Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

If that was a logical outcome, wouldn't we all be Mormons? Try telling that to Saudi Arabia.

Sure, if the Mormons have been found to have even more prophecies come true.
Let's all turn into Mormons!

 

[Mgoblue201]

The main thing is prophecy. The Bible is the only Holy book that has thousands of prophecies (hundreds that have already come to pass). God did this to prove that He is the one who inspired the authors and to prove that He exists.

Most of the "prophecies" aren't all that impressive. The "prophecies" of Jesus are downright fraudulent. For instance, I believe it's Peter in Acts who takes a verse from Psalm and holds it up as prophecy. What it says is that God will not let his holy one see decay. It might sound impressive until you actually look at the verse. There is no sign that it is talking about anybody else besides the author, who I believe was David. It didn't mean the Messiah, and it didn't literally mean the resurrection. How can one trust such intellectual dishonesty?

I remember reading the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Essentially, one of the arguments is that the chance that Jesus could fulfill all of these prophecies is downright impossible. That's a convincing argument until you realize that there is just no way to take these prophecies at face value. Most of the facts presented in the gospels cannot be proven. The prophecies just reek of OT quote mining.

The most impressive prophecy that Christians tout is about modern day Israel, except the Bible isn't talking about a literal resurrection of Israel as a reborn state. It's talking about a spiritual rebirth of Israel under the Messiah. It was a very Jewish message, not Christian message.

Uh-Oh.

Spoiler

Of course I agree, but be prepared for a flood of alleged chronology error accusations & the Bible was written after the Bible was written stuff. Ironically, it's like clockwork.

Only a few books like Daniel, and there is good reason to think that Daniel was written later given a few errors - and not just things that we don't know, but things that actually contradict known facts. Nothing like "discovering" a long lost book that was actually written yesterday (I believe that's how Mormonism began, actually).

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm really not sure what this means. Birds didn't come after all land mammals. They evolved from reptiles, after land animals had been well established, and continued to evolve alongside all other creatures for the past 150 million years. Are you saying that the writer made a mistake?

From God's perspective, he could have "created" the birds before the land mammals while still having them show up in the evolutionary process at a later date.
I think that's what JGS is saying, correct me if wrong.

 

[Mgoblue201]

From God's perspective, he could have "created" the birds before the land mammals while still having them show up in the evolutionary process at a later date.
I think that's what JGS is saying, correct me if wrong.

If that's the case (and how would that work? are they loaded into the system before finally appearing?), that's sheer interpretation, which he accuses others of doing.

 

[JGS]

I'm annoyed, but not at you directly, per se, so bear me out:

Science is proving it's possible via the method of PROVING IT'S POSSIBLE.

...

Deep breath.

You could make the exact same argument for creation since that's actually done every day of the week including replicating experiments to prove that it can be done without the experiment. Those links explain that it's difficult to simply get the recipe right when you are controlling the experiment, to expect Mother Nature to do it with no controlled enviroment should not be an automatic assumption.

If simulating early Earth conditions and then spontaneously getting RNA, which is the first step along the way to getting life, isn't good enough for you, what is?

So simulation = reality. Got it.

I'm honestly having trouble thinking of a method science can use that will satisfy you, outside of inventing a time machine, going back to the dawn of life itself, and shoving your face under the putrescent waters of knowledge, to borrow a phrase.

The methods you bring up are just fine if you want to show me that mankind may create life one day. But otherwise, there is no credibility to nature creating life from non-organic matter. It's not proof of abiogenesis just because some smart guys can simulate a small part of it after a great deal of effort.

However, I had already told you this and I knew what the links were going to be about before you posted them. They are the same everytime.

What are you talking about? You only ever addressed the bird problem, but I couldn't decode what you were trying to say. When I asked for clarification, I never received a response. You never addressed the "ground problem". You never addressed the issue of the later creation of heavenly bodies.

I've responded to the bird scenario at least 3 times. You have admitted to simply not understandng it. I addressed the creation of heavenly bodies. You said I was wrong. What ami I supposed to do at that point but continue a fruitless debate?

Who cares about the source? Either it's right or it isn't.

I do when the source is wrong. That kills 2 early created birds with one late heavenly body.

God wouldn't feel pressured to do anything in any length of time. You might as well say why he would wait billions of years. He could do anything in an instant. Therefore, you would need to explain why he would spend time doing anything. If a day is the same as a billion years, and a billion years are the same as a day to God, then both are irrelevant to him. The creationist would respond that six days was a symbolic act, which is at least an argument.

this is where there is an opportunity on agreement and yet you stick to your guns that my view is wrong - for no reason. The reason we know it wasn't in an instant is because of the evidence you provided that in an instant wasn't possible, logical, or necessary. It's like you're trying to convert me to YEC just so you can prove your point that it's wrong.

You scoffed at this notion but offered not a shred of an argument to explain why this is wrong. I'm giving you another chance to explain yourself.

This is true. I scoffed at the notion but it didn't happen in a vacuum did it? I scoffed because I was scoffed at for my views. Further you keep asking for further scoffing.

I say there is no proof because there isn't any. You've done the same things with my beliefs but for some reason, my statements are more offensive. That should give you a clue that this is simply a standstill. No biggie in the grand or small scheme of things.

The reason to debate should always be the first thing which is why I brought it up in one of my first posts about this pointless exercise. If you think I'm trying to win a match, you are mistaken as I conceded defeat a few days ago. For a few hours I was even an abiogenesarian just to stop the arguing. Alas, it was not meant to be.

 

[EzLink]

Well, let's say hypothetically that you were wrong about Christianity and that you still went to heaven after you died. How would that affect your view of God, considering some of the things you've said about your view of him earlier in this thread?

