[_ Old Earth _] Old Earth Vs. Literal Reading of the Bible.

[lordkalvan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Neither of these claims that you made is an argument particularly persuasive of placing trust in biblical text over anything else. It almost seems that you don't want to try and convince me of the soundness of your point of view. At the moment, it appears to me that you made an error when you typed 'European', but are wholly incapable of admitting it - scarcely the humility of a Christian - and that you are also unwilling to address the possibility that at least one of the 'predictions' you refer to may have been nothing more than a comment on a past historical event.

In passing, I note that you have ceased addressing the question of 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'. I conclude therefore that you now acknowledge that this metric is wholly erroneous as a means of judging either the age of Earth (which was the original claim you put forward) or the date of the Noachian Flood (the claim that you moved the goal-posts towards as the discussion unfolded). Would you like to propose, explain and discuss a second scientific metric that supports the age of Earth derived from biblical text? If so, please could you specify that age?

 

[BobRyan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Hint: The chapter 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel (predicting the fall of Babylon and the 4 world empires) was written in the 6th century long BEFORE the fall of Babylon.

The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia - Daniel is in his 70's at that time.

The Bible is thus PROVEN to be reliable in the very areas you (and every atheist we know) wanted it to be nothing more than an "aesops fables style mythology".

Your argument failed at that point.

Neither of these claims that you made is an argument particularly persuasive of placing trust in biblical text over anything else.

Well - depends on the level to which you are willing to go in "ignoring inconvenient details".

In passing, I note that you have ceased addressing the question of 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'. I conclude therefore that you now acknowledge that this metric is wholly erroneous

What fact do you have to argue against the point made?

So far all you have done is ignore the details of that argument - particularly the ones that get to the SCIENCE fact that 90% of the sediment is carried at flood times vs slower-moving less-volume still times.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Hint: The chapter 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel (predicting the fall of Babylon and the 4 world empires) was written in the 6th century long BEFORE the fall of Babylon.

The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia - Daniel is in his 70's at that time.

Which rather makes my point about Daniel predicting, in your own words, 'the 4 major European empires' as one of those empires was already in existence and so scarcely 'predicted' at all. If Daniel is supposedly completing '[t]he entire book....just after the conquest of Babylon', few would be impressed by a supposed prediction about that empire's existence and fall.

I also note your continued obvious reluctance to address the question of how you arrived at your determination that all these empires were 'European'; I see you have inexplicably shifted to use of the vague term 'world empires', in the sense, I presume, that these were empires somewhere on the face of the Earth at some time, as none of them remotely approached the status of a 'world' empire as such.

The Bible is thus PROVEN to be reliable in the very areas you (and every atheist we know) wanted it to be nothing more than an "aesops fables style mythology".

Assertion is not evidence, not even when the assertion is capitalized. Your argument may not lack conviction, but it certainly lacks content. You have not even established your 'European' claim yet - or deigned to acknowledge it as an error - nor the validity of your claim that the Babylonian Empire was 'predicted' by Daniel. Not very persuasive at all.

Your argument failed at that point.

As I made no argument, only asked a number of questions which you continue to avoid answering directly at all costs, there is no argument to fail, no matter how much you may wish there is. The only failure seen is your avoidance of those questions.

[quote:yx413v96]Neither of these claims that you made is an argument particularly persuasive of placing trust in biblical text over anything else.

Well - depends on the level to which you are willing to go in "ignoring inconvenient details".[/quote:yx413v96]

And yet we see you presenting none of those 'inconvenient details' in any coherent response to my particular questions. All we see is you continually avoiding those questions and asserting your claims as if assertion is all that is necessary to substantiate them.

[quote:yx413v96]In passing, I note that you have ceased addressing the question of 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'. I conclude therefore that you now acknowledge that this metric is wholly erroneous

What fact do you have to argue against the point made?[/quote:yx413v96]

This is a pathetic and feeble attempt to ignore the quite detailed response I gave to your post of a 60-years' old rehashing of a 19th Century argument built on wholly inadequate data, since when you have made no point at all with respect to this matter.

