Bible is word of God ...

[cwes99_03]

Don't mix biblical prophecy with particle physics, Cwes. It generates arguments that are patently ludicrous. It might even make one look silly.

 

You 'refuted' just one arguement for an invalid prophecy, and even that is subject to interpretation.

 

Hmm, maybe you need a dose of your own medicine. Every time I seem to make a pretty good point, you go and say don't go there. Why is that?

 

What part of the illustration/analogy about the Higgs particle don't you like? There were others before maybe that you didn't object to either, but the most response I ever get is don't go there that isn't right (and no further explanation.)

 

Anyway, if you'll look back at that post http://hypography.com/forums/117833-post97.html you'll see that in fact I dealt with not one as you say but three of those "unfulfilled prophecies" as they were easily cleared up from my little knowledge and a bit more reading of the scriptures surrounding the ones you cited. Perhaps also a different translation (or a couple of them actually) also helps me to understand, but as you have pointed out (here and elsewhere) I myself have not gone back to the original texts in Greek and Hebrew (and I don't remember if you have either.)

 

If you insist I will do a bit of research on the "prophecy" at Isaiah 19:18.

[cwes99_03]

One more thing until before I go, as I'm going to be busy the rest of the day. Not all prophecy need have an exact date and time to be accurate and prophetic. There was no exact date or time given when the first prophecy of Cyrus capturing and destroying Babylon was made. It was made 200 years in advance of that date. However, he did say that the Jews would remain in captivity for 70 years.

Once Jerusalem fell and it's inhabitants were taken captive, then Daniel realized that there would be 70 years and he said so. 70 years later the prophecy was fulfilled.

[Pyrotex]

...What part of the illustration/analogy about the Higgs particle don't you like?

It's like saying why can't you believe in the Tooth Fairy--you believe in the Higgs Boson, dontcha? This kind of logic just as easily supports nonsense as it does sense.

Anyway, if you'll look back at that post http://hypography.com/forums/117833-post97.html you'll see that in fact I dealt with not one as you say but three of those "unfulfilled prophecies" as they were easily cleared up from my little knowledge and a bit more reading of the scriptures surrounding the ones you cited. ...

I'm sorry, but you have done some reading and some research, but it's convincing only in the way that a good sermon is convincing to the congregation who are already prepared to be persuaded. I am sure that anyone who already believes as you do, would applaud your response. But to a Freethinker, it takes more than pulpit logic to be convincing.

 

But you say things like, 'most people believe that this...' -- I know a lot of folks enjoy believing that the OT is just chock full of prophecies of Jesus. But that's not what the words literally say. What 'most people believe' is not actually hard evidence. Granted, it IS significant. If all those folks were also bible scholars, it would be really significant. But most believers don't do their own bible reading. That's what they go listen to preachers for.

 

I'm gonna cut you some slack here. God knows you don't deserve it {joke :)}, but I was a bible thumping true believer when I was in my teens and early twenties, and I know where you're coming from. This isn't a test of logic for you, it's life and death, and in a way, it's not fair of me to use rigorous logic and analysis against you when I know it causes you such pain. I sure remember the other kids in college picking apart my pulpit logic and laughing at me, and it hurt like hell. Since God was on MY side, why the hell was I LOSING all the time?!?!?! :(

 

Becoming a Freethinker (agnostic, atheist) is something like being born again. It means that if NOW I do go back and read the bible, I see just the words on the paper speaking for themselves--no expectations, no pre-conceived notions of what it OUGHT to mean.

 

Trying to pin down prophecies in the OT is an exercise frought with paradox and self-deception. Most of those who try are already emotionally bound to a particular end-result. It HAS to be this way, the voice in your head says. God wouldn't lie, so THIS has to REALLY mean THAT, and THAT has to be reinterpreted to avoid contradiction. So this can't mean what it SAYS, it must mean something ELSE.. And so on. I know. I went through all that.

 

And it's the least I can do to allow YOU to go through it for yourself.

