^^^
And this proves what?

OLAADEGBU:

Everything that God created was perfect until Adam's sin brought a curse to all living things.
,

So blue eyes are a curse?

stildude:

@Diluminati and Pa1982 Y'all have been quoting Paul since. Now is just a man. Tell me one book of the bible that was not written by man. 2 Tim 3.16. all scriptures  are inspired by God and put down by men. Now I know where this is going. I will not indulge you. It is obvious what you are.

You know that 2 Timothy is considered to have been written after Paul's death?
That it's not an actual Pauline Epistle?
I'm glad you seem to be getting the point- the bible is man-made, not God's inerrant Word.

stildude:

, You are showing more clearly who you really are - atheists.

Wrong again. I'm not an atheist.

FXKing2012:

Matt. 26:51 clearly states that ". . .one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest, and smoke off his ear."

Luke 22: 36 & 38: "And He said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one".
38: "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, it is enough."

I'm sure you've never come across these verses in that your Bible cos it's obvious you werent aware they are in the Bible. Now tell me, why would Jesus ask them to buy swords if not to carry the swords? Would He ask them to buy swords just to keep as souvenirs or were swords given to the motherless babies as gifts?

There you go with that 'your' bible nonsense.
It really rocked your world to know there are more than one translation of the bible, didn't it?


I'm glad you took the trouble to cite chapter and verse.
I notice you couldn't resist quote-mining, though, in both cases.

Try reading the following verse to the Matthew 26:51

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Do you understand the meaning of this?

I also suggest you read the entire chapter 22 of Luke to understand what Jesus was actually talking about, rather than mining it for quotes.

Philippians 4:15
. . . only you Philippians became my partners in giving and receiving. LNT

This verse has to be read in context.
It's about a church giving to Paul in a moment of need, not parishioners 'partnering' the church.


From the OP

He said it's the best way for for God to be personally interested in us.

Simony?
Perhaps not in its strictest sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony

but somehow the idea the Almighty is moved by money grates on me.

What a disgusting story.

For you, martian:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ancient-aliens


Sorry about the derail.
Any interest in the Book of D?

What a disgusting story.
By the way, how did those 'Christians' know the bomber was Muslim?

donigspain:

Exodus 22 vs 18,  "Suffer not a WITCH (boko haram) to live"

Is this some sort of joke?

musKeeto:

And evil men 4ked her,

Please keep your vulgarity to yourself.

diluminati:

I think Christians should start questioning some stuffs in that bible Even Joeagabaje acknowledged sometime that not all stuffs in the bible is for every christians profit. so why would you swallow every pauls doctrine right to the base? what if some of his 'teachings actually contradicted to peters', james, jude and even Jesus'. at some point paul began sounding like New Age teacher and some of his teachings seem to be influence with external ideas and some philosophical teachings.

And that's not even beginning to broach the subject of the authorship of some of the Pauline Epistles.
Here's more on the subject of Paul's writings:

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/paulorigin.html

FXKing2012:

It's easy to spot those who dont believe in speaking/praying in tongues despite being very clearly stated in the Bible. Even Paul thanked God for speaking in tongues more than others.
This thread is a waste of space!

Of course you read and understood my posts on this thread, didn't you?
Glossolalia is a well studied subject. It has nothing to do with Christianity and a LOT to do with showmanship.

@diluminati
Well spotted about Peter!
Just pointing out the fellow's flawed bibical knowlege is enough, one point at a time.
Sooner or later Nairalanders will simply laugh him into silence.

Back to the OP?

^^^
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/

They say Truth is the Daughter of Time.

^^^^ All the best with the personal issues.

Deep Sight:

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.

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:

,  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.

And what does this have to do with the Book of D?

^^^
Yes, of course.
But Paul is a human, not divine.

^^^
Since when are Paul's Letters the Word of God?

^^^
Could you give the Aztecs a rest, please?

Here's the OP:

I just read an interesting (Christian) defense of the historicity of the book of Daniel.

The Book of Daniel

As we proceed the Book of Daniel will become relevant to our examination of evidences for the accuracy Judeo-Christian theology. This relevance will be explained when we engage this examination. For now, however, it is first important to discuss the reliability and historicity of the Book of Daniel. Or more specifically, to address the scholarly objections to a 6th century dating of Daniel.

(NOTE: Later it will be shown that the Book of Daniel is sufficient to conclusively demonstrate the existence of prophecy and the supernatural within the Judeo-Christian scriptures and therefore the reliability of Judeo-Christian theology even if the scholarly dating of this book to the 2nd century is accepted.)

According to the Bible (specifically the Book of Daniel itself), Daniel was a prophet who lived during the 6th century B.C.

"Daniel - In the Bible, a Hebrew prophet of the sixth century B.C." - The American Heritage¨ Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

"Daniel - 1: the Jewish hero of the Book of Daniel who as an exile in Babylon interprets dreams, gives accounts of apocalyptic visions, and is divinely delivered from a den of lions 2: a book of narratives, visions, and prophecies in canonical Jewish and Christian Scripture -- see BIBLE table." - Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Chapter 1 of the Book of Daniel informs us that Daniel was taken captive into exile in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (II) when he conquered Israel's southern kingdom of Judah.

Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. 3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. 6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego, 18 Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. 19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king. 20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

From the historical record we know that these events took place in 586 B.C.

