Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The spiritual interpretation of the beasts as "religions" (NOT worldly kingdoms) was triggered by the origin of the beasts as heaven, a logical source of religious beliefs. It is much easier to draw symbolic spiritual connections to Daniel's dream using as "kingdoms" the religious faiths that have emerged and persist even to this day. It is also important to remember that the order of appearance in the dream has nothing to do with the order of appearance historically. Linear time sequences were NOT part of the mindset of Daniel and our ancient ancestors . . . the character and specifics ALONE identify the "kingdoms" . . . NOT the order of appearance.
Daniel 7 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
From Daniel 7:2, the origin of the beasts,
2. And behold the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts, different one from another, came up out of the sea.
Your assertion without evidence is ignoring the obvious attempt at trying to invent a 'historical' account. But when you put that evidence back in, your opinion fails.
Your assertion without evidence is ignoring the obvious attempt at trying to invent a 'historical' account. But when you put that evidence back in, your opinion fails.
Listen "kettle," you make these "substance-less" rebuttals all the time as if you have the personal authority to make them without providing any support for your assertions. It is quite amusing!
Listen "kettle," you make these "substance-less" rebuttals all the time as if you have the personal authority to make them without providing any support for your assertions. It is quite amusing!
I actually explained why I agree with historians in post 10, based on me having read Herodotus, Josephus, Jeremiah and Maccabees, so no, I have not made "substance-less" rebuttals, and never do. Post 10 was me providing support for my conclusion (not assertion) that agrees with what actual historians also argue. And you would know this if you actually did some research instead of just making it up as you go along.
So once again you have to dismiss actual, credible evidence as assertions while ignoring that you provided no evidence for your assertions, which contradict the evidence we do have.
The fact that you have to ignore evidence you do not like, and misrepresent those who do know what they are talking about is a big clue it is you who has no authority to lecture anyone.
Listen "kettle," you make these "substance-less" rebuttals all the time as if you have the personal authority to make them without providing any support for your assertions. It is quite amusing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I actually explained why I agree with historians in post 10, based on me having read Herodotus, Josephus, Jeremiah and Maccabees, so no, I have not made "substance-less" rebuttals, and never do. Post 10 was me providing support for my conclusion (not assertion) that agrees with what actual historians also argue. And you would know this if you actually did some research instead of just making it up as you go along.
So once again you have to dismiss actual, credible evidence as assertions while ignoring that you provided no evidence for your assertions, which contradicts the evidence we do have.
The fact that you have to ignore evidence you do not like, and misrepresent those who do know what they are talking about is a big clue it is you who has no authority to lecture anyone.
If you are familiar with the pot/kettle cliche referred to in the bold, you would realize that we BOTH are in similar positions with regard to these issues (something your atheism will not allow you to acknowledge). That makes your assertions here pointless. I assume you have done due diligence and read what is available. I do not accuse you of negligence (as you routinely accuse me). It makes no difference to these interpretation issues.
If you are familiar with the pot/kettle cliche referred to in the bold, you would realize that we BOTH are in similar positions with regard to these issues (something your atheism will not allow you to acknowledge).
Your usual misrepresentation with your usual ad hominem. The fact that I have the evidence anyone can follow and you are simply making assertions means we are NOT in a similar position (something your lack of evidence position will not allow you to acknowledge ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That makes your assertions here pointless.
No, I definitely DID provide evidence in post 10, that is a fact, NOT an assertion; your position is simply your belief, that is a fact, not an assertion; and I agree with the historian that has definitely been done, that is also a fact, not an assertion. The fact that you ALWAYS need to misrepresent evidence as opinions and conclusions as assertions is a big clue you are either trying to irrationally convince yourself, or disingenuously convince others of your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I assume you have done due diligence and read what is available. I do not accuse you of negligence (as you routinely accuse me). It makes no difference to these interpretation issues.
No, the fact that I can (and do) provide evidence IS a big difference. Wikipedia has a good analysis, with references for those who wish to do research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The spiritual interpretation of the beasts as "religions" (NOT worldly kingdoms) was triggered by the origin of the beasts as heaven, a logical source of religious beliefs. It is much easier to draw symbolic spiritual connections to Daniel's dream using as "kingdoms" the religious faiths that have emerged and persist even to this day. It is also important to remember that the order of appearance in the dream has nothing to do with the order of appearance historically. Linear time sequences were NOT part of the mindset of Daniel and our ancient ancestors . . . the character and specifics ALONE identify the "kingdoms" . . . NOT the order of appearance.