Yeah, I've thought of that before. Shit would be aaaaawkward :lol

I dunno, once you get to heaven you are in your perfect, sinless body so if the Bible is true once I got to heaven I'm sure I wouldn't have any qualms about anything anymore.

But the thought of that seemingly unlikely theoretical situation isn't enough to change how I feel here on earth

 

[Mgoblue201]

JGS, I admitted that you responded to the bird problem, but it's utterly incomprehensible, and you've proven that you don't understand the basic facets about the history of life on Earth. I've asked for clarification over and over. You won't provide any. I have no idea what you're trying to say. What do you want me to do about that? If you responded to the cosmic bodies thing, then it was probably equally incomprehensible. No, I'm not asking you to make up your own contradictions. I'm asking you to be coherent for once. Please, for the love of Jesus, explain your answer to each of the three problems as clearly as you can. I'll ask a couple of very simple questions first. What do you mean by, "The simple answer is God created the bird first," when birds didn't come first? What do you mean that there was a misunderstanding from the writer?

Second, answer the two points that Ken Ham and the other authors bring up. I'll ask the questions again. Are they right about the word yom never being used for a long period of time with definite ends? Are they right about the creation story laying out a definite day period (for instance, there was morning and evening, the second day)?

Third, when did I say that an instant creation wasn't possible? I say that it doesn't align with the evidence, of course, but I have always contended that no matter how you look at the creation story, it will never align with the evidence, so they're all equally absurd. If you take all other evidence out of it and simply go by the creation story itself, then I say that six days does make the most sense, but you refuse to answer anything that has to do with the word yom for some reason.

I'm scoffing at you because you're either refusing to answer anything or are being completely incomprehensible. If this was a sane debate, I'd have respect for opposite views. Furthermore, you really have no idea how science works. If we put together an environment that is very much like what existed on early Earth and we get carbon compounds that form the basis of all life, then what's the problem? A simulation does not mean a virtual representation. We are not faking it. This is real. Otherwise, you're saying that no experiment is ever real. That's it, the LHC isn't real. We just wasted billions of dollars trying to set up the conditions of the Big Bang. The particles that it creates don't really exist. But that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Creating large organic compounds is more "proof" than we'll ever have of any creation story.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Most of the "prophecies" aren't all that impressive. The "prophecies" of Jesus are downright fraudulent. For instance, I believe it's Peter in Acts who takes a verse from Psalm and holds it up as prophecy. What it says is that God will not let his holy one see decay. It might sound impressive until you actually look at the verse. There is no sign that it is talking about anybody else besides the author, who I believe was David. It didn't mean the Messiah, and it didn't literally mean the resurrection. How can one trust such intellectual dishonesty?

I remember reading the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Essentially, one of the arguments is that the chance that Jesus could fulfill all of these prophecies is downright impossible. That's a convincing argument until you realize that there is just no way to take these prophecies at face value. Most of the facts presented in the gospels cannot be proven. The prophecies just reek of OT quote mining.

The most impressive prophecy that Christians tout is about modern day Israel, except the Bible isn't talking about a literal resurrection of Israel as a reborn state. It's talking about a spiritual rebirth of Israel under the Messiah. It was a very Jewish message, not Christian message.

Only a few books like Daniel, and there is good reason to think that Daniel was written later given a few errors - and not just things that we don't know, but things that actually contradict known facts. Nothing like "discovering" a long lost book that was actually written yesterday (I believe that's how Mormonism began, actually).

There are plenty of fulfilled prophecies you aren't mentioning. And in order for your criticism regarding Peter to be true, you would have to argue successfully that the Israelite community from the time of the writing of the Psalm until the first centuries A.D. viewed that Psalm as entirely non-Messianic. Are you prepared to do that?

As for what you said about Daniel, that's nothing new--liberal biblical scholars have been touting vaticinium ex eventu concerning the book of Daniel since as early as the middle of the eighteenth century. Plenty of conservative Christian and Jewish scholars have made cases for a traditional dating of the book's writing between 605 and 536 B.C.

 

[jdogmoney]

You could make the exact same argument for creation since that's actually done every day of the week including replicating experiments to prove that it can be done without the experiment. Those links explain that it's difficult to simply get the recipe right when you are controlling the experiment, to expect Mother Nature to do it with no controlled enviroment should not be an automatic assumption.

So simulation = reality. Got it.

The methods you bring up are just fine if you want to show me that mankind may create life one day. But otherwise, there is no credibility to nature creating life from non-organic matter. It's not proof of abiogenesis just because some smart guys can simulate a small part of it after a great deal of effort.

However, I had already told you this and I knew what the links were going to be about before you posted them. They are the same everytime.

Wow, you're...you're very wrong. I don't even know what the bolded part means, honestly. Okay. Before I try to explain why you're wrong, I'll ask again. What evidence would be good enough for you, other than a book that a lot of people like to say is right?



...

Okay. Um. The difficulty isn't finding the right recipe for life. The difficulty is in finding out just what, exactly, pre-life conditions were on Earth, and then seeing if those conditions would produce life.

The scientists didn't do anything to provoke the emergence of RNA. They simulated, as best they could, early Earth, to see what would happen. Then, the very first steps toward life just sort of happened. The things that make up the things that make up the things that make up a living cell formed as a result of a chemical reaction. Chemistry is a function of physics, and the laws of physics don't change over time. If it happened once, it will happen again under the same conditions. The point of these experiments is not to create life. The point is to see how life comes about from non-organic materials.

To put it another way, life created itself, and the scientists found a way to let that happen.


I dunno, man. I get the feeling that you are trying desperately to justify your beliefs by dismissing evidence by pretending the evidence is not valid. If that's the case, just say that you trust the Bible over science, rather than pretending the science is somehow faulty.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I think this is the main thing wrong here.

Man isn't "merely" a primate. Man is a primate. It's our taxonomic classification.

