Chaldea, for the kingdom collapsed during the reign of his father.

   Nebuchadnezzar was not the father of Belshazzar. In fact there is no family relation at all between the two. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562BC leaving the kingdom to his son Amel-Marduk. Amel-Marduk, in turn was murdered by his brother-in-law Nergal-ashur-usur two years later. Nergal-ashur-usur reigned for only four years. After his death in 560BC, his son, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, Labashi-Marduk became king. There was a revolt, and Labashi Marduk was dethroned. The new king was Nabu-naido ("Nabu is glorious", or in its Greek form Nabudonius. Nabudonius was not related at all to Nebuchadnezzar. He was the last king of the Chaldean Empire, and Belshazzar was his son. [2]


Daniel 5:30-31
That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, 

Again another statement that is historically false. In the first place the Chaldean Kingdom, fell not the Medes but to the Persians (in 538BC). The King who conquered Chaldea was Cyrus the Persian. There was no historical Darius the Mede who conquered Chaldea! There was however a Persian king name Darius who became king in 521BC, seventeen years after the fall of Babylon. Darius was a renowned king in antiquity and it is obvious that the author of Daniel erroneously thought he was the conqueror of the Chaldean Empire. [3]

The author of Daniel revealed further his ignorance of history when he wrote:

Daniel 9:1
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, 

Now, if he is referring to the historical Darius (the Persian) this is another false statement. The father of Darius was Hystaspes. Ahasuerus, based on Ezra 4:5-6, can be correctly identified with Xerxes I. But Xerxes I was the son of Darius, not his father! [4]



Daniel 6:28
So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

A fitting "tribute" to Daniel's monumental ignorance of history. The passage above clearly shows that he believed that the Chaldean empire fell first to the Median Empire and this, in turn, fell to the Persian. This is clearly unhistorical. History tells us that the Chaldean and the Median empires existed together and both fell to the Persians. [5]

Back to the top
The Dating of Daniel
The book of Daniel is so filled with historical errors and inaccuracies that most biblical scholars (always excepting the fundamentalists, of course) now conclude that Daniel was written very much later (between 167 to 164 BCE) than the period it pretends to be (sixth century BC). How do the scholars know this? Let us digress because it is worth knowing [6]:

   First we know that the book could not have been written in the 6th century BCE because it made errors that anyone living during that time would know. (see above)

   Second is this statement from Daniel 9:2;

    I was studying the sacred books and thinking about the seventy years that Jerusalem would be in ruins, according to what the Lord had told the prophet Jeremiah.

   This is revealing. The prophet Jeremiah lived during the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 587BCE. Thus he was a very near contemporary of Daniel. The time of the supposed Daniel was simply too soon for the book of Jeremiah to be considered scripture (which is another word for "sacred books" In fact we know that the book of Jeremiah was only canonized, i.e. widely considered as "scripture", around 200BCE. Thus Daniel could not have been written earlier than that.

   Daniel was very accurate in "predicting" events leading to and including the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus in December 167 BCE.[b]

   After this Daniel starts to go wrong again. Daniel 11:45 predicted that Antiochus IV would die "between the sea and the mountain on which the temple stands", i.e. between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean sea. Yet Antiochus IV died in Persia in 164BCE.

To summarize, he made errors regarding events in the distant past (6th century BCE), was remarkably accurate in describing details of the events leading to the desecration of temple in 167BCE and then made errors about events after that. Thus it is obvious that Daniel must have been written at a time after the temple desecration but before the death of Antiochus IV. In short between 167 and 164BCE.[c]