 

But DO keep notes, Cwes. So you can be sure that the interpretation you make today is going to agree with the interpretation that you'll make a few years down the pike. Take care.

[cwes99_03]

Had enough time to drop bye. By all means cut me no slack. Ridicule me all you want, I don't believe I am losing. Some people can't be reasoned with, whether that be you or me neither one of us will agree to.

 

If nothing else you can treat this as an exercise of logical skills in an illogical world. Start with as you said "God cannot lie (not wouldn't but can't)." Then take the next step, "The Bible is inerrant." With these two steps, look into the scriptures and begin. Don't begin with the meatier subjects such as what did it mean when it said Elisha was caught up in a wind up to heaven, or in this case what Isaiah 19:18 means. Study it once through to find the main points that can be easily understood such as what God's abilities are, what his primary qualities are (most primary school children can do this, but it is necessary to start here). Once these have been determined, look into the deeper finer points. These may be harder to understand for various reasons, 1) being that the Bible may have been mistranslated [so you have to look at some of the original Greek and Hebrew and cross-reference that with the time it was written to understand notions that the writers themselves would have understood (including what kind of community they lived in (numerous farming illustrations) what kind of times they lived in (roman rule, egytian rule, oversight by the judges or by a king) and cultural values of the people (whether a father of a boy means literally his biological father or could also mean grandfather, uncle, or otherwise)]. This takes many many years. Some have already done this. If you like you may read their works and determine if you agree with their research. 2) There are plenty of people out there who claim to have done this but really haven't. You will have to sift through this, much like sifting through the strange claims forum. Of course some are very obvious, they make claims that directly go against what you knew from a cursory examination of the scriptures. 3) Not all things in the Bible are yet understood. (Pyro, you have the most problems with this point. I compare it to the idea that we don't yet understand everything about the cosmos, nor have a UFT. However you don't have a problem with that, only with the idea that you can't figure everything out that is in a 2000 plus year old book.) Jesus told his followers that the "light would get brighter" to paraphrase. As the end times draw to a close, more will be understood according to the Bible because God will choose to make it clearer.

 

Pyro, it is not hard for me to understand your cynicism. You put too much faith in your own imperfect abilities because you have seen your success in other areas abound. Whether you agree with that or not, you agree that unless you can empirically prove it (in effect, see it) then it is not real.

What is hard for me to believe is that some people could possibly believe that the Bible says Jesus was born on Dec. 25 among other things. This is what I intend to dispell on a theology site. If someone can prove to me that the Bible says Jesus was born during that time (even within a week or so of it) I'd eat my hat.

 

Don't worry Pyro, I've been taking notes for some 15+ years of my life. Eventually you get so used to some things that they are in your mind, just like you permanently know some of the universal constants like h and pi and c among others to a high precision.

[HydrogenBond]

Jesus was born during a census by king Herod, that is well documented. That is why there was no room at the inn. I believe Jesus was a pisces or the fisher of men. December 25, was a Roman holiday. The Holy Roman Empire consolidated the two holidays. This was a practical decision because it was easier to convert the Pagans if they were allowed to have one foot in their ancient traditions and the other in the new religion. If one uproots people, it can result in loss of soul instead of a smooth transition. This happened to the American Indians and took centuries for them to recover. This is a practical example of the word of God apart from written tradtion. This is what should be expected since the Holy Spirit or spirit of truth was left behind for continued revealing of the living word of God.

[Freddy]

Jesus was born during a census by king Herod, that is well documented. That is why there was no room at the inn. I believe Jesus was a pisces or the fisher of men. December 25, was a Roman holiday. The Holy Roman Empire consolidated the two holidays. This was a practical decision because it was easier to convert the Pagans if they were allowed to have one foot in their ancient traditions and the other in the new religion. If one uproots people, it can result in loss of soul instead of a smooth transition. This happened to the American Indians and took centuries for them to recover. This is a practical example of the word of God apart from written tradtion. This is what should be expected since the Holy Spirit or spirit of truth was left behind for continued revealing of the living word of God.

