Accuracy of Biblical prophecies vs. science.

[hatsoff]

Now, I have a question, if the date is correct for 6th cent bc, would that verify to you that the bible is the word of God?

No. The Bible was unified in century IV. It was made up of a collection of texts, of which Daniel is one. Even if you were to prove that Daniel was authentic and inerrant (which of course can never be done), that still doesn't directly affect the rest of the Bible. Besides, predicting the future is a far cry from proving association with a diety, much less the nature of that association.

Satans goal is to coroupt the word of God, and oviously you wouldnt believe what I am saying, and if you had all the evidence to prove danial was 6th cent B.C. Now it makes sence, that non Christians try to disprove the bible, and that is one of their main goals for studdying, if you don't believe me, look at defence of the bible. Now, I honestly do not put my faith in credits, I put my faith in God. I will further study datings on danial, but yes I do believe it is 6th centry b.c. and it is a very valid prophecy, Which I dont think it's a conspericy that jewish tradition would decept people into believing prophecys that have already come to pass, I think it's more along the lines of observation,

I noticed that non-christians seek to disprove the bible, and if somthing is true, they don't believe it, and continue to try to prove it wrong. What I have seen is that the credits for 6th centry b.c. are more valid, and honestly, cause you see athiest as greater that christianity, you will take the bias view, just to prove your point.

The charge is often levelled that skeptics try to "disprove" the Bible and/or Christianity in general. While certain people are doubtless guilty, that is by no means the norm. Scholars look for the truth using scientific methods. When their conclusions run counter to religious tradition, many Christians fail to make the distinction between proving a bias and pursuing a hypothesis.

Well Christian bible scolars believe it is 6th centry b.c. with evidence, you say scolars could be wrong, but you seem to not admit that non-christian scolors could be wrong. 1. A christian seeks to prove it true, as a non-christian seeks to prove it false, well evidence still stands strong with the christian view. Now if a Non Christian scolar finds it to be true, and coverts to believe in it, then he wouldnt be a non-christian anymore. Now, your claims are that the experts themselves, How are they superior to Christian scolars? because they are nonchristian? is that what it takes to be an expert?

Christians are indeed a part of the scholarly community. They can and do submit research for peer review just like any other historian. Despite your opinions to the contrary, non-Christians don't have it in for their religious counterparts; if the evidence was compelling, it would stand up to peer review and be accepted, if not as the majority, at least into the realm of mainstream theories. Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming that Daniel was completed in the Maccabean period; hence the current state of scholarship on the matter.

Christian mythology? even if you accept that, truth remains the same, and hard evidence? if you knew God, you would have all the hard evidence you need, but you don't, and your heart is hardened to accept him. So therefore using the term Christain mythology shows that you wouldnt accept any evidence for it. There is even less evidence that narratives are made up of christian mythology.

No, I use the word "mythology" because that is how I view it, not because I would refuse to accept evidence in favor of Christian claims. If I saw convincing evidence, I would convert, but I have not--and thus remain a skeptic.

Edited February 13, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

...cont'd...

Probibly because he was jewish? thats not a valid debunk, and you can't concider most scolars as a whole, because there are just as many Christian scolars as there are non-christian,

You misunderstood what I was saying: It doesn't matter what Josephus thought. He was in no position to decide whether or not the book was authentic. At any rate, it appears he did no such thing.

Also, doubt you're correct about there being as many Christian as non-Christian scholars. I would suspect there are many more of the latter. Are you just guessing, or did you actually hear that from some reputable source?

Of course it does have to begin somewhere, but you cannot say it is religious forgery without having hard evidence to support that, IT has to begin somewhere, well how about when it says it began? it did begin somewhere 6th cent bc.

I do have hard evidence: remarks in the text describing events