Middle East Update

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RAM, (Richard),

I would observe that a minor cannot enter into a contract. Any such action must be performed by either a parent or a trustee for that individual. However, a major can. And this age may vary from state to state:

1. Upon H.S. graduation or 18 (whichever come first).
2. Upon H.S. graduation or 18 (whichever come later). -- puzzling if they never graduate!
3. At the age of 18. -- (most common)
4. At the age of 19.
5. At the age of 21.

http://contests.about.com/od/sweepst...ajoristate.htm

Given the above, it's not illogical to perceive that a Jewish child-King could ascend to the throne at a young age, but not direct the affairs of the state until maturity. So where one might point to this as a "contradiction", I would argue that BOTH are correct.

Hey there BS,

That's a very creative solution! Did you invent it yourself? But there are many obvious problems. First, your argument is entirely ad hoc. There is nothing in the text that suggests any distinction between the act of "ascending to the throne" and the act of "directing the affairs of state." Second, the text uses the same word for the beginning of his reign and the length of his reign:

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign (malak), and he reigned (malak) three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

You are asserting that the two occurrence of "reign" in that one verse have different meanings! If that is the case, then the Bible is an incomprehensible pile of meaningless gibberish. We could have no confidence in anything we think it says if it is that confused.

Third, the two contradictory texts BOTH say that he BEGAN TO REIGN (using exactly the same words) at different times. If this is not a contradiction, then language has lost all meaning.

Fourth, there are many other similar direct contradictions that cannot be "harmonized" using ad hoc arguments like what you have suggested so this attempt does not solve the problem at all.

Finally, if you are correct and God really did inspire the Bible and there are no real contradictions, then there can be no conclusion but that God has done everything in his power to force rational people to falsely conclude that there are many scribal errors in the Bible. This then would prove that God designed the Bible to deceive, and any attempt to rationally understand it would be a fool's game.

And so please allow me to provide another "contradiction" for YOU to solve:

Daniel 1
21 Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.

Daniel 10
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar.


And using "until" as defined in the dictionary, he DID NOT continue past the FIRST year of Cyrus. So how is it that he was in the THIRD year of Cyrus? (Please be aware that BOTH are perfectly correct as written.)

Continue in reference to what? You seem to be implying that Daniel was supposed to die in the first year of Cyrus. That's not implied at all.

And you don't understand the word "until." It does not imply a cessation after the condition is fulfilled. For example, a man could say "I will remain faithful to God until the day I die." Does that imply that he would suddenly become unfaithful after death? Nope.

Don't you love riddles?

With Very Best Regards,
BibleScribe

Oh yes, riddles are great. But there is no "riddle" in the assertion that the Bible is filled with contradictions. That fact is as plain and simple as 1 + 2 = 3. Nothing could be known with greater certainty.

Great chatting!

Richard

[BibleScribe]

Hey RAM, (Richard),

... you don't understand the word "until." It does not imply a cessation after the condition is fulfilled. For example, a man could say "I will remain faithful to God until the day I die." Does that imply that he would suddenly become unfaithful after death? Nope.

Perhaps it's not me who doesn't understand:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/until


un·til (n-tl)
prep.
1. Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
2. Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
3. Scots Unto; to.
conj.
1. Up to the time that: We walked until it got dark.
2. Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
3. To the point or extent that: I talked until I was hoarse. See Usage Note at till2.

Given the example in #1, given that you danced until dawn, you stopped dancing at:

A. Midnight
B. Dawn
C. Noon

Which is it? A,B, or C?

And so Daniel continued until the FIRST year of Cyrus, -- no less, no more.



Now if you take example #2 above as you implied, then Daniel 1:21 would have conveyed something closer to:

Daniel 1
21 Thus Daniel STRIKE: [continued] INSERT: [didn't cease his labors] until INSERT: after the first year of King Cyrus.

Then you could have presumed that he continued past the FIRST year of King Cyrus (either by one day or a thousand years). But this is NOT what God wrote, or what History fulfilled. These conform to the text as written:

Daniel 1
21 Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.




As such,-- the riddle stands:


Daniel 1
21 Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.

Daniel 10
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar.





With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey RAM, (Richard),

Perhaps it's not me who doesn't understand:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/until


un·til (n-tl)
prep.
1. Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
2. Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
3. Scots Unto; to.
conj.
1. Up to the time that: We walked until it got dark.
2. Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
3. To the point or extent that: I talked until I was hoarse. See Usage Note at till2.

Given the example in #1, given that you danced until dawn, you stopped dancing at:

A. Midnight
B. Dawn
C. Noon

Which is it? A,B, or C?

And so Daniel continued until the FIRST year of Cyrus, -- no less, no more.

Continued in reference to what?

I don't see any contradiction.

And this whole point is silly. The real issue is that you have denied there are scribal errors. If you hold that point of view, then Bible is utterly meaningless anyway, so why should we waste our time disputing over minor words games like "continued"?

You seem to major on the minor points, straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

All the best,

Richard

[BibleScribe]

Hi RAM, (Richard),

... Continued in reference to what? ...

In reference to ceasing to continue.

... The real issue is that you have denied there are scribal errors. ...

1. You pointed out what you believed to be a contradiction in Scripture. -- I provided an explanation.

2. I pointed out what appears to be a contradiction in Scripture. -- You did not provide an explanation, but simply punted.


As such I would propose that Scripture is inherently correct, and the riddle stands:

Daniel 1
21 Thus Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus.