 

Where besides the New Testament is Jesus' birth or the census documented? Historical evidence against it is found here.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html

[cwes99_03]

Freddy, I don't see in Matt 2:1 or Luke 1:5 the mention that it was Herod the Great.

 

Luke 2:1 also does not mention Quirinius, but Luke 2:2 does. Luke 2:1 mentions Augustus.

 

Another mistake on that site is the taking of 37 years after 31 BC to mean 6 AD. There is no 0 year, thus 37 years after 31 BC would have been 5 AD. Thus as well cited as this personal geocities homepage may be, I think it's author needs to go back and do some more work before we cite him as an authority.

 

To answer your question, to the best of my knowledge the records of the census were destroyed either in the rebellion or when Roman forces sacked the city later. I'd have to do my research on that again.

 

However, the point that it was 37 years after Sept. 31 BC is quite nice since my point was that Jesus was born sometime around the fall of the year, certainly not in December. The rest of this takes deeper study.

 

Don't worry Pyro, still looking into the Isaiah 19:18 "prophecy." What I have read so far suggests that perhaps the scripture was referring to when a remnant of Jews who were not taken to Babylon, overthrew their Babylonian governor (murdered him) and moved themselves down to Egypt to obtain protection from any response by the Babylonians. If there were a significant number then they could conceivably be a significant population of 5 cities on the border of Egypt (since Jeremiah says they traveled only as far as Tahpanhes.)

Not sure why it says the language of Canaan. I would suppose a guess that it was simply referring to the land of Canaan which had been inhabited by the Jews for several centuries by this point. This would require an understanding of who in those times may have still referred to it as the land of Canaan.

Many today still refer to Isreal by other names since they do not recognize the Jewish government as being sovereign over that land. I do believe that others in history may have done the same including the Egyptians and the Assyrians, however I'd have to verify that, so don't take that as truth. That would lead to them still referring to it as the land of Canaan.

Another possibility, and I'm sure you should be able to answer this since you seem to be able to verify that the actual language of Canaan was a dead language by this time, is that the Canaanites and the Isrealites spoke the same language, or dialects of the same language.

The language of Canaan may also refer to the Jews who fled because these ones were extremely disobedient to God who told them not to flee to Egypt (Jer. 42:9-43:7) and thus they may have lost their position as His people for their disobedience.

 

Anyway, I guess I'm just throwing up theories as of yet, since I don't have the resources at hand to verify much if any of this. Do you have any resources that can positively say that this "prophecy" was unfulfilled? Perhaps if you do, you can set the record straight?

 

Oh and BTW

Since the New Testament was intended to "complete" or "fulfill" the OT, you have to show that the prophecy was fullfilled by, say 400 AD. The ball's in your court.

Could you establish this comment? I would like to know what basis you have for making such a statement. After all, in Daniel there are prophecies that point towards Armageddon. Perhaps you would like to clarify this point?

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03 and Pyrotex:

You two seem to have valid reasons for continuing to discuss this angle, but it is irrelevant to this thread. The question concerns a book and it's authors, these are real things and have to be discussed from the aspect of reality, that is to say, using hard evidence or arguments based on real things. The presentation, so far, in favour of PetriFB's hypothesis, fails to meet basic standards and involves various forms of false reasoning. For example, the principle of parsimony demands valid positive reasons for introducing the, otherwise unnecessary, imaginary author "God", when human authors would appear to suffice, what are those reasons?

The claim that the Bible's own assertion to be the word of god constitutes evidence, is unacceptable. Formulaicaly, this amounts to 'A is B because A says that it is B', if this were an acceptable formula for describing real things, it would be necessary to accept the following claims by me; "I am Cwes99_03 and I am Pyrotex, I am a centaur, I am the reincarnation of Cleopatra and of Mark Antony", clearly real things can not be sensibly discussed if this formula is allowed.

[cwes99_03]

You fail to visit one thought though Ug. This is a theology forum, not a literature forum.

In theology we determine whether there are other reasons why one could believe that A claims B is possible.