So far all you have done is ignore the details of that argument - particularly the ones that get to the SCIENCE fact that 90% of the sediment is carried at flood times vs slower-moving less-volume still times.

Even you must be able to see what nonsense this is, Bob, and what a misrepresentation it is of (and libel against) the considered response I gave to the explanation you provided for your chosen metric. Capitalization does not add persuasiveness to your argument, but only emphasizes its emptiness. You have failed entirely to address the arguments against the one sad and sorry example that you provided of 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' supporting the age of Earth derived from biblical sources. It is noteworthy that your example utterly failed to do this, as it also failed entirely to support the date for the Noachian Flood, which you not very subtly shifted the goal-posts of your claim towards as quickly as you conveniently could.

Trying to muddy the waters around this wholly inadequate and now-refuted metric by introducing some vague, incoherent, unsupported assertions about '90% of the sediment is carried at flood times vs slower-moving less-volume still times' - I have no idea what this means and, as you provide neither explanation nor references, I don't see how anyone else can either - only further demonstrates how desperate you are to avoid addressing the analysis and references I provided you with in respect of the Mississippi Delta and how impoverished your claim is generally. Such 'evidence' as you have been able to put forward has less substance than the suit of new clothes the Emperor was so proud of.

 

[BobRyan]

[
Trying to muddy the waters around this wholly inadequate and now-refuted metric by introducing some vague, incoherent, unsupported assertions about '90% of the sediment is carried at flood times vs slower-moving less-volume still times' - I have no idea what this means

The fact that you do not understand the point does not make the point "wholly inadequate" -- obviously.

Rivers get their sediments through
erosion of weathered rock or by erosion of previously deposited sediments (Fig. 10). Erosion of
weathered rock is an important source for dissolved load, whereas erosion of previously
deposited sediments is an important source for bed load and suspended sediments. Dissolved
load is easily transported, even by the slowest flowing rivers, but suspended, and especially bed
load, require faster moving water. Consequently, transportation of these sediments is highest
during floods. Why is that so? Water velocity has long been known (e.g., Wolman and Leopold
1957) to be dependent on the gradient of the river channel (steeper in the mountains than in the
plains) and/or on the volume of water flow (volume is more important to our story, so we will
concentrate on it).
The more water put into a channel, especially runoff during heavy rain, the faster it will
flow (the increased mass pushes water ahead of it). Faster flowing water has more energy and
can support larger particles in suspension. Furthermore, faster flowing water has more erosive
energy and removes sediment from the riverbanks, especially from the outer bank at a river bend
(Fig. 10B, 11). It is during floods, then, that rivers carry most of their sediment load. For
example, the Rio Beni River, Bolivia, carries 82%-90% of its annual 212 million tons of
sediment during the rainy reason (January-March) when the river is prone to repeated floods
(Gautier and others 2007).

https://scientists.dmns.org/sites/kenca ... oMummy.pdf (page 7)

Try again.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Hint: The chapter 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel (predicting the fall of Babylon and the 4 world empires) was written in the 6th century long BEFORE the fall of Babylon.

The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia - Daniel is in his 70's at that time.

Which rather makes my point about Daniel predicting, in your own words, 'the 4 major European empires' as one of those empires was already in existence and so scarcely 'predicted' at all.

Interesting "gloss over of all details listed" in your response.

As I noted Daniel predicts the downfall of Babylon by Persia followed by the downfall of Persia by Greece and then the down fall of Greece by Rome -- and then the division of the Roman empire into the ten kingdoms and then the fact that never again would the empire be united though men would try via wars and inter-marriage between the European powers.

But as usuall - you gloss over details that do not suit your argument.

Look at Dan 2 and Daniel 7 for the dates of the writing predicting the downfall of Babylon PRIOR to the fall of Babylon. (I think you recoil at the idea of reading the text to pay attention to details-- or am I just imagining that?)