This isn't a bad thing. If anything, it's more impressive that we fought our way to the top of the food chain without claws, excessive strength, poison, camouflage, or anything except our big ol' brains and a propensity for running long distances. We are the Batman of the animal kingdom.

It's our taxonomic classification because scientists have assigned it as such. But I'm not talking semantics here. If I believe that God created man rather than man evolving from primates, then taxonomic classification is irrelevant.

I'm saying that man is altogether different from any other living creature on the planet because he was made in God's image.

 

[Mgoblue201]

There are plenty of fulfilled prophecies you aren't mentioning. And in order for your criticism regarding Peter to be true, you would have to argue successfully that the Israelite community from the time of the writing of the Psalm until the first centuries A.D. viewed that Psalm as entirely non-Messianic. Are you prepared to do that?

As for what you said about Daniel, that's nothing new--liberal biblical scholars have been touting vaticinium ex eventu concerning the book of Daniel since as early as the middle of the eighteenth century. Plenty of conservative Christian and Jewish scholars have made cases for a traditional dating of the book's writing between 605 and 536 B.C.

I am saying that it shouldn't be interpreted as a Messianic prophecy that Peter can claim was about Jesus. It's hard to argue about what the Israelites viewed anyway since Jesus was someone who couldn't be figured out even after he had come and gone. I question the prophecy's efficacy at predicting what eventually transpired.

There are historical problems with Daniel that cast aspersions upon its veracity.

I also don't have time to list every purported prophecy, especially in a short counter-argument.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I am saying that it shouldn't be interpreted as a Messianic prophecy that Peter can claim was about Jesus. It's hard to argue about what the Israelites viewed anyway since Jesus was someone who couldn't be figured out even after he had come and gone. I question the prophecy's efficacy at predicting what eventually transpired.

There are historical problems with Daniel that cast aspersions upon its veracity.

I also don't have time to list every purported prophecy, especially in a short counter-argument.

And I am saying that you have no basis that it should not be interpreted as Messianic unless you can show that Israelites from the time of the Psalm 16's writing to the time of Peter believed it to be non-Messianic. If you can make that case, so be it, but until you come back claiming to have checked relevant Jewish sources (Midrash, Talmudic literature, etc.) that do not treat Psalm 16 as Messianic, you have no case.

As for the historical problems, I stand by what I originally said: many conservative Christian and Jewish scholars have made competent cases that address supposed historical problems in Daniel and that lend credence to a traditional date.

Lastly, you may not have time to list every purported prophecy, but you had no problem at all saying, "Most of the 'prophecies' aren't all that impressive. The 'prophecies' of Jesus are downright fraudulent." Sweeping statements like that hold absolutely no weight unless they have accompanying evidence to support them. Hence, I await the time when you have more time and can supply such evidence, in addition to the conclusions reached from delving into Jewish sources from roughly the 5th century B.C. onward.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mgoblue201]

And I am saying that you have no basis that it should not be interpreted as Messianic unless you can show that Israelites from the time of the Psalm 16's writing to the time of Peter believed it to be non-Messianic. If you can make that case, so be it, but until you come back claiming to have checked relevant Jewish sources (Midrash, Talmudic literature, etc.) that do not treat Psalm 16 as Messianic, you have no case.

As for the historical problems, I stand by what I originally said: many conservative Christian and Jewish scholars have made competent cases that address supposed historical problems in Daniel and that lend credence to a traditional date.

Lastly, you may not have time to list every purported prophecy, but you had no problem at all saying, "Most of the 'prophecies' aren't all that impressive. The 'prophecies' of Jesus are downright fraudulent." Sweeping statements like that hold absolutely no weight unless they have accompanying evidence to support them. Hence, I await the time when you have more time and can supply such evidence, in addition to the conclusions reached from delving into Jewish sources from roughly the 5th century B.C. onward.

Thanks in advance.

It's not like no confirmation is positive confirmation the other way. Asking for evidence that it was considered non-Messianic is like asking for evidence that every verse was considered non-Messianic. A positive confirmation of a denial is usually not grounds for a denial. Silence is usually good enough by itself. After all, the burden of proof is on those who seek to confirm positive prophecies, and I was hoping that you had some evidence that it was considered a Messianic prophecy. Nevertheless, I did find this from Bible.org:

"There is no evidence, according to David Williams, that Psalm 16:10 ever received a messianic interpretation in the first century or earlier. The midrash on 16:9, however, indicates that David rejoiced in the Lord Messiah who would rise up out of him. The precise significance of this statement is difficult to determine in the midrash since the quote from Isaiah 4:5 which follows in the next sentence appears to make very little sense in the context. In the end, the midrash is probably referring to the Davidic descent of the Messiah.

With regard to verse 10, the midrash teaches that David's body would not decay. According to the rabbis, "this verse proves that neither corruption nor worms had the power over David's flesh . . . In the grave his flesh will not dissolve like the dust." The evidence suggests that the rabbis did not understand the psalm to be speaking about resurrection."

Furthermore, there are actual reasons to cast aspersions upon what the Midrash and others actually consider prophecy. I consider those just as faulty as Peter's interpretation, even if they have different interpretations.

As for Daniel: I suppose the two most obvious things are Darius the Mede and Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar. I've seen apologetics here, sure, but I haven't seen any that I consider convincing.

