Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,824 members, 7,956,111 topics. Date: Monday, 23 September 2024 at 02:41 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. (10774 Views)
Sixth And Seventh Books Of Moses - The Power Source For Our Miracle Pastors / Faith And Historicity Of Lore -What if the Buddha did not exist? / The 6th And 7th Books Of Moses (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 6:07pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight: 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 events before the Exodus apart from the bible? If we take the bible as accurate, then Pharaoh was the name of a king not a title. Deep Sight: Meteors, meteorites 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? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 6:08pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Martian: Ah, Martian, let us be honest here o. If the pyramids had been destroyed entirely without a trace, the fact is that skeptics would definititely assert that such a structure probably never existed. Because even today, the construction remains a puzzle. So its clear that skeptics would have called it another myth. Did you read and understand my analogy about the 84, 000 human sacrifices of the Aztec? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by PA1982(f): 6:13pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
^^^ Could you give the Aztecs a rest, please? Here's the OP:
Please try to stick to the point and not open your self to ridicule by bringing up Aztecs and the pyramids, neither of which are mentioned in the Book of Daniel. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 6:14pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Yes. Some of the places exist. Maybe certain characters were based on real people. But we can say that for other mythological books too! What's the point? Shit, the Olympics are a legacy of the worship of Greek Gods but we don't think that Perseus and co actually did all the heroic deeds. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by plaetton: 6:20pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
@martian: Thank god(oops) that athiesm is not a religion,otherwise you would be giving us a bad name. I notice that you are more interested in making carricature than engaging in open discussion. You seem to be dogmatic like one who posses absulote knowledge about what is real and what is not real,and, unable to consider possiblities. Imagination is actually the greatest survival tool that humans have. There is nothing wrong in considering possibilites, no matter how far fetched. I have the conviction that aliens, angels, gods or whatever you want to call them, at some point in our distant past, inhabited the earth and played out dramas that were recorded by the stone age people in the best way and language they could. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to sugges[/b]t that. This is not a matter of faith or belief . There are countless distinguished hostorians, archeologist and academics who publicly support this notion. Even if it is not true, there is nothing wrong or wierd about considering such possibilities in the face of so much unexplainable technological marvels of ancient civilizations and from direct interpretation of ancient text. I think its sheer arrogance for any learned person to dismiss that [b]possibility. . thinking out of the box and Considering remote possibilities is actually what drives human achievements. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 6:20pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Please answer this question - Deep Sight: |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 6:22pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
plaetton: Thank you oooo! The body of evidence is quite large and certainly deserves to be considered. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 6:23pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Some would. Deep Sight: The construction remains a puzzle because there are no extant records of how the Egyptians did it but if they were to be reconstructed, then we would find out just exactly they did by replicating it. Whatever knowledge they had then, we have now andthe only thing missing is how they actually did it. But that would be an exercise in futility because this current civilization don't have same values so building pyramids will be a waste of time. Furthermore, construction of that size should have some remnants. The pyramids still stand and another example is Mount Rushmore, which won't get it's optimal shape for another 30000 years. My point is, a monument of that size can't just disappear even if it actually existed. Deep Sight: The existence of the Aztecs isn't disputed. The 84000 might be out of whack but THE AZTECS EXISTED. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 6:27pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
PA1982: NO, I CANNOT! Because both you and Martian have missed the pith of that analogy. That analogy shows that the exxageration of an event does not render the event false. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 6:29pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
plaetton: I don't possess absolute knowledge but I do know mythology when i see it. Just because you kowtow to mythology doesn't mean I do. plaetton: When are they coming back to replay these dramas plaetton: Where do you live? Because it seems it's guys who live in Nigeria who know these "historians, archeologists and academics" . |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 6:36pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Martian: Please be honest - ALL mainstream people would definitely have denied their existence. This shows you that mainstream could sometimes be wrong and "conspiracy theorists" could sometimes be right. There is a huge gap in history somewhere that we are not seeing. Personally I cannot accept that advanced RECORDED civilizations have existed on this planet for only six thousand or so years. Its implausible to me. Furthermore, construction of that size should have some remnants. Not necessarily: it depends on the level of the cataclysmic event that may have erased it. There have been many catacylsmic events in the earths history. The existence of the Aztecs isn't disputed. The 84000 might be out of whack but THE AZTECS EXISTED. You STILL didnt get that analogy, did you? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 6:44pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
I got ur analogy.numbers or measurements can be distorted.I just pointed out that the Aztecs existed and that the sacrifices probaby happened.Unlike the historicity of the golden statue, talkless of its measurement. I'll be back for the rest, I'm watching these aliens perform this short drama. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by DeepSight(m): 7:05pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Lolz. This man sef. Anyway thanks, chatting with you has really helped me distract myself from some terrible personal issues this Sunday. Take care! - I will be back too! |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by PA1982(f): 7:09pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
^^^^ All the best with the personal issues. Deep Sight: Yet again, wrong. Are you really unaware of how silly your analogy is? The subject is the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. Citing the Aztecs just shows you have no real grasp of the subject because you've abandoned the Book of D to chase after aliens and Aztecs. Get a grip! plaetton: And what does this have to do with the Book of D? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 7:12pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight: No they wouldn't. It's actually conspiracy theorists that would deny. Just like they deny the moon landing. Deep Sight: Conspiracy theorists are never right because their so called "theories" always involve protagonists that are somehow invicible. All they do is take ordinary events and distort till they give you a headache. How about this analogy. In 92 before the U.S elections, Clinton met with the Co-Chair of Goldmann Sachs and 11 other Wall Street executives to talk about free markets. They met in the dead of night in an exclusive restaurant and talked about taxes, Nafta and deregulations etc. If a "conspiracy theorist" gets a hold of this story, it will become a tale of Illuminati, masons, baphomet, blood sacrifice and other weird "alien" things. Conspiracy theorists are never right and the things they are right about are usually clear to most people. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 7:17pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