This "proof" of the affirmation of the INSPIRED nature of the text -- (affirming just what Paul said about the text of the OT in 2Tim 3:16 and what Peter said about it in 2Peter 1) you seem most anxious to "obfuscate and avoid"

I also note your continued obvious reluctance to address the question of how you arrived at your determination that all these empires were 'European'; I see you have inexplicably shifted to use of the vague term 'world empires',

Misdirection and obfuscation of the point on your part -- noted.

Back to the topic.

The Bible is thus PROVEN to be reliable in the very areas you (and every atheist we know) wanted it to be nothing more than an "aesops fables style mythology".

Assertion is not evidence, not even when the assertion is capitalized. Your argument may not lack conviction, but it certainly lacks content.

And the "proof" for your wild accusation?

Nowhere!! (As usual).

Bob said - Your argument failed at that point.

As I made no argument, only asked a number of questions

On the contrary - you are seen in the example above to make wild accusation after wild accusation combining each with some level of misdirection from the point at hand.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

[
Trying to muddy the waters around this wholly inadequate and now-refuted metric by introducing some vague, incoherent, unsupported assertions about '90% of the sediment is carried at flood times vs slower-moving less-volume still times' - I have no idea what this means

The fact that you do not understand the point does not make the point "wholly inadequate" -- obviously.

If you could read for comprehension properly you would understand that the phrase 'wholly inadequate' refers to your chosen metric for verifying the biblically derived age of Earth (still unspecified by yourself), namely 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'. The point I did not understand was the one you blithely threw into the debate as if it was self-explanatory when it was wholly obscure and bore no relevance to the considered response I gave to the material - it scarcely deserves the label of evidence - you posted supposedly supporting 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas'. This response you have almost entirely ignored.

Rivers get their sediments through erosion of weathered rock or by erosion of previously deposited sediments <snipped reference which applies neither generally to 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' nor in particular to that of the Mississippi Delta>

If you have a point to make, please make it so that it can be understood, rather than expecting me to follow the tortuous path of whatever logic you are using. I am not a mind-reader and your reference bears not at all on the article you originally quoted, nor on the criticisms I offered of it. It is demonstrably clear that your chosen metric is wholly devoid of scientific content and you appear to be trying to avoid addressing it further.

Try again.

Bob, I suggest you try realizing when you have posted entirely hopeless material in support of your argument, failed to respond in any meaningful way to criticism of it and save the sarcasm for those who might be impressed by it. I am quite capable of recognizing bluff and bluster when I see it. Address your chosen metric, explain how my criticism of it is at fault, or admit that your metric is not fit for purpose and we can consider any other metric that you would like to put forward for discussion. In either case, I am still waiting to see what the biblically derived age of earth is that is supposedly supported by these metrics.

 

[lordkalvan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Hint: The chapter 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel (predicting the fall of Babylon and the 4 world empires) was written in the 6th century long BEFORE the fall of Babylon.

Bob, I am not interested in your cryptic hints. What I am interested in is having you provide a reasoned, straightforward answer to my questions. You see, the problem is this: you put yourself forward as a biblical expert of unparallelled authority, capable of exegeting the Bible so objectively that you can arrive at definitive conclusions and opinions that are beyond almost any other biblical scholars' abilities. Subsequently, you tell us 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'. Which leads me to ask, quite reasonably, how you determined that the empires you refer to as Babylon and Medo-Persia were 'European', as I am sure you must have some duly exegeted biblical text to support your statement. But do you reply? No, you don't. You avoid explaining your statement at all costs, shifting your terminology instead to 'world empires', an equally contentious description of Babylon and Medo-Persia. So either you made an error and are pathologically incapable of admitting that you did, or else you are for some mysterious, unexplained reason wholly unwilling to describe for us how you determined from the authoritative biblical text that you have so carefully exegeted that these empires were European. Which would it be, Bob?

And I am puzzled that you are now saying that Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written 'long BEFORE the fall of Babylon', when you had previously told us that 'The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia - Daniel is in his 70's at that time.' How can I determine which of these statements is the one you believe to be true and, if only one of them is true, why would you post such contradictory claims in the first place in such a short space of time? Do you know what you are saying from one post to the next?

