1 edit
no1, if it had said the king of Macedonia, you would be preaching that Alexander was better known as the King of the Greeks. If it said the Persian empire, you would be saying that it was first the Median and was eventually the join Median/Persian empire.
Your stance is anti-God no matter what. You have a vendetta against Him and that is fine. But I ask you why you are actively trying to stop people from coming to Him, unless you fear He might be the truth and you don't want to be left behind?
I don't believe in aliens, but you don't see me in a Ufology forum attempting to show them the error of their ways.
Originally posted by DarfiusThis analogy doesn't hold, Darfius, because #1 has the same data
I don't believe in aliens, but you don't see me in a Ufology forum attempting to show them the error of their ways.
before him that you do (i.e., the Bible). He is just as capable of
examining it as you are.
He disagrees with your conclusion upon reading of the same text
you read. He gave his reasons.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DarfiusYou can't answer the points I raised so you resort to these tactics over and over again. If you seriously wanted to convert anyone to your point of view, you'd present some arguments not preaching and mischaracterizations of somebody's position. As I have an interest in history, I could not let you butcher it by saying Alexander overthrew the "Kings" of Media and Persia when he did not or that he was the King of the Greeks, which he was not. Your posts are irrational responses and do nothing to convince anyone of your religious views.
no1, if it had said the king of Macedonia, you would be preaching that Alexander was better known as the King of the Greeks. If it said the Persian empire, you would be saying that it was first the Median and was eventually the join Median/Persian empire.
Your stance is anti-God no matter what. You have a vendetta against Him and that is fine. But I as ...[text shortened]... liens, but you don't see me in a Ufology forum attempting to show them the error of their ways.
Originally posted by NemesioThe analogy holds just dandy, thank you.
This analogy doesn't hold, Darfius, because #1 has the same data
before him that you do (i.e., the Bible). He is just as capable of
examining it as you are.
He disagrees with your conclusion upon reading of the same text
you read. He gave his reasons.
Nemesio
Isn't it enough to share his disbelief once, if he must? What does it hurt him if more people "are duped into abandoning reason" and turning to God?
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not sure where I or Daniel said Alexander would overthrow the kings of media and persia, can you show me that, please?
You can't answer the points I raised so you resort to these tactics over and over again. If you seriously wanted to convert anyone to your point of view, you'd present some arguments not preaching and mischaracterizations of somebody's position. As I have an interest in history, I could not let you butcher it by saying Alexander overthrew the ...[text shortened]... Your posts are irrational responses and do nothing to convince anyone of your religious views.
Daniel said that there would be a Median/Persian empire (which Cyrus the Great testifies there was). He then says that a king OF (not from) Greece would rise later. What exactly was Alexander to Greece? Their daddy? Their governor? What does it mean to "swear allegience" to someone as a country?
I present history just fine, you're the one trying to argue on grammar to rescue your weak position.
Can you answer my question now? Why are you actively trying to prevent people from becoming Christians unless you're scared it's true?
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusThe ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia
I'm not sure where I or Daniel said Alexander would overthrow the kings of media and persia, can you show me that, please?
Daniel said that there would be a Median/Persian empire (which Cyrus the Great testifies there was). He then s ...[text shortened]... people from becoming Christians unless you're scared it's true?
"Kings", Darfius, not King. But there weren't "Kings" of Media and Persia at the time of Alexander, only one King, Darius. You are again trying to change the plain meaning of the text to fit into what you wish it would say, rather than what it says.
Do you even bother to check the site where it clearly states that Phillip and Alexander were NOT the Kings of Greece? In point of fact, ancient Greece was composed of a large number of city-states each with a different king; there NEVER was a "King of Greece" in ancient times! Phillip defeated an alliance of several Greek city states, but in fact he never ruled Greece, per se, and neither did Alexander. Read the article I cited; it explains these facts in detail.
As your last question as no relation to the topic of this thread, it is off-topic and irrelevant (and, of course, its premises are false). Please stay on-topic.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're ignoring my questions, but that's ok, I have patience. 🙂
The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia
"Kings", Darfius, not King. But there weren't "Kings" of Media and Persia at the time of Alexander, only one King, Darius. You are again trying to change the plain meaning of the text to fit into what you wish it would say, rather than what it says.