"Judaism - After Nebuchadrezzar's decisive defeat of Egypt at Carchemish (605 BCE), Jeremiah identified the scourge as Babylon. King Jehoiakim's attempt to be free of Babylonia ended with the exile of his successor, Jehoiachin, along with Judah's elite (597); yet the court of the new king, Zedekiah, persisted in plotting new revolts, relyingÑagainst all experienceÑon Egyptian support." - Britannica.com

"Judaism - In 587/586 BCE the doom prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel came true. Rebellious Jerusalem was reduced by Nebuchadrezzar, the Temple was burnt, and much of Judah's population dispersed or deported to Babylonia." - Britannica.com

"Diaspora - The first significant Jewish Diaspora was the result of the Babylonian Exile (q.v.) of 586 BC. After the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah, part of the Jewish population was deported into slavery." - Britannica.com

"Jerusalem - Jerusalem became the spiritual and political capital of the Hebrews. In 586 B.C. it fell to the Babylonians, and the Temple was destroyed." - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Nothing in Daniel's record at this point conflicts with our modern understanding of history. Instead, what Daniel reports is completely consistent with what we now know of history, that upon conquering Judah, Nebuchadnezzar did take captive many of the nobles and people and bring them back to Bablyon. The second chapter of the book states that Daniel was one of these captives who became one of the chief ministers of the court of King Nebuchadnezzar and his successors through a series of events, initiated by Daniel's interpretation of a Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

Complete Article - http://www.biblestudying.net/christianity3.html

Why is it that many atheists are of the view that in acknowledging historical texts, books in the bible should be exempted? For example, when an atheist disputes teh existence of Jesus, he will demand that one should provide him with sources outside of scripture. Is this a reasonable demand? Are scriptural texts not themselves ancient writings which record many well known facts?

Discuss?

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.

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]

^^^
What are you raving about?
'Particle to people'? 
You really don't get, do you?

Didn't you read the link?
The mutation occurred before your creationist sources claim the earth was created!

^^^
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.

You are funny.
I wonder when you're actually going to read the bible.

FXKing2012:

I guess where Peter drew a sword and cut off the ear of a Roman soldier is not in your Bible. Also where Jesus told some of His disciples to sell their clothes to buy swords and when they brought two swords Jesus said it was enough is not in your Bible - again.

Chapter and verse, please.
And since when is buying a sword the same as carrying a sword?
My bible? That conversation in another thread where you were shown up with transaltion problems seems to affected you. 'My' bible?

Well. . .you might be right on this one. I'm not the type to argue blindly, I accept your point if I see it as strong enough.

So you accept you were wrong in thinking Jesus needed outsiders' belief to accomplish a miracle?
I'm glad, because your argument reduced our Saviour to the level of a showman.

FXKing2012:

[color=#006600][b]You said no BH leader was kidnapped, I guess u have not been listening to the news. What about Abu QaQa (the former spokesman) and Sokoto (the Madala bomb mastermind)?

Are you misquoting me deliberately?
Or did you already forget what we discussing there?

And as I told you and have shown u from the Bible, curses or pronouncements may take years to manifest so dont be so sure they are gonna have no effect on you just yet.

And I have shown you from the bible that what you are saying is nonsense.
Have you forgotten already?

, Pls dont mock a man of God by twisting his name just for the sake of causing amusement, you might be heaping curses upon yourself. I'm only advising you dear.

Don't be ridiculous. Neither Oyedepo nor any Indian fakir nor David Copperfield have that capacity.
You might as well threaten the poster with zombies.

^^^
I prefer to limit my comments to this thread.
What I see here is an interesting OP that some posters are trying to smother.
What the OPer does on other threads doesn't concern me here.

^^^^
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?

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?

Once again with the slurs and insults, I see.
The OP has brought up a number of most interesting points and there are posters and readers who want to discuss them.
Any chance of you behaving like an adult and letting the thread continue without your schoolyard posturing?

^^^
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?

Please stop this senseless cursing, if only from respect for the dead.

@dekung-
I learn a great deal by researching the various subjects I read in this thread.
I think it's actually extremely important that people see that there's no reason to be taken in by pernicious superstitions and that the Internet offers us a wealth of information to expose hoaxes and silly rumours.

Also, remember that the senseless insults and threats I'm proffered here simply don't affect me at all.

RIP to the victims.

^^^ Good point.

BERNIMOORE:

, 2 Timothy 3:15,16
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ,

Hang on.
Wasn't Timothy actually written before the Gospels?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I always thought the Holy Scriptures mentioned here referred to the OT.

The colour is a mutation, similar to that of yellow roses.
Read the link
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm


Here's the text so no one has to click on the link:
New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

What is the genetic mutation

“Originally, we all had brown eyes”, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes”. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch”, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting” brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour – a condition known as albinism.

Limited genetic variation

Variation in the colour of the eyes from brown to green can all be explained by the amount of melanin in the iris, but blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes. “From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor,” says Professor Eiberg. “They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA.” Brown-eyed individuals, by contrast, have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production.

Professor Eiberg and his team examined mitochondrial DNA and compared the eye colour of blue-eyed individuals in countries as diverse as Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. His findings are the latest in a decade of genetic research, which began in 1996, when Professor Eiberg first implicated the OCA2 gene as being responsible for eye colour.

Nature shuffles our genes

The mutation of brown eyes to blue represents neither a positive nor a negative mutation. It is one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither increases nor reduces a human’s chance of survival. As Professor Eiberg says, “it simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so.”

Here's a link to the original study:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2045q6234h66p744/

The thing is, this mutation occured between 6 and 10 thousand years ago.
And blue eyes didn't form part of the 'original' design of humans.

• God's character absolutely forbids evolutionary methods.  God's holiness demands truth, and His omniscience demands perfection.  He cannot know what is best and then "create" something inferior.  He wrote that He took six days to create the universe (Exodus 20:11).  And He cannot lie!

Do you see the problem here?
Blue eyed people are walking evidence that mutation and natural selection exist.

I posted a link to how scientists know it occured.
Perhaps it went over your head.
Surely there is an explanation for blue eyes in humans in Genesis.

^^^
Could you explain what you mean?