In a discussion of whether the Bible is the word of God, we first determine what claims it makes as to its authorship. I have stated my thoughts on that based upon the scriptures, which state that God himself did not pen these books but that God inspired other writers, men, to pen them in a way in which they would be accurate.

Now to back that up we are discussing whether or not it is accurate/prophetic. If it is accurate and prophetic then our current knowledge of human ability is that this would be impossible for a mere human to do, thus lending proof to the idea that there is in fact a superior being who must have had a hand in its writing.

This much you may debate once we have established whether prophecy is accurate (namely whether prophecy can be made by mere humans concerning these things.)

Pyro has already laid down a gauntlet saying that any man could have written these things down and they could have become true because the "prophecies" are not precise enough, nor accurate enough. So we are discussing this further.

Thanks for your input, but I think you are wrong. If you have complaints about there even being a theology forum, please see the thread that discusses that.

[ughaibu]

No, this forum, like the rest of the site, is concerned with the scientific viewpoint. You seem to be confused about the meaning of "theology", visit Tormod's rules for the theology forum, you will find "a forum for rational discussion of religious thought", this means that the rules of logic apply. It has already been pointed out that successful prediction of future events is routine, if prophecy were to be an indicator of a specialist non-human author, it would need to be outstanding compared with routine prophecy. The fact that you two are nibbling at the details indicates that any Biblical prophecies are not outstanding.

You also need to establish the existence of your proposed author, as a book written by a non-existent author is clearly an absurd idea.

[ughaibu]

A further point on this prophecy business. If I understand your answer to Pyrotex, your source for the success of the prophecy in Isaiah seems to again be the Bible. Obviously you can not use a prophecy in the Bible and then give the Bible as the documented evidence that the prediction was accurate, think of it formulaicaly, this is another piece of false reasoning that allows one to claim anything. This is not up to the standards required for discussing real things.

[cwes99_03]

You also need to establish the existence of your proposed author, as a book written by a non-existent author is clearly an absurd idea.

So absurd that more than 2 billion people throughout the world believe in the existence of such absurd beings.

You crossed the line again Ug. Just because you yourself do not believe it to be possible does not mean that every other person in the world must have your same view.

Again you have stated your oposition to this thread/forum, but I believe you are wrong for it's purpose. Read the entire thread (rules thread) as it was discussed before it was cut off. The rules have evolved as this thread has grown. Why do you insist on attacking any threads discussing Christianity?

 

Obviously you can not use a prophecy in the Bible and then give the Bible as the documented evidence that the prediction was accurate, think of it formulaicaly, this is another piece of false reasoning that allows one to claim anything.

Time and time again the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate. There are plenty of papers out there that discuss the archaeological evidence for trusting in the Bible's version of history. There are of course others that like you attack anything and everything it says, down to whether or not the Egyptians even had Hebrew slaves.

If you object to any particular reference, please state so clearly and succinctly and I will go out to Google and in less than 5 minutes have another source if I must.

Now not everything can be archaeologically verified. But then again not everything Josephus wrote can be archaeologically verified. However, it is a historical document of the same age. Why would you accept his writings as gold while these other writings as mere absurdity? Quite simply, because you have a bone to pick. Let it be revealed, we can discuss your gripes about Christianity in another thread, so long as you are willing to discuss them and not just rave against a religious group.

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03: You are now misrepresenting my meaning. It is your responsibility to maintain a certain minimum level of intellectual integrity when posting, see the FAQ/Rules page, additionally on that page you will find links to sites detailing logical fallacies, read up.

1) What is absurd, is not the belief, it is the claim that a book has been written by an author whose existence has not been established.

2) This thread concerns real things, books and authors, once you venture into the realm of real things, you are talking about reality, you are not talking about your personal religious beliefs. I have not crossed any line as I am addressing the question of this thread, your beliefs are your own affair, not mine or anyone else's, so keep them out of this discussion.

3) I am not going to keep replying to posts as trivially fallacious as you've been producing. If you have a serious argument in support of this claim, produce it.