Do ...[text shortened]... , it is off-topic and irrelevant (and, of course, its premises are false). Please stay on-topic.
Where does the prophecy said the kings would reign at the same time? Where?
Where does it say Alexander would be king of Greece de facto rather than de jure?
Answer MY questions. Don't change the subject.
Originally posted by DarfiusIf you have to change the plain meaning of the words and phrases, then it's not much of a prophecy. It refers to Kings of Media and Persia, it does not mention that they would be separated by hundreds of years. It says King of Grecia, not defacto King, or conqueror or ally of Grecia, but King of Grecia. You're changing the plain import and meaning of the words proves that this "prophecy" was worthless as it can be changed to fit different facts.
You're ignoring my questions, but that's ok, I have patience. 🙂
Where does the prophecy said the kings would reign at the same time? Where?
Where does it say Alexander would be king of Greece de facto rather than de jure?
Answer MY questions. Don't change the subject.
Questions answered.
Originally posted by no1marauderAmong other things I was adressing your own prophesies No1, like not posting in the "Spirituality" forum. Your prophecies stink. That's for sure. So why complain about the Biblical ones ?
Of course I am not; I am discussing the topic of the thread; you aren't. Therefore, you are the hypocrite as you complain about off-topic posts in other threads. Thus, you should either start addressing the subject of this thread or stop posting here as you are attempting to hijack the thread. Shame on you, Ivanhoe.
You managed to drive the "proselytisers"away to another forum because you couln't bare their posts anymore, you cried, and now you are following them to where you banned them .... you hypocritical cry-baby. Next thing you're going to do is complain they are "imposing their views on you", damned hypocrite.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou're off-topic again, Ivanhoe.
Among other things I was adressing your own prophesies No1, like not posting in the "Spirituality" forum. Your prophecies stink. That's for sure. So why complain about the Biblical ones ?
You managed to drive the "proselytisers"away to another forum because you couln't bare their posts anymore, you cried, and now you are following them to where you ...[text shortened]... g you're going to do is complain they are "imposing their views on you", damned hypocrite.
Originally posted by NemesioI've addressed them several times. And I noticed you got in the cheap shots to end your post.
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]The analogy holds just dandy, thank you.
You're above asserting something without defending it.
I think that #1 is making some points here that you
aren't addressing.
Encouraging blind faith and the suspension of reason
is not a way to win followers.
Nemesio[/b]
No1 just doesn't like the way I addressed his already weak arguments. I can't help that. They were weak, there wasn't much that needed to be said.
Frankly, even though I know even seculars can see I have the better argument in this case, I seriously doubt a person like no1 who completely lacks discernment from the Holy Spirit could give the prophecy the respect it deserves. I might lose some ground by bringing in the Holy Spirit, but I and many other people believe 100% in its powers.
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusDo you really believe the things you write?
I've addressed them several times. And I noticed you got in the cheap shots to end your post.
No1 just doesn't like the way I addressed his already weak arguments. I can't help that. They were weak, there wasn't much that needed t ...[text shortened]... ly Spirit, but I and many other people believe 100% in its powers.
BTW, Alexander's Empire was divided up FIVE ways, not four. From the site I gave:
The turbulent years from 323 to 301 B.C. saw endless conflicts among Alexander the Great's generals which ended with the parceling out of the Alexander's empire and the creation of the first Hellenistic kingdoms. Alexander generals known as Diadochs had established their own kingdoms on the rests of the Alexander's empire:
Ptolemy Lagus, Alexander's half bother (Egypt and Palestine);
Seleucus Nicator (Mesopotamia and Syria);
Cassander (Macedonia and Greece);
Antigonus (Asia Minor)
Lysimachus (Thrace).
That's makes Daniel's prophecy 0 for 3.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you really believe the things you write?
BTW, Alexander's Empire was divided up FIVE ways, not four. From the site I gave:
The turbulent years from 323 to 301 B.C. saw endless conflicts among Alexander the Great's generals which ended with the parceling out of the Alexander's empire and the creation of the first Hellen ...[text shortened]... onus (Asia Minor)
Lysimachus (Thrace).
That's makes Daniel's prophecy 0 for 3.
I wonder who will win .....