Daniel 10
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/until

un·til (n-tl)
prep.
1. Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
2. Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
3. Scots Unto; to.
conj.
1. Up to the time that: We walked until it got dark.
2. Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
3. To the point or extent that: I talked until I was hoarse.

Given the example in #1, given that you danced until dawn, you stopped dancing at:

A. Midnight
B. Dawn
C. Noon

Which is it? A,B, or C?

So given that Daniel continued until the FIRST year of Cyrus, how is it that he was in the THIRD year of Cyrus???


With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In reference to no longer continuing.

So what did he stopped doing?

The Tanakh translates that verse as saying "Daniel was there until the first year of King Cyrus."

1. You pointed out what you believed to be a contradiction in Scripture. -- I provided an explanation.

You did not provide a valid explanation. I presented FIVE points of refutation that you have not answered.

2. I pointed out what appears to be a contradiction in Scripture. -- You did not provide an explanation, but simply punted.

The example you gave was not well stated. The text does not say what Daniel stopped continuing to do.

And besides, your method of focusing on minor points while ignoring things that can be established with great certainty by many confirming verses is absurd.

The only way the Bible could ever be understood with any certainty is to begin with the main and plain things that can be established with certainty. Your effort to build doctrines on highly disputable and ambiguous micro-details will never lead to any certainty. No serious thinker would accept any conclusions drawn from your methodology.

[BibleScribe]

...
No serious thinker would accept any conclusions drawn from your methodology.
...

Hey RAM, (Richard),

Once again I sense a "punt".


With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey RAM, (Richard),

Once again I sense a "punt".


With Best Regards,
BibleScribe

And once again I sense a dodge!

You have not answered the FIVE points of refutation that I presented.

You have not answered my question about the meaning of "continued."

[CWH]

I have expected the Iran's talk to fail even if they continue to talk. There is no way Iran will give up it's nuclear bomb's ambition with the purpose to erase Israel from the map of the world. So what next? A likely Middle East war this year with Israel or US attacking the nuclear bomb making facilities in Iran. The world will be in for a new oil crisis?

Nuclear talks fail as Iran and world powers hit dead end
Published: Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012, 15:23 IST
Agency: Daily Telegraph
Iran and the world's six leading powers failed to resolve any point of substance during negotiations over Tehran's nuclear ambitions yesterday (Tuesday), declining even to fix another meeting.

After two days of talks in Moscow, Baroness Ashton, the European Union foreign minister, announced that "significant gaps" of "substance" had prevented any progress.

After three such conferences this year, there is no guarantee of a fourth, raising the possibility that a diplomatic effort to avert the possibility of another war in the Middle East might be drawing to a close.

Lady Ashton, who chairs the "P5 plus 1" group of countries - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China and Germany - said both sides had set out their "respective positions" in "tough and frank exchanges", adding: "It remains clear that there are significant gaps between the substance of the two positions."

Critics believe Iran intended to use the talks to buy time to press ahead with its nuclear programme. Anxious to avoid this outcome, Western diplomats said they do not want negotiations for the sake of negotiations. The only agreement in Moscow was to arrange a meeting of experts on July 3 in Istanbul to review the technical aspects of the positions of the two sides.

Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief negotiator, praised the talks as "more serious and more realistic", adding that the world powers were "facing a choice to exit a dead-end approach and move towards cooperation". The dispute centres on a proposal made by the "P5 plus 1". They want Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20 per cent purity, ship its existing stockpile of this material out of the country and close a nuclear plant at Fordow. Uranium enriched to this level is close to the material required for a nuclear weapon, although Iran says the only intention is to fuel a civilian research reactor.

May God Bless the Middle East.

[CWH]

Looks like Israel and the MIddle east is in hot soup, with the likely attack on Iran's nuclear bomb facilities this year and the tension between Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood in power. How can Israel not be in jittery?

Israel jittery after Brotherhood victory in Egypt
Last Updated: Monday, June 25, 2012, 09:11 0 Tweet
Tags: Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, Israel
Jerusalem: The Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in Egyptian Presidential Elections has raised fears in Israel that its strategic 1979 peace agreement with its southern neighbour could be in danger.

In contrast, in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, ecstatic residents flocked into the streets, fired guns in the air and handed out candy in celebration.

Israel's peace agreement with Egypt, its first with an Arab country, is a cornerstone of Israeli security. The agreement ended decades of hostilities, which witnessed five wars and thousands of deaths.

While relations have never been warm, Egypt has upheld the deal, keeping its bordering Sinai peninsula largely demilitarised, allowing the Israeli military to focus on other hostile borders with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon.

In a statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he respected the results of Egypt's democratic process and hoped the peace agreement would remain intact.

"Israel expects to continue cooperation with the Egyptian government on the basis of the peace agreement between the two countries, which is of interest to the two peoples and contributes to regional stability," he said.

With the Egyptian military still the ultimate power in Egypt, senior Israeli defence officials who maintain contacts with Egypt said yesterday that they do not expect any immediate changes in relations.

Over the long term, they warned, the Brotherhood may seek to cancel the peace agreement. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a sensitive security assessment.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a pan-Arabic movement that favours creation of a Muslim state that encompasses the entire Middle East.

May God Bless Pace in the Middle East.

[TheForgiven]

Any why is this important to you Cheow? Muslims in the middle east? The Arabs have been there for thousands of years, so why is this a surprise to you as though this were some kind of end-times fanaticism?

Joe