PA1982: Maybe the the book of daniels is about plaetton's ancient aliens who had their own hollywood waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back in the day. T[b]heir western movies probably involved Aliens riding Dinosaurs like the Cowboys ride horses. [/b] |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by PA1982(f): 7:32pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
^^^ Steady on. No one's forcing you to watch Ancient Aliens, so far! Here's a link that goes over the Pyramid 'mysteries' rather thoroughly, for those who can't face the historical inconsistencies of the Book of D. http://www.catchpenny.org/ |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 7:37pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Deep Sight: http://www.archaeowiki.org/Eliezer_Oren http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder. Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible. Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 7:49pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
i have my proof of aliens because i've seen one. i aint lying. i'll explain soon. please hold on |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 7:54pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
diluminati: |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by PA1982(f): 8:17pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
For you, martian: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens Sorry about the derail. Any interest in the Book of D? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 8:27pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
PA1982: lmao, you found the rest. You should look for "third world success kid", you'll cringe and laugh. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by plaetton: 8:56pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
PA1982:Nothing or maybe much. Topics start from one issue and evolve into another. My own understanding of biblical and most ancient lore is that the ancients were probably unwitting proxies in a drama they themselves did not fully understand. Even King nebuchadnezzar, in his own, records, claimed that his own patron god, Nebo (son of the babylonian god Marduk), gave him a terrible weapon with which he used to strike terror and conquer his enemies. Are we to take him seriously or just laugh him off as another delusional tyrant? either is fine. Now consider the possiblility, just the possibility, in light of what we know as technologically possible , that perhaps , Nebuchadnezzar summoned Daniel and the others, whom the bible descibed as exceedingly wise(in what?scientific knowledge?) to try to decode or operate or fix some form of advanced mechinery or weaponry that he had come in possession of . It may seem far fetched , it might be completely wrong, but what else does it mean to be conscious humans if we cannot speculate on possiblities and probabilities even at the risk of being mocked?. To assume a position of knowing what is real and what is psuedo is a form of hubris. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by plaetton: 9:33pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
@Martian: Again, give a dog a bad name and then hang it? Just label someone a conspiracy theorist and the mock them. case closed? . Actually , conspiracy is not such a bad word and there is nothing wrong with having a conspiracy theory. Afterall, criminal courts all over world charge and convict people everyday for one form of conspiracy or another. Not so? So there are such things as conspiracies. Individuals engage in it, governments and its agencies engage it. Infact, the intellgence agencies of all nations are set up to both investigate conspiracies against their nations and to also make conspiracies against percieved enemies or rivals. Did someone or some people conspire to kill JFK? obviously yes. He is dead, isn't he? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 9:51pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
plaetton: Ok, but i didn't say that people don't conspire. I'm talking about the ones who see "secrets" and "mysteries" in everything. The ones who see the bogeyman everywhere. plaetton: Either is fine? Ok. Let's forget about Nebuchadnezzar and talk about a figure in contemporary history who also had "divine things" going on. Kim Jong-il's official biography[11] states he was born in a secret military camp on Baekdu Mountain in Japanese-occupied Korea on 16 February 1942.[12] Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow across the sky over the mountain and a new star in the heavens Are we to take him seriously or just laugh him off as another delusional tyrant? either is fine plaetton: James Oberg, NASA engineer and science writer, is famously quoted as observing “You must keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by plaetton: 10:07pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Martian:That is very very funy. I'm laughing my head off. I hope my brain doen't fall off. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by plaetton: 10:10pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Martian:That is very very funy. I'm laughing my head off. I hope my brain doen't fall off. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 10:11pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
plaetton: lol, it's pretty close to falling out with your theories about Nebuchadnezzar's secret weapon given to him by Marduk's son. By the way, where are your academics, archeologists and historians who support your "Ancient Alien" theories? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by chibuikej(m): 10:18pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
hell is real |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by Nobody: 10:22pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
chibuikej: lol, your very first post. "Hell is real" lmao Did you just come back from there? |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by plaetton: 10:23pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Do your own research. For starters, read Zacharia Sitchin's "The wars of gods and men". He is a world renowned and distiguished historian and linguist. And, I dont advance any theory. I think a lot of the theories advanced by researchers provoke serious thought and imagination, especially when there are evidence, even if anectodal, to supoort such theories. The world, human history and the universe are far too complext to embrace one particular viewpoint and hold on to it. yoursefl, Keep an open mind and just make sure it doesn't fall off. |
Re: The Historicity Of The Books Of The Bible - Reference: Daniel. by jayriginal: 10:25pm On Feb 26, 2012 |
Joagbaje:This is false. Both genealogies are traced back to Jesus. One lineage goes from David to Solomon, another goes from David to Nathan. In fact one of my favourite christian jokes is to ask a christian "after David, which of his sons is in the lineage of Jesus". Most say Solomon but it doesnt matter. I always prove them wrong with the bible. In fact, last year on nairaland, I showed that both lineages are from David and not one from David, one from Mary as Joagbaje wants us to believe. Its a common error, but not one I expect Joagbaje (our religious poster of the year) to make. |
The Difference Between Living A Fruitful Life & Living A Sacrificial Life / The Crossover Themes / Muslims Rape 9 Year Old Girls And Then Pray To Allah
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 116 |