And supposing you tell me that the first statement is actually the correct one and the second something of a mistake, if you can bring yourself to admitting having made a mistake that is, how can I be sure that what you tell me about when Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written is itself correct? Given that you seem to be making all these blatant mistakes and contradictions in your posts, why should I trust anything you tell me about the Bible at all?

As I noted Daniel predicts the downfall of Babylon by Persia followed by the downfall of Persia by Greece and then the down fall of Greece by Rome -- and then the division of the Roman empire into the ten kingdoms and then the fact that never again would the empire be united though men would try via wars and inter-marriage between the European powers.

But as usuall - you gloss over details that do not suit your argument.

Just trying to take things one or two steps at a time and not lose sight of the wood for the trees. Just trying to clarify your statements so that I can be confident in the authority you bring to any discussion of biblical text.

Look at Dan 2 and Daniel 7 for the dates of the writing predicting the downfall of Babylon PRIOR to the fall of Babylon. (I think you recoil at the idea of reading the text to pay attention to details-- or am I just imagining that?)

As far as I can see, there is nothing in either Daniel 2 or Daniel 7 that tells me when either chapter was written. And you have already authoritatively told me that 'The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia - Daniel is in his 70's at that time.' Now you are telling me that I should '[l]ook at 'Dan 2 and Daniel 7 for the dates of the writing', when no such dates are provided. Really, Bob, I don't know what to believe when you tell me something about the Bible as you seem to contradict yourself or give me totally misleading information in post after post.

This "proof" of the affirmation of the INSPIRED nature of the text -- (affirming just what Paul said about the text of the OT in 2Tim 3:16 and what Peter said about it in 2Peter 1) you seem most anxious to "obfuscate and avoid"

Bob, just because I seek clarification and understanding that you are either unwilling or incapable of providing does not mean that I am 'anxious to "obfuscate and avoid"' (I am entirely confused by your placing of quotation marks around these last three words, by the way). Perhaps the fault is your own and you are not making your points clearly enough in response to my quest for enlightenment.

[quote:1kpbwpm0]
I also note your continued obvious reluctance to address the question of how you arrived at your determination that all these empires were 'European'; I see you have inexplicably shifted to use of the vague term 'world empires',

Misdirection and obfuscation of the point on your part -- noted.[/quote:1kpbwpm0]

Looking for clarification and understanding is '[m]isdirection and obfuscation'? It appears that you are most anxious to avoid explaining how you arrived at your determination that Babylon and Medo-Persia were European empires. It seems to me that if this was just a simple mistake on your part, you have a powerful reluctance to admit it. Why would this be?

Back to the topic.

[quote:1kpbwpm0]The Bible is thus PROVEN to be reliable in the very areas you (and every atheist we know) wanted it to be nothing more than an "aesops fables style mythology".

[/quote:1kpbwpm0]

And I say again that assertion is not evidence. The quality of the evidence that you have put forward so far is sadly far from adequate.

[quote:1kpbwpm0]Assertion is not evidence, not even when the assertion is capitalized. Your argument may not lack conviction, but it certainly lacks content.

And the "proof" for your wild accusation?

Nowhere!! (As usual).[/quote:1kpbwpm0]

The proof is in your own posts, Bob, where you demonstrate your avoidance of relevant questions, and your inability to support your claims and assertions with anything other than the same claims and assertions repeated continually until those discussing the topic with you lose patience and refuse to deal with you any more, whereupon you cry victory.

[quote:1kpbwpm0][quote:1kpbwpm0]Bob said - Your argument failed at that point.

As I made no argument, only asked a number of questions[/quote:1kpbwpm0]

On the contrary - you are seen in the example above to make wild accusation after wild accusation combining each with some level of misdirection from the point at hand.[/quote:1kpbwpm0]

Bob, please do me the politeness of quoting the whole of the points I make rather than just quote-mining them so that you can cast aspersions against anyone who dares try and question your empty assertions, unsubstantiated claims and stridently discourteous opinions.

