Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Adam Smith]

Bible? Guiness? LOTR?
The most widely published book in history is none of these.
What is it???

[Bosh]

"And since many of the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel have already occured and are historical accurate, I give a lot of credit to the Bible."
Its very easy to predict things that have already happened. Isaiah was written by two (possibly three) seperate authors (not including editors small interpolations etc.). One lived during the last days of the Davidic Kingdom, the other(s) lived during/after the exile.

Daniel was probably written only shortly before the Macceabean revolt, which is about three hundred years after it claims to have been written. This can be seen in the fact that the Jews stuck it in the "Writings" section of their bible along with lots of later work instead of the earlier-written "prophet's section." Also half of the origonal was written in Aramean and the author seems to struggle with Hebrew, and Aramean only became the first language of Palestinian Jews comparitively late. And finally, the author is extremally hazy about the world in in which he supposedly lived, which would only make sense if he was writing a fictional accounts of events that took place hundreds of years before he wrote Daniel.
some examples:
1:1-2 he claims that Nebuchadrezzar beseiged and conquered Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign, when in fact he did so years later under the reign of Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin.
1:1 He calls Babylonia "Shinar" (ie Sumer), which is extremally anarchonistic.
2:2 He refers to Chaldeans as magicians, which was how the term "Chaldean" was used in the 2nd century BC and later, while in all texts that're really as old as Daniel claims to be Chaldean is simply the Babylonian nationality.
2:4 The Chaldean King has his Chaldean magicians talk to him in Aramean, which makes no sense except insofar as the author of Daniel is more fluent in that language.
5:1-2 he refers to Belshazzar as the king and son of Nebuchadrezzar, when it fact he was no relation and was never a king.
5:31 He claims that Darius the Median conquered Babylonia and was then followed by Cyrus the Persian. This is hopelessly muddled. There was no Median King named Darius and the Medians never conquered Babylonia. If he's talking about the Persian Darius then he not only gets his nationality wrong, but his father, and Darius came AFTER Cyrus in any case.
8:16 He mentions the angel Gabriel by name, and you don't find angels mentioned by name until very late in the development of Judaeism (ie not until after some Zoroastrianism rubbed off).


Also, the only mention of Daniel in the OT is as an ancient paragon of wisdom (Ezekiel 14:14 and 28:3 for example), while if you follow the cronological information in the book of Daniel, the fictional subject of the Book of Daniel was a younger contemporary of Daniel.

[CB2034]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Bible? Guiness? LOTR?
The most widely published book in history is none of these.
What is it???

according to Guiness Book of World Records. The Bible is number one followed by The Guiness Book of World Records.

[Robert]

IMO the story about flood is based on facts (mentioned also in Gilgamesh), the Ark is fairytale. It's like a symbol of "purification" or "punishment" of people.

the arc has been found by numerous people on the Ararat.
Besides that do satelite pictures show something strange that could be the arc, buried in ice.

Zhu Yuanzhang, I've read more about this topic since I answered. There are more than one explanation, which all could be merged together. Luke dates back to Adam. Matthew only goes back to David. Besides that does the greek / hebrew thing still make sence. And there is the explanation that one of them doesn't explain David's line, but Maria's line, and that both Joseph and Maria are children from David.

besides that, when will you continue our official debate on infidels ?

CyberShy

[Adam Smith]

CB2034:

Please note the difference between "sold" and "published"

[Saint Marcus]

First no solid contradiction have been posted, and all literalists claim they don't exist. Now that they have been posted, just about everyone ignores them. Funny huh?

[DinoDoc]

Delurk

Originally posted by Mark L
First no solid contradiction have been posted, and all literalists claim they don't exist. Now that they have been posted, just about everyone ignores them. Funny huh?

Dino points to his last post in this thread.

Now talk about something else please, this parade of the pedants bores me.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
1:1-2 he claims that Nebuchadrezzar beseiged and conquered Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign, when in fact he did so years later under the reign of Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin.
1:1 He calls Babylonia "Shinar" (ie Sumer), which is extremally anarchonistic.
2:2 He refers to Chaldeans as magicians, which was how the term "Chaldean" was used in the 2nd century BC and later, while in all texts that're really as old as Daniel claims to be Chaldean is simply the Babylonian nationality.
2:4 The Chaldean King has his Chaldean magicians talk to him in Aramean, which makes no sense except insofar as the author of Daniel is more fluent in that language.
5:1-2 he refers to Belshazzar as the king and son of Nebuchadrezzar, when it fact he was no relation and was never a king.
5:31 He claims that Darius the Median conquered Babylonia and was then followed by Cyrus the Persian. This is hopelessly muddled. There was no Median King named Darius and the Medians never conquered Babylonia. If he's talking about the Persian Darius then he not only gets his nationality wrong, but his father, and Darius came AFTER Cyrus in any case.
8:16 He mentions the angel Gabriel by name, and you don't find angels mentioned by name until very late in the development of Judaeism (ie not until after some Zoroastrianism rubbed off).

I'm going to refute each and everyone of your posted points. Because my source already refutes those acusations. They are quite old. I don't promise Internet links, but I'll try to be clear.

edit: I did a check on my schedule, and I realised that I probably will only have time to research friday night...

[Saint Marcus]

I'm going to refute each and everyone of your posted points.

After you're done with that, can you move to my and dinodocs posted points? If you can that is.

[Dauphin]

Check the link

Originally posted by Mark L


After you're done with that, can you move to my and dinodocs posted points? If you can that is.

DinoDocs link refutes contradictions. "Answering Bible Contradictions" in the page title gives it away..

[DinoDoc]

Re: Check the link

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
DinoDocs link refutes contradictions. "Answering Bible Contradictions" in the page title gives it away..

I would have thought that reading the post would have given it away.

[Dauphin]

Error #1534

Mark L ; Read posts; Does not compute.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by phoenixcager
Just wondering....

Apparantly the Chinese character for 'boat' looks like a combination of the characters for 'vessel', 'eight' and 'mouth', which could mean "eight people in a boat".....a coded message about the flood?

Yes, actually it does sort of look that way. But actually the "eight and mouth" part was meant to indicate pronunciation, not meaning, according to the nearest dictionary i can lay my hands upon.

and connor: Singapore is not a part of China.

[Adam Smith]

The world's most widely published book was first published in 1966. I have two copies, which I purchased, and I have actually read it.

[KrazyHorse]

Is it small and red?