07 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is from Wikipedia, the free, UNBIASED encyclopedia.
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.
Legacy and division of the Empire
Main article: Diadochi
After Alexander's death his empire was divided among his officers, first mostly with the pretense of preserving a united kingdom, later with the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.
Ultimately, the conflict was settled after the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Greece, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus I Nicator ("the winner"😉 in Mesopotamia and Iran, and Ptolemy I in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus I ruled for a while in Asia Minor and Syria, but was soon defeated by the other four generals. Control over Indian territory was short-lived, ending when Seleucus I was defeated by Chandragupta Maurya, the first Mauryan emperor.
By 270 BC, Hellenistic states consolidated, with:
The Antigonid Empire, centered on Greece and Macedonia
The Seleucid Empire in Asia
The Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt and Cyrenaica
By the 1st century BC though, most of the Hellenistic territories in the West had been absorbed by the Roman Republic. In the East, they had been dramatically reduced by the expansion of the Parthian Empire and the secession of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Legacy_and_division_of_the_Empire
Well...I'm glad we settled that.
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSo in 301 BC it was five; for some period until 270 BC it was four; for a while after 270 BC it was three, etc. etc. etc. All you have to do is keep changing the time frames; 550 BC so the that different Kings can rule over the Medes and Persians; 330 BC for Alexander; 290 BC for the Empire to be divided four ways. It's pretty obvious that by this way of torturing the facts you can ALWAYS make a "prophecy" fit; just change things around enough and VOILA! The prophecy was obviously worthless and your desperate attempts to tie together events 300 years apart is laughable.
This is from Wikipedia, the free, UNBIASED encyclopedia.
Legacy and division of the Empire
Main article: Diadochi
After Alexander's death his empire was divided among his officers, first mostly with the pretense of preserving a united kingdom, later with the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.
Ultimately, the conflict was ...[text shortened]... ander_the_Great#Legacy_and_division_of_the_Empire
Well...I'm glad we settled that.
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusOK fine and then what happened, where is the US and the Statue of Liberty, given by France? Is this unimportant?
This is from Wikipedia, the free, UNBIASED encyclopedia.
Legacy and division of the Empire
Main article: Diadochi
After Alexander's death his empire was divided among his officers, first mostly with the pretense of preserving a united kingdom, later with the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.
Ultimately, the conflict was ...[text shortened]... ander_the_Great#Legacy_and_division_of_the_Empire
Well...I'm glad we settled that.
If so, where is the British Empire? Sun never set on it, where is it? Non-foreseen?
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderno1, I'd like you to predict who will be ruling the world 200 years from now and tell me if their empire will ever fall and how many parts it might break up into.
So in 301 BC it was five; for some period until 270 BC it was four; for a while after 270 BC it was three, etc. etc. etc. All you have to do is keep changing the time frames; 550 BC so the that different Kings can rule over the Medes and Persians; 330 BC for Alexander; 290 BC for the Empire to be divided four ways. It's pretty obvious that by th ...[text shortened]... ously worthless and your desperate attempts to tie together events 300 years apart is laughable.
If you can do it, I'll listen to anything you say.
Until then, you just sound like a moron, frankly.
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightGod gives prophecies in relation to Israel, always.
OK fine and then what happened, where is the US and the Statue of Liberty, given by France? Is this unimportant?
If so, where is the British Empire? Sun never set on it, where is it? Non-foreseen?
The British empire had to contend with France and Spain, it was always held in check.
Frankly, if you want history, read a history book. If you want proof that God is real by Him foretelling future events with 100% accuracy, read the Bible.
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusRead what you wrote.
God gives prophecies in relation to Israel, always.
The British empire had to contend with France and Spain, it was always held in check.
Frankly, if you want history, read a history book. If you want proof that God is real by Him foretelling future events with 100% accuracy, read the Bible.
Its bull, er nonsense
07 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusSince Daniel's prophecy is wrong and was never fulfilled, I don't see what difference it makes. A prediction that the Greeks might eventually defeat the Persians wouldn't have been too shocking in Daniel's time; the Greeks had established city states in Asia Minor by that time. And Daniel never mentioned Alexander so he really didn't successfully predict anything. It's all smoke and mirrors, Darfius.
no1, I'd like you to predict who will be ruling the world 200 years from now and tell me if their empire will ever fall and how many parts it might break up into.
If you can do it, I'll listen to anything you say.
Until then, you just sound like a moron, frankly.
BTW, check out this website: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/
The Macedonians there would be pretty upset to hear Alexander called the "King of Grecia"!
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI would urge secular folk to study what actual scholars say and not trust the word of this disgustingly bias amateur.
Since Daniel's prophecy is wrong and was never fulfilled, I don't see what difference it makes. A prediction that the Greeks might eventually defeat the Persians wouldn't have been too shocking in Daniel's time; the Greeks had established city states in Asia Minor by that time. And Daniel never mentioned Alexander so he really didn't successfu ...[text shortened]... The Macedonians there would be pretty upset to hear Alexander called the "King of Grecia"!
The best secular scholars can do is question WHEN Daniel wrote it, not whether or not he was totally accurate.
Get some sleep, no1.
07 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou're a joke. Name a SECULAR scholar who's says that this prophecy is "totally accurate." When you deliberately say falsehoods like this it just shows the extent of your fanaticism. YOU'VE twisted the words and the time frames to try and make them fit a preconceived idea that somebody once told you. It doesn't work and saying untruths like in your last post aren't going to fool anybody, Darfius.
I would urge secular folk to study what actual scholars say and not trust the word of this disgustingly bias amateur.
The best secular scholars can do is question WHEN Daniel wrote it, not whether or not he was totally accurate.
Get some sleep, no1.