Lastly, that the prophecies are fraudulent isn't an argument. It's a statement of belief meant to clarify the debate and start a baseline from which I will eventually argue. If I don't state my beliefs from the beginning, then there is the opportunity for misunderstanding. I might have my beliefs changed during the course of the debate (and trust me, it happens to me frequently), or I might not, but at least you know where I stand now. Therefore, a more comprehensive argument can eventually be built on top of that.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

It's not like no confirmation is positive confirmation the other way. Asking for evidence that it was considered non-Messianic is like asking for evidence that every verse was considered non-Messianic. A positive confirmation of a denial is usually not grounds for a denial. Silence is usually good enough by itself. After all, the burden of proof is on those who seek to confirm positive prophecies, and I was hoping that you had some evidence that it was considered a Messianic prophecy. Nevertheless, I did find this from Bible.org:

"There is no evidence, according to David Williams, that Psalm 16:10 ever received a messianic interpretation in the first century or earlier. The midrash on 16:9, however, indicates that David rejoiced in the Lord Messiah who would rise up out of him. The precise significance of this statement is difficult to determine in the midrash since the quote from Isaiah 4:5 which follows in the next sentence appears to make very little sense in the context. In the end, the midrash is probably referring to the Davidic descent of the Messiah.

With regard to verse 10, the midrash teaches that David's body would not decay. According to the rabbis, "this verse proves that neither corruption nor worms had the power over David's flesh . . . In the grave his flesh will not dissolve like the dust." The evidence suggests that the rabbis did not understand the psalm to be speaking about resurrection."

Furthermore, there are actual reasons to cast aspersions upon what the Midrash and others actually consider prophecy. I consider those just as faulty as Peter's interpretation, even if they have different interpretations.

As for Daniel: I suppose the two most obvious things are Darius the Mede and Belshazzar's relationship to Nebuchadnezzar. I've seen apologetics here, sure, but I haven't seen any that I consider convincing.

Lastly, that the prophecies are fraudulent isn't an argument. It's a statement of belief meant to clarify the debate and start a baseline from which I will eventually argue. If I don't state my beliefs from the beginning, then there is the opportunity for misunderstanding. I might have my beliefs changed during the course of the debate (and trust me, it happens to me frequently), or I might not, but at least you know where I stand now. Therefore, a more comprehensive argument can eventually be built on top of that.

I understand what you are arguing, but my point was that you were asserting that Peter simply pulled this Psalm out of nowhere and applied it Messianically, saying that Jesus fulfilled it. You were saying that it was fraudulent for him to do so. The only way it might possibly be fraudulent is if Peter himself and other Jews had not traditionally interpreted Psalm 16 to be Messianic. If the Psalm were already considered Messianic by Peter and his Jewish audience, then he was simply applying it to whom he believed to be the Messiah.

I appreciate your clarification regarding your statement of belief. As long as we're on that subject, I'll make it known that even if there was no existing Jewish tradition regarding Psalm 16 being Messianic, I still believe that Peter was justified in applying it so, as it is clear from the context of the passage that he was doing so under the power of the Holy Spirit, which is the position of most biblical interpreters from the first centuries A.D. until the Enlightenment.

And I do think you are wrong regarding burden of proof and biblical prophecies. If Scripture says, "So-and-so was an Old Testament prophecy regarding Christ," and Scripture has been considered authoritative by so many for centuries, that the burden of proof would be on the person saying, "No, wait a minute, all prophecies regarding Christ are fraudulent." It would be that person who was flying against established consensus.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Then prophecies are meaningless because they lose their power to convince. Any analogy to death could be considered a prophecy about Jesus, even if by literary context it probably has nothing to do with the Messiah. In fact, if rabbis considered other parts as talking about the Messiah but not 16:10, then it would be even more revealing. So if one's idea is to prove the veracity of the Bible through prophetic efficacy, then there is no reason to consider it true. On the other hand, I would expect an all-knowing deity to be as clear and detailed as possible with prophecy so that interpretation can only go one way.

Furthermore, consensus through tradition isn't enough. That is the most ultra-conservative view possible, but it's also self-defeating. It's prophecy because Peter declares it and was believed for years, but that gives me no method to evaluate prophecy, and I would have to believe in spiritual authority in the first place, therefore losing, once again, its power to convince.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Then prophecies are meaningless because they lose their power to convince. Any analogy to death could be considered a prophecy about Jesus, even if by literary context it probably has nothing to do with the Messiah. In fact, if rabbis considered other parts as talking about the Messiah but not 16:10, then it would be even more revealing. So if one's idea is to prove the veracity of the Bible through prophetic efficacy, then there is no reason to consider it true. On the other hand, I would expect an all-knowing deity to be as clear and detailed as possible with prophecy so that interpretation can only go one way.

Furthermore, consensus through tradition isn't enough. That is the most ultra-conservative view possible, but it's also self-defeating. It's prophecy because Peter declares it and was believed for years, but that gives me no method to evaluate prophecy, and I would have to believe in spiritual authority in the first place, therefore losing, once again, its power to convince.

I never argued that prophecy proves the veracity of the Bible. I was simply arguing against the charge that prophecies about Jesus were fraudulent.

Regardless, your entire position presupposes that the Bible is not authoritative in and of itself. My position presupposes that it is. Once again, as in all claims of Christianity, it all boils down to epistemology regarding biblical truth. I am willing to accept that the Bible is true and go from there. You are not.

 

[jaxword]

Well in my belef system they would, but honestly this was a pretty common sense question really, under any belief system if they lived as their faith dicates they would go to whatever afterlife they believe in

Good, good. I'm just asking a few questions to get a picture of what you believe. These are pretty much yes/no, too.

So is getting into Heaven the most important thing possible? Overrides ALL other values and goals?

If the answers are yes to those, does that also apply to yourself, would getting others into heaven be the most important thing you can do?

Edit-it seems he was banned. Well, there goes this discussion.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I never argued that prophecy proves the veracity of the Bible. I was simply arguing against the charge that prophecies about Jesus were fraudulent.

Regardless, your entire position presupposes that the Bible is not authoritative in and of itself. My position presupposes that it is. Once again, as in all claims of Christianity, it all boils down to epistemology regarding biblical truth. I am willing to accept that the Bible is true and go from there. You are not.