 

[BobRyan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Hint: The chapter 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel (predicting the fall of Babylon and the 4 world empires) was written in the 6th century long BEFORE the fall of Babylon.

Bob, I am not interested in your cryptic hints. What I am interested in is having you provide a reasoned, straightforward answer to my questions.

Your questions make wild revisionist history assumptions that nobody believes.

1. You make the wild claim that someplace in the book of Daniel is the word "European". What kind of wild obfuscating misdirecting claim is that???!!!

2. You argue that the Babylonian, Persian and Greek empires had ceased to exist by the 6th century B.C so how could Daniel be "making a prediction". What kind of nonsense is that!!??

It is as if you have completely lost any hope of supporting your Bible-can-not-be-trusted accusations.

You see, the problem is this: you put yourself forward as a biblical expert of unparallelled authority,

Wrong - I keep pointing to the inconvenient details we find IN the text and you keep trying to demonstrate that you really don't need to read the Bible at all in order to discredit it -- because you have the gift of "making stuff up".

Which leads me to ask, quite reasonably, how you determined that the empires you refer to as Babylon and Medo-Persia were 'European', as I am sure you must have some duly exegeted biblical text to support your statement.

And I keep answering that the Babylonian empire was subsumed the Persian which was subsumed by the Greek which was subsumed by the Romans. You keep omitting that from your repeated attmepts to "circle back" on this argument from symantics-not-substance.

And I am puzzled that you are now saying that Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written 'long BEFORE the fall of Babylon', when you had previously told us that 'The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia

1. Indeed the entire book was not complete (in it's entirety) until then because "as we see when we READ the text" the event of the fall of Babylon is described as well as a singular event that takes place DURING the Persian empire.

However when we "read the book" we ALSO SEE the events recorded having the date of their recording being included.

Funny thing about "reading the book" is that facts surface.

- Daniel is in his 70's at that time.' How can I determine which of these statements is the one you believe to be true

Less obfuscation on your part and more attention to detail as you yourself seem to be getting lost in the fog of your own misdirection.

Notice that while Daniel is in his 20's when taken captive by Babylon -- the Jews are in Babylon for over 70 years -- so that means that events recorded at the end of Daniel - after the fall of Babylon (hint the jews remain in Babylon for a portion of the rise of the Persian empire -- Persia subsumes Babylonia) affect the life of Daniel -- and "yes" he gets older every year.

What part of this is "supposed to be confusing"? This is not rocket science.

Do you know what you are saying from one post to the next?

Yes. Attention to detail please.

And supposing you tell me that the first statement is actually the correct one and the second something of a mistake, if you can bring yourself to admitting having made a mistake that is, how can I be sure that what you tell me about when Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written is itself correct?

Less obfuscation, less smoke and mirrors please.

If you LOOK at the book it is telling WHEN each of these events takes place in the life of Daniel and it is clear that he is PREDICTING the future for example in Daniel 2 when he is talking to the king of Babylonia and revealing his dream.

READ the book and you will not need to "imagine" difficulty!!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
As I noted Daniel predicts the downfall of Babylon by Persia followed by the downfall of Persia by Greece and then the down fall of Greece by Rome -- and then the division of the Roman empire into the ten kingdoms and then the fact that never again would the empire be united though men would try via wars and inter-marriage between the European powers.

But as usuall - you gloss over details that do not suit your argument.

L.K
Just trying to take things one or two steps at a time and not lose sight of the wood for the trees. Just trying to clarify your statements so that I can be confident in the authority you bring to any discussion of biblical text.

The argument is not made on "my authority" it is made by paying attention to the details IN the text you are trying to discredit.

Bob
Look at Dan 2 and Daniel 7 for the dates of the writing predicting the downfall of Babylon PRIOR to the fall of Babylon. (I think you recoil at the idea of reading the text to pay attention to details-- or am I just imagining that?)

As far as I can see, there is nothing in either Daniel 2 or Daniel 7 that tells me when either chapter was written.

You see in BOTH chapters that the date of the events is given and in the case of Daniel 2 that includes the act of Daniel in revealing the future of the 4 Empire future-history to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.