[HydrogenBond]

Another way to determine the date of Jesus's birth is astronomy. This has to do with the star of Bethleham. This may have been an asteriod or even a supernova and should have documentation. It was predicted by the astrolagers of the day.

 

If my bible history is correct, this astrology event predicted the coming of a child king. That is why the Wise men followed the star. The census was a ploy by the king to account for all the newborn male children, and kill them if necessary.

[Freddy]

Freddy, I don't see in Matt 2:1 or Luke 1:5 the mention that it was Herod the Great.

 

Luke 2:1 also does not mention Quirinius, but Luke 2:2 does. Luke 2:1 mentions Augustus.

 

Another mistake on that site is the taking of 37 years after 31 BC to mean 6 AD. There is no 0 year, thus 37 years after 31 BC would have been 5 AD. Thus as well cited as this personal geocities homepage may be, I think it's author needs to go back and do some more work before we cite him as an authority.

 

To answer your question, to the best of my knowledge the records of the census were destroyed either in the rebellion or when Roman forces sacked the city later. I'd have to do my research on that again.

 

However, the point that it was 37 years after Sept. 31 BC is quite nice since my point was that Jesus was born sometime around the fall of the year, certainly not in December. The rest of this takes deeper study.

 

Anyway, I guess I'm just throwing up theories as of yet, since I don't have the resources at hand to verify much if any of this.

 

It is 31 BCE and 31 years later leaves us at the start of 1 ACE.

31 BCE-37 years later= 6 ACE.

However, the point is you have supplied no evidence outside of the New Testament for this census. So I will. Also, see Josephus:War.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maugcensus.html

[cwes99_03]

Try your math again, Freddy. You'll get it right yet. Look up ordinal and cardinal numbers it will help you understand.

[cwes99_03]

Cwes99_03: You are now misrepresenting my meaning. It is your responsibility to maintain a certain minimum level of intellectual integrity when posting, see the FAQ/Rules page, additionally on that page you will find links to sites detailing logical fallacies, read up.

1) What is absurd, is not the belief, it is the claim that a book has been written by an author whose existence has not been established.

2) This thread concerns real things, books and authors, once you venture into the realm of real things, you are talking about reality, you are not talking about your personal religious beliefs. I have not crossed any line as I am addressing the question of this thread, your beliefs are your own affair, not mine or anyone else's, so keep them out of this discussion.

3) I am not going to keep replying to posts as trivially fallacious as you've been producing. If you have a serious argument in support of this claim, produce it.

 

Thanks, Ug. I have read it a couple of times. What you seem to be at odds with is the idea that God can be a real thing. In your point number 2, you again insult the intelligence and beliefs of all religious people worldwide.

Please, don't reply to any claims. That is what I've asked, because so far many of your posts have been nothing but insulting to those who frequent this forum. I'm not saying you can't be a contributing member, perhaps you too can find historical examples for which prophecy failed, or perhaps you can find other evidence that lends itself to the antithesis of what this thread was about, other than saying that "God can't exist, therefore he can't have written the Bible." That is an unacceptable shortcut on this thread, as this forum allows for the supposition that God can and may exist (which is the underpinning of all theology, if you disagree with that see the thread on philosophy vs. religion http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/4266-religion-vs-philosophy.html )

 

Calling people irrational and absurd does not make you a friend of this thread.

 

Now as far as your objection, why don't you operate under the assumption that men only wrote the books of the Bible. There were various authors as I stated to prove Sebby's statements wrong. Jeremiah and Isaiah were two different men who authored two different books. This much is clear if you were actually reading the posts and not just assuming a superior position in your mind that all of this was nonsensical talk among idiots and imbociles who can't see the plain truth that God doesn't exist.

 

With two authors, nay, historians, in agreement, one with prophecy the other with historical information that backs up that prophecy, you have to make points against my argument that they either aren't in agreement, or that one of them is wrong in his writings. You may attack the authenticity of the Bible, but some have done this for 2000 years and failed.

 

In the meantime, I shall continue this thread as it pertains to this thread and not respond to you unless I feel you contribute to this thread. Have fun and God Bless. :)