I don't know where that assumption came from. I was taught to believe in the whole damned religion before I had my first memory. I eventually reasoned my way out of it. So I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance if it makes sense. But there needs to be standards. If it makes clear historical mistakes, like I said when it comes to those two facts in Daniel, then it doesn't meet my standard. The entire point of arguing with JGS is to say that the creation story does not meet my standard for how I'd expect the beginning of the universe to be explained. And I would argue that it's not really prophecy unless it makes a prediction. A literary analogy does not count as a prediction. So the Bible loses power of a trustworthy book if it makes a series of non-existent or wrong predictions. This has nothing to do with presuppositions. I'm making a judgment of the Bible based on my expectations.

 

[Dogenzaka]

I'm listening to this Ravi Zacharias and just wow.
What eloquent and clear, pragmatic responses.
I'm keeping an eye on this guy!

 

[jdogmoney]

Okay, I don't like the idea of the prophesies serving as proof. It would be very easy to arrange a prophecy to be fulfilled in a certain way, if they knew about the prophecies, which one assumes they did.

" 'The Savior will arrive on a donkey,' eh? Tom? We got a donkey?"

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I don't know where that assumption came from. I was taught to believe in the whole damned religion before I had my first memory. I eventually reasoned my way out of it. So I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance if it makes sense. But there needs to be standards. If it makes clear historical mistakes, like I said when it comes to those two facts in Daniel, then it doesn't meet my standard. The entire point of arguing with JGS is to say that the creation story does not meet my standard for how I'd expect the beginning of the universe to be explained. And I would argue that it's not really prophecy unless it makes a prediction. A literary analogy does not count as a prediction. So the Bible loses power of a trustworthy book if it makes a series of non-existent or wrong predictions. This has nothing to do with presuppositions. I'm making a judgment of the Bible based on my expectations.

But, as expected, when it comes to supposed historical mistakes, you assume that the Bible is incorrect rather than the historical record, in addition to assuming that there is no missing information that reconciles the two. You can't get any more honest than your final statement: "I'm making a judgment of the Bible based on my expectations."

 

[Dogenzaka]

It would be very easy to arrange a prophecy to be fulfilled in a certain way

Uhh there are quite a few that were totally out of willful control.

 

[jdogmoney]

Such as?

 

[Mgoblue201]

But, as expected, when it comes to supposed historical mistakes, you assume that the Bible is incorrect rather than the historical record, in addition to assuming that there is no missing information that reconciles the two. You can't get any more honest than your final statement: "I'm making a judgment of the Bible based on my expectations."

Unfortunately, that's a bit of a misnomer. We all have our own expectations that are slightly different from other expectations. I mean, we're all using our own internal logic. It's not like you can imbibe these things from an outside source. That is why standards themselves must be judged. However, it's hard to see how I'm being unfair.

I try not to judge based on missing information because that is the same trick that creationists try to pull on evolution. That is why one must be fair. Neither can any one thing be a death knell. The case against belief is an intricate web. Fortunately, I feel that the Bible fails on many accounts. Therefore, once again, it's a judgment based on a huge accretion of arguments. I wouldn't give the Bible the benefit of the doubt on history when it fails on other aspects.

On history specifically, I would turn the question around. Some historical figures like Nebuchadnezzar existed, so the Bible is often set against a historical backdrop, but why no positive extra-Biblical confirmation of Daniel and his deeds? Isn't God powerful enough to set that up? It shouldn't even come to the point where I have to choose between the Bible and extra-Biblical sources. I expect more from supposedly the most amazing document ever written. So the very fact of comparison casts aspersions upon the whole thing. In fact, when it comes to most of the large events within the Bible, extra-Biblical sources are usually silent.

Okay, I don't like the idea of the prophesies serving as proof. It would be very easy to arrange a prophecy to be fulfilled in a certain way, if they knew about the prophecies, which one assumes they did.

" 'The Savior will arrive on a donkey,' eh? Tom? We got a donkey?"

Actually, that's a funny story. Different gospels present different variations of the triumphal entry. Matthew, for instance, has both a colt and a donkey, which stems from an interesting structural literary parallel within the original verse and not an actual prophecy that there would be a colt and a donkey. It's an interesting argument not necessarily that these details could be arranged, but that they could be made up entirely.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Such as?

http://www.100prophecies.org/

 

[Shanadeus]

http://www.100prophecies.org/

Bible
prophecies
fulfilled
• End time prophecies from the Bible
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' birth
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' life
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion
• Other Bible prophecies involving Jesus
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Israel - part 1
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Israel - part 2
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Babylon
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Tyre
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by Nineveh
• Bible prophecies fulfilled by other nations

I'm just gonna ignore the bolded and check the prophecies fulfilled by Israel, Babylon, Tyre, Nineveh and other nations.

Edit:
On a second thought, I'll just ignore all of them as it seems almost all them are "fulfilled" before the birth of christ himself.

 

[Dogenzaka]

I'm just gonna ignore the bolded and check the prophecies fulfilled by Israel, Babylon, Tyre, Nineveh and other nations.

Because ignoring basic fulfilled prophesies through events in Jesus' life makes you cool, okay.

 

[jaxword]

"I'm making a judgment of the Bible based on my expectations."

Isn't that exactly what you're doing, though?

 

[Shanadeus]

Because ignoring basic fulfilled prophesies through events in Jesus' life makes you cool, okay.

I'm ignoring all of them because they have no relevance and could easily have been fabricated. How do you for example know that the prophecy has been written before the event?
If there was any prophecy written in ancient times which had been fulfilled in modern times then I'd take a look at them, but from a cursory glance I cannot find anything like that.

 

[Dogenzaka]

I'm ignoring all of them because they have no relevance and could easily have been fabricated. How do you for example know that the prophecy has been written before the event?
If there was any prophecy written in ancient times which had been fulfilled in modern times then I'd take a look at them, but from a cursory glance I cannot find anything like that.