What part of that is difficult for you? This discussion takes place with the Babylonian king BEFORE the fall of Babylon AND predicts the fall of all four of the world empires listed - including the 3 that come after (and subsume) Babylon.

HENCE the trustworthy PROVEN nature of scripture from Dan 2 "alone".

Dan 7 gives the DATE of the 4 empire dream seen there (which is AGAIN at the time of the Babylonian empire) and AGAIN it shows the 4 empire sequence. (All details you omit in your attempts to obfuscate the points above).

Dan 1 gives us the DATE in which Daniel is brought as a captive to Babylon well into the time of the dominant Babylonian empire and Dan 12:4 shows that Daniel was writing this book all along. (Hint - Daniel did not live for 400 years then die).

And you have already authoritatively told me that 'The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia - Daniel is in his 70's at that time.'

Indeed it is not until after the fall of Babylon that the book in it's entirety is completed.

Now you are telling me that I should '[l]ook at 'Dan 2 and Daniel 7 for the dates of the writing', when no such dates are provided. Really, Bob, I don't know what to believe when you tell me something about the Bible as you seem to contradict yourself or give me totally misleading information in post after post.

You are arguing smoke, mirrors and obfuscation instead of substance "again".

Does it ever end?

Bob
This "proof" of the affirmation of the INSPIRED nature of the text -- (affirming just what Paul said about the text of the OT in 2Tim 3:16 and what Peter said about it in 2Peter 1) you seem most anxious to "obfuscate and avoid"

Bob, just because I seek clarification and understanding that you are either unwilling or incapable of providing does not mean that I am 'anxious to "obfuscate and avoid"'

Now you have made an interesting argument. How is it that any of your arguments make sense then if they are not simply transparent efforts too obfuscate and misdrect?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ What I am interested in having you explain to me, Bob, but you adamantly refuse to do so, is:

1. How you determined that Daniel predicted the 'European' status of the empires of Babylon and Medo-Persia? Your exact words were: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'; and

2. How a 'prediction' about an empire/kingdom that had almost certainly ceased to exist by the time the prediction was ostensibly made can be categorized as a prediction rather than an observation?

Hint: The chapter 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel (predicting the fall of Babylon and the 4 world empires) was written in the 6th century long BEFORE the fall of Babylon.

Bob, I am not interested in your cryptic hints. What I am interested in is having you provide a reasoned, straightforward answer to my questions.

Your questions make wild revisionist history assumptions that nobody believes.

1. You make the wild claim that someplace in the book of Daniel is the word "European". What kind of wild obfuscating misdirecting claim is that???!!!

Bob, you are monstrously disingenuous. These are your exact words, not mine: 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7'. You even went so far as to requote them in a subsequent post. Do you think that everyone has forgotten that this is what you posted, what I have been trying to get you to clarify, explain or admit to be in error, and what you have persistently tried to avoid all responsibility for? Please withdraw your wholly false accusation that this is a 'wild claim' on my part.

2. You argue that the Babylonian, Persian and Greek empires had ceased to exist by the 6th century B.C so how could Daniel be "making a prediction". What kind of nonsense is that!!??

More disingenuous tripe. I specifically asked about the end of the empire you refer to as Babylonian in the context of the contradictory explanations you gave for when you believe Daniel to have been written. Again, do you think no one notices your increasing desperation to shift attention from the contradictions and confusions in your own posts and to place the blame on my shoulders for daring to question the claims you make so confidently and yet apparently so wrongly?

It is as if you have completely lost any hope of supporting your Bible-can-not-be-trusted accusations.

As far as I can recall all I have done so far is to attempt to get you to clarify and explain your confusing and contradictory claims and assertions. For your part, you refuse either to explain the logic behind your confusing and contradictory claims, or to admit that you made an error. Instead, you seek to divert attention by accusing me of 'misdirection' and 'obfuscation' simply because I continue to ask the same questions that you continue to refuse to answer directly, preferring instead to misrepresent what I have asked and disingenuously denying the very words you have posted yourself.