You should look at some of the prophesies from the Book of Revelation and study the book a bit, and some of the prophesies of Israel.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

It honestly blows my mind that people believe the Bible was written by a deity. It's primitive even by human standards, nevermind all-powerful all-knowing being standards. The thing contains a pretty detailed account of creation which never once mentions, or even alludes to, evolution. Even if there was some creator, surely evolution was the mechanism by which he created advanced life. Evolution is a huge part of the story of the development of human life, and yet he doesn't bother to mention it? Instead choosing to ramble on (inaccurately) about which things he made on which day and when he rested and stuff? What possible motive would he have for leaving it out?

 

[Pandaman]

http://www.100prophecies.org/

:lol
you're pretty credulous about this kind of stuff, aren't you?

 

[Peronthious]

Because ignoring basic fulfilled prophesies through events in Jesus' life makes you cool, okay.

No, because ignoring prophesies surrounded by liturgical language and third party evidence makes you cool. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were not mentioned in any text until around seventy years after his death, and in the time between his death and the gospel of mark's authorship were repeated and passed down in synagogues for a couple generations. It's no coincidence there are so many similarities between the life of Jesus as reported in the Gospels and the lives of Elijah and Elisha

 

[Dogenzaka]

:lol
you're pretty credulous about this kind of stuff, aren't you?

Um it's a list of prophesies and shows how they're fulfilled. Pretty obvious what it is.

 

[jdogmoney]

I'm giving the site linked the benefit of the doubt and going through the prophesies, so as not to judge them before I've read them.

That said, most of these "prophesies" are so ambiguously worded as to be completely nonspecific. The Bible can be very clear on what it wants, you know, Ten Commandments-style delineation, so why not be super clear on what is allegedly one of the most impressive pieces of evidence, i.e., the prophesies being fulfilled?

I phrased that rhetorically, but the answer is that prophesies have to be ambiguous if they want any sort of credibility. The best prophesies are right, no matter what happens. There's the one in Greek myth about some king who consulted an oracle about this big battle he had with a rival kingdom, and the oracle said "If you fight, a mighty kingdom will fall." The king took this to mean the other kingdom would lose, and went out and got his ass handed to him on the battlefield. The prophecy was right!

...even though it would have been right no matter the outcome of the battle.

It's not really that hard to make an educated guess about the future, and it's even less difficult to shoehorn yourself into a prophecy already made.

 

[soul creator]

I've always found the "new testament fulfills prophesies from the old testament" discussions weird.

It's always seemed like the rough equivalent of Return of the King fulfilling the prophesies of Fellowship of the Ring. What a twist!

 

[GhaleonQ]

I've always found the "new testament fulfills prophesies from the old testament" discussions weird.

It's always seemed like the rough equivalent of Return of the King fulfilling the prophesies of Fellowship of the Ring. What a twist!

Was Return Of The King written by several different, uneducated farmers in northern Britain? That would be the equivalent. Luke was the only bright one, and there's no reason to assume that he was Jewish or Hebrew.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Unfortunately, that's a bit of a misnomer. We all have our own expectations that are slightly different from other expectations. I mean, we're all using our own internal logic. It's not like you can imbibe these things from an outside source. That is why standards themselves must be judged. However, it's hard to see how I'm being unfair.

I try not to judge based on missing information because that is the same trick that creationists try to pull on evolution. That is why one must be fair. Neither can any one thing be a death knell. The case against belief is an intricate web. Fortunately, I feel that the Bible fails on many accounts. Therefore, once again, it's a judgment based on a huge accretion of arguments. I wouldn't give the Bible the benefit of the doubt on history when it fails on other aspects.

On history specifically, I would turn the question around. Some historical figures like Nebuchadnezzar existed, so the Bible is often set against a historical backdrop, but why no positive extra-Biblical confirmation of Daniel and his deeds? Isn't God powerful enough to set that up? It shouldn't even come to the point where I have to choose between the Bible and extra-Biblical sources. I expect more from supposedly the most amazing document ever written. So the very fact of comparison casts aspersions upon the whole thing. In fact, when it comes to most of the large events within the Bible, extra-Biblical sources are usually silent.

You misunderstand me. I'm not accusing you of being unfair at all. I'm just pointing out that you are basing the reliability of the Bible on what you expect to be proper standards of reliability. I do the same thing, as does most every human being who comes into contact with the Bible.

As for why God didn't make tons of extra-biblical material that proves the Bible to be true, that's argument from silence, which as I'm sure you know, is not particularly strong argumentation. Sure, it can be used to make a point in a pinch, but I certainly wouldn't bank an entire conclusion on the Bible's reliability on a lack of extra-biblical evidence. Apparently you base it on "a huge accretion of arguments," so that's good. Might I inquire as to what those might be? Are we speaking in terms of German higher criticism, for the most part?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were not mentioned in any text until around seventy years after his death, and in the time between his death and the gospel of mark's authorship were repeated and passed down in synagogues for a couple generations.

I'm not sure what you think this proves. Care to elaborate?

 

[Pandaman]

Um it's a list of prophesies and shows how they're fulfilled. Pretty obvious what it is.

nonsense?

this page takes every book as a historical document written at the time these events are occurring, which is a lie. no bones about it. It lists the book of Daniel as an example of prophecy written around 600BC when it is a well known and commonly accepted fact that the book was either entirely written or heavily revised in the last two centuries BC. the vast majourity of these prophecies were written long after the fact and I do mean long. many of them are either heavy generalizations, have no basis in known reality or can be accepted solely on faith.

For example, many of the prophecies of Jesus life can only be accepted if you believe that the new testament is an accurate rendition of events, which would be rather odd to do given that we know it was written decades after the fact when pretty much everyone of age who would have met jesus was already dead. Especially when there is good reason to suspect an active campaign to align their messiah with as many prophecies as possible. [real shock i know], an obvious example being the author of Matthew attempting to tie in a virgin birth with isiah 7:14.

the rest can be accurately summed up as: god does not predict the death and destruction of all his worshipers. By definition, no one will ever be disappointed when a prophecy like that fails.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Was Return Of The King written by several different, uneducated farmers in northern Britain? That would be the equivalent. Luke was the only bright one, and there's no reason to assume that he was Jewish or Hebrew.

Holy crap I sincerely hope you are forgetting to mention Paul by sheer mistake.
Because Paul was by no means uneducated.

commonly accepted fact that the book was either entirely written or heavily revised in the last two centuries BC.

I've yet to hear of this.

I suppose everyone is just going to assume that Paul and the apostles died willingly in the name of nonsense.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

For example, many of the prophecies of Jesus life can only be accepted if you believe that the new testament is an accurate rendition of events, which would be rather odd to do given that we know it was written decades after the fact when pretty much everyone of age who would have met jesus was already dead.

So, how long does a record of events in the ancient world have to be written after the events themselves in order for it to be accurate? Based on your implied standard, we would have to toss out the majority of Roman history as inaccurate.

 

[Dogenzaka]

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were not mentioned in any text until around seventy years after his death, and in the time between his death and the gospel of mark's authorship were repeated and passed down in synagogues for a couple generations.

I quote nationally renowned scholar, Dr. Craig Bloomberg, author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels:

"The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark in the 70s, Mathew and Luke in the 80s, John in the 90s. But listen: that's still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were getting around.

Consequently, these late dates for the gospels aren't really all that late. In fact, we can make a comparison that's very instructive.

The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develop over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers.

In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander's story pretty much intact; legendary material began to emerge over the next five hundred years. So whether the gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after their life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a nonissue."

He believes the gospels, however, were written sooner than the dates proposed above.--

"And we can support that by looking at the book of Acts, which was written by Luke. Acts ends apparently unfinished--Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book was written before Paul was put to death.

That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part--the gospel of Luke--must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier.

If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in A.d. 30 or 33, we're talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so."

 

[Mgoblue201]

A lot of scholars, however, reject the end of Acts as an argument for the date of its writing. The book basically ends with Paul's speech while he is under guard. If Luke's intent was to write an up to date history (and Luke initially introduces himself as a serious historian), then it seems like an awkward way to end it, and he gives no indication that he is writing up to the present day. However, from a narrative perspective, the climax is Paul's speech, and the epilogue is a very brief summation of the next two years. It is intended to end with those final victories in life, not with his death. It might actually make sense if Paul's fate is known (and the book itself seems to intimate that he is going off to his death), because the reader would know the rest of the story. Otherwise, if Paul's life is ongoing, then Luke ends with something that has apparently occurred already but with no expectation for the future. It would make little sense.

There are also some reasons to think that Luke had knowledge of later events (the Josephus thing is one, but that's a relatively weak argument). And there are definitely good arguments for a later date for Mark or Luke, obviating the whole end of Acts argument anyway.

Furthermore, I would argue that the gospels should be held to a higher standard than other historical documents, but the larger issue here is that ultimately, the impact is minimal if certain facts about Alexander are errant. But if the Bible is errant, then there are huge implications. First off, you can ask yourself, does any of this make sense? And I would say no. There are contradictions and problems between the gospel accounts, which renders every other question irrelevant. Forgetting that, do the writers seem trustworthy enough to carry such a stupendous message? I would say no. Knowledge about the writers and the dates written are fragmented and must be guessed at. Some hypotheses, rightly or wrongly, cast aspersions upon their very authorship. That is a lot to trust to something so unknown.

Lastly, I'm not sure that hostile eyewitnesses would have stepped forward or even mattered. Belief probably would have been maintained in spite of eyewitnesses. Matthew even recounts a story about the soldiers at the tomb that I'm pretty sure no one would have been privvy to, which means that there were at least attempts made to discount any hostile witnesses. However, written records seems to indicate that at best Jesus was considered some sort of historical curiosity, not something that should have been debated and discounted.

I have no doubt that positive eyewitnesses were contacted. In fact, Paul writes about their resurrection accounts around 50 AD. But that account doesn't seem to line up with the gospel accounts, which don't even line up with each other, so I question the efficacy of eyewitnesses.

You misunderstand me. I'm not accusing you of being unfair at all. I'm just pointing out that you are basing the reliability of the Bible on what you expect to be proper standards of reliability. I do the same thing, as does most every human being who comes into contact with the Bible.

As for why God didn't make tons of extra-biblical material that proves the Bible to be true, that's argument from silence, which as I'm sure you know, is not particularly strong argumentation. Sure, it can be used to make a point in a pinch, but I certainly wouldn't bank an entire conclusion on the Bible's reliability on a lack of extra-biblical evidence. Apparently you base it on "a huge accretion of arguments," so that's good. Might I inquire as to what those might be? Are we speaking in terms of German higher criticism, for the most part?

Again, it's not that there is silence, but that there is actual contradictions. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that one argument is that the evidence about the fall of Jericho contradicts the idea that it was accomplished through conquest after the walls collapsed. Still, silence from an all powerful god is not a good thing. There is this fabricated story going around about how a missing day from the book of Joshua was actually calculated by scientists. This is untrue, but if there is a god, then why shouldn't this be true? Why shouldn't an all powerful god flex his power in this way? The fact that many Christians jumped on this story is a revelation: some will accept great proof when they think that they have it, but when they don't have it, they argue that they don't need it. How can any standard of evidence be forged in this way?

Anyway, I was talking about individual contradictions and textual issues that are prevalent enough to invalidate the entire thing. I've already discussed, in this or other arguments, the issues with Genesis, the problems in the gospels, and prophecy. If I got any more specific, then I'd be addressing specific arguments.