[quote:17kcz063]Which leads me to ask, quite reasonably, how you determined that the empires you refer to as Babylon and Medo-Persia were 'European', as I am sure you must have some duly exegeted biblical text to support your statement.

And I keep answering that the Babylonian empire was subsumed the Persian which was subsumed by the Greek which was subsumed by the Romans. You keep omitting that from your repeated attmepts to "circle back" on this argument from symantics-not-substance.[/quote:17kcz063]
So your hapless explanation for why you made this claim - 'that the Bible predicted the 4 major European empires in Dan 7' - is that Rome and Greece were empires that came after the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires, can vaguely be described as 'European' (well, they originated in Europe, at least), to a greater or lesser extent subsumed some parts of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires, and so therefore Babylon and Medo-Persia can in some contrived attempt at a geopolitical logic aimed solely at avoiding the necessity of you having to admit you made a mistake, be described as 'European' as well? Scarcely a convincing argument.

[quote:17kcz063]And I am puzzled that you are now saying that Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written 'long BEFORE the fall of Babylon', when you had previously told us that 'The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia

1. Indeed the entire book was not complete (in it's entirety) until then because "as we see when we READ the text" the event of the fall of Babylon is described as well as a singular event that takes place DURING the Persian empire.

However when we "read the book" we ALSO SEE the events recorded having the date of their recording being included.

Funny thing about "reading the book" is that facts surface.[/quote:17kcz063]
Please point to the specific text which provides evidence that 'the events recorded having the date of their recording being included'. Assertion is cheap. I have read Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 and see no such evidence. The only reference to a date in Daniel 2 that I can see is this:

2:1 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.

This is written in the past tense and could have been written anytime within the lifespan of Daniel, granting for the moment that Daniel actually wrote these words. Your only grounds for supposing that 'the events recorded having the date of their recording being included' seem to be that you wish it to be so. And in Daniel 7 we find a similar construction, to which the same argument applies:

7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.

[quote:17kcz063]
- Daniel is in his 70's at that time.' How can I determine which of these statements is the one you believe to be true

Less obfuscation on your part and more attention to detail as you yourself seem to be getting lost in the fog of your own misdirection.[/quote:17kcz063]
No, Bob, it is the contradictions in your own varying claims that causes the fog; the details seem to keep tripping you up.

Notice that while Daniel is in his 20's when taken captive by Babylon -- the Jews are in Babylon for over 70 years -- so that means that events recorded at the end of Daniel - after the fall of Babylon (hint the jews remain in Babylon for a portion of the rise of the Persian empire -- Persia subsumes Babylonia) affect the life of Daniel -- and "yes" he gets older every year.

What part of this is "supposed to be confusing"? This is not rocket science.

Nor does it make any sense. I have no idea what you are trying to say and how you think that this provides any evidence of when exactly Daniel may or may not have written the various chapters attributed to him.

[quote:17kcz063] Do you know what you are saying from one post to the next?

Yes. Attention to detail please.[/quote:17kcz063]
A claim sadly at variance with the evidence of your own posts.

[quote:17kcz063]And supposing you tell me that the first statement is actually the correct one and the second something of a mistake, if you can bring yourself to admitting having made a mistake that is, how can I be sure that what you tell me about when Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written is itself correct?

Less obfuscation, less smoke and mirrors please.

If you LOOK at the book it is telling WHEN each of these events takes place in the life of Daniel and it is clear that he is PREDICTING the future for example in Daniel 2 when he is talking to the king of Babylonia and revealing his dream.

READ the book and you will not need to "imagine" difficulty!![/quote:17kcz063]
But 'telling WHEN each of these events takes place in the life of Daniel' is entirely different from the claim you made above that 'we ALSO SEE the events recorded having the date of their recording being included'. Many writings - autobiographies and diaries, for example - tell us when something occurred without necessarily having been written at the time that that something took place. From my careful re-reading of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 there is absolutely no evidence at all that the author is writing at the time the events recorded are supposedly taking place; it can equally be supposed that the author wrote the details at the end of his life as you elsewhere claimed, or even that he revised earlier drafts at this stage. Why would you suppose that Daniel wrote the record of the events exactly at or around the time that they occurred? You tell me at one point that 'The entire book was finished just after the conquest of Babylon by Persia' and then, when this no longer suits your purposes, you tell me that Chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel were written''long BEFORE the fall of Babylon' and that 'we ALSO SEE the events recorded having the date of their recording being included', all of which are no more than suppositions on your own part.