 

[Pandaman]

I've yet to hear of this.

many books of the bible had multiple revisions floating around, in isaiahs case the full modern book as we know it was first ascribed to a single author during the formation of the LXX. a few hundred years later, the first hebrew scroll of the same complete book shows up. it is commonly accepted that the work spans multiple centuries with only the first 39 characters believed to be the work of the original author. funnily enough the LXX may very well be responsible for the virgin birth myth as the authors of the gospels were reading greek old testaments.

I suppose everyone is just going to assume that Paul and the apostles died willingly in the name of nonsense.

Two things.
1). you're using the bible to justify the bible again. if i was doubting the historicty of the text, naturally that doubt would easily extend to the story of the apostles prosecution. its a stupid argument that only works on people who already agree with you or are easily swayed by emotional appeals.
which leads into point #2:
2). people die willingly for nonsense all the damn time. hence every suicide bomber and death cult member ever. See also: jospeh smith refusing to recant mormonism at the noose.

So, how long does a record of events in the ancient world have to be written after the events themselves in order for it to be accurate?

with the fairly safe assumption that there is no tangeable method of confirmation, contemporary nonbiased sources are good, but exceedingly rare. so contemporaries partisans are fine aswell.

Based on your implied standard, we would have to toss out the majority of Roman history as inaccurate.

although there is no reason to believe either of them, there IS a difference between something that in inaccurate and something that is unconfirmed.

that said, you've got the jist of it. You could safely extend reasonable doubt well into the 19nth century while you're at it. Whats your point?

 

[EzLink]

I bought that book on Buddhism yesterday. At the checkout the lady looked at the book, then looked at me, and awkwardly wished me a happy easter. It was great :lol

 

[Kinitari]

It's our taxonomic classification because scientists have assigned it as such. But I'm not talking semantics here. If I believe that God created man rather than man evolving from primates, then taxonomic classification is irrelevant.

I'm saying that man is altogether different from any other living creature on the planet because he was made in God's image.

This makes it very difficult to get anywhere in a discussion with you. If you can disregard a facet of Science that is backed by strong evidence because it doesn't support your world view (or rather, because it debases it), it is implicit that you do not see evidence and then form an opinion, that you have formed your opinion and then seek evidence that supports it.

I guess I can at least ask you, why you can so easily ignore all the evidence that human beings evolved from a more primitive mammal over millions of years.

 

[Xdrive05]

So, religious folks, I'm really curious to know the assumptions you have about atheists specifically because of their atheism. What do you assume about a person you know is an atheist, if you happen to know nothing else about that person? Be honest!

Notice I'm specifically asking "religious folks" as opposed to "theists", since I am trying to call on the people who actually organize their lives around any particular set of religious convictions. This is an important distinction, I think, because a deist's or pantheist's assumptions about an atheist would be radically different from that of a truly religious person. I think there's enough of a fundamental difference between the two classes that everyone in this thread will understand my reasoning here without further exposition.

Also notice that the directionality is intentional: I'm asking religious folks to tell us their assumptions about atheists and not the other way around. If I asked atheists to do the same, they would have less to work with since "religious folks" necessarily encompasses MANY classes of people (depending on the religion, etc.), while "atheists" is an easier target to hit: there are fewer atheists in number, and they don't sub-divide into "denominations" of atheism in the same way that religions do. So it should be easier to have valid assumptions about atheists than to have them about religious folks.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Kinitari]

Er, I know this is going to seem very inflammatory, but a few years ago I remember looking up how Jesus was the descendant of king David, because I -thought- I had an epiphany and had found the contradiction that would shatter peoples belief in Christianity forever (I was young and naiive) - Joseph was the last descendant of King David, and apparently he didn't knock Mary up - God did!

Well I looked it up and I wasn't the first to stumble across this little snag, and there was already a new contemporary revision - that Mary was somehow related to the David line, was the cousin of Joseph and carried the blood down to Christ.

Well aside the fact that there is no strong language in the Bible claiming this to be the case, there is also the fact that this would be the first and only time that blood lineage is 'carried' on through a female in the Bible, and this contradiction further supports the belief that the NT bible was edited after it's original inception to include a virgin birth, and that someone just forget to work around that little King David point.

Anyway, my question is - how do people feel about this? I have only ever read a quick snippit on a Christian apologist site giving the new "Mary is the Cousin" theory, but I have never heard anyone Christian I know talk about it - it seems that there are some pretty intelligent Christians in this thread, and I wanted to know what their take on the whole matter is.

 

[Pandaman]

Er, I know this is going to seem very inflammatory, but a few years ago I remember looking up how Jesus was the descendant of king David, because I -thought- I had an epiphany and had found the contradiction that would shatter peoples belief in Christianity forever (I was young and naiive) - Joseph was the last descendant of King David, and apparently he didn't knock Mary up - God did!

Well I looked it up and I wasn't the first to stumble across this little snag, and there was already a new contemporary revision - that Mary was somehow related to the David line, was the cousin of Joseph and carried the blood down to Christ.

Well aside the fact that there is no strong language in the Bible claiming this to be the case, there is also the fact that this would be the first and only time that blood lineage is 'carried' on through a female in the Bible, and this contradiction further supports the belief that the NT bible was edited after it's original inception to include a virgin birth, and that someone just forget to work around that little King David point.

Anyway, my question is - how do people feel about this? I have only ever read a quick snippit on a Christian apologist site giving the new "Mary is the Cousin" theory, but I have never heard anyone Christian I know talk about it - it seems that there are some pretty intelligent Christians in this thread, and I wanted to know what their take on the whole matter is.

which list are you referring to?
matthews:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt 1:1-17&version=KJV

or lukes:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 3:23-38&version=KJV

matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

luke 1: 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

apparently they didn't consult each others notes.