 

[lordkalvan]

L.K
Just trying to take things one or two steps at a time and not lose sight of the wood for the trees. Just trying to clarify your statements so that I can be confident in the authority you bring to any discussion of biblical text.

The argument is not made on "my authority" it is made by paying attention to the details IN the text you are trying to discredit.

But if you have no authority as a biblical scholar capable of interpreting and explaining those details, why should I take anything you say about the Bible to be of any worth at all? The confusions and contradictions discussed above and your blatant attempt to deny writing the very words you yourself posted about Daniel's predictions in respect of "European empires' indeed lead me to doubt that I should put very much value at all in anything you say about the Bible.

Dan 1 gives us the DATE in which Daniel is brought as a captive to Babylon well into the time of the dominant Babylonian empire and Dan 12:4 shows that Daniel was writing this book all along. (Hint - Daniel did not live for 400 years then die).

I have eschewed discussing your other points that I have snipped at this stage as it seems better to resolve the outstanding issues that these points do not as yet touch on. As this does seem relevant to these points, however, I would like to ask you for clarification about how you interpret this statement in Daniel 12:

12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

as 'show[ing] that Daniel was writing this book all along'? How can you determine 'all along' from this cryptic verse? It looks to me as if you assume it to mean what you want it to mean. I also fail to understand the 'hint' about Daniel not living for 400 years and then dieing.

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, do you have anything further to add to your erroneous claim that 'the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas' support scientfically a biblically derived date for the age of Earth (whatever this date may be, as you still have not provided it despite frequent requests), or are you only claiming that they support scientifically a biblically derived date for the Noachian Flood, a claim which has also been shown to be in error?

Would you like to move on to considering another metric from the list you originally provided that supports a biblically derived date for the age of Earth?

If you would, please describe the details of how the metric is applied and what the biblically derived date for the age of Earth that it supports is.

 

[lordkalvan]

As Bob appears to have abandoned any intention of clarifying his statement regarding the European status of the Babylonian and so-called Medo-Persian empires, answering any of the questions I have asked or clarifying any of the points raised and at the same time shows no further interest in either supporting his claims about the sedimentation rates of major river deltas or acknowledging that those claims were erroneous, it seems appropriate to conclude the discussion on those points with a short summary.

It is clearly the case that neither Babylon nor the so-called Medo-Persian empires were in any sense European. To have claimed that they were was either a straightforward error - which the author of the claim declines to acknowledge - or else he has derived this understanding from references to these empires in the Book of Daniel in a way which he is unwilling to share. The first explanation seems to be the most likely, but I am willing to consider any further explanations offered.

It was also the case that I asked for clarification about how statements regarding the fall of the Babylonian Empire could confidently be claimed as predictions when even those who believe that the Book of Daniel is unequivocally a work that can be attributed to the 6th Century BC also acknowledge that its author survived the fall of that Empire and did not supposedly complete the book that bears his name until after that fall. This clarification was not forthcoming and it seems to be the case, therefore, that this is one part of Daniel's 'predictions' that can reasonably be understood to be no such thing.

As far as the sedimentation rates of all major river deltas are concerned, this was clearly a metric for determining the age of Earth conjured out of virtually nothing. The evidence put forward in support of it amounted to little more than repeating the shaky conclusions of a mid-19th Century assertion based on wholly inadequate data, namely a very limited study of the Mississippi River. To make the claim that was made on the basis of this solitary, out-dated, demonstrably erroneous study was ludicrous.

If anyone wishes to pursue any of these subjects further, I will be more than happy to participate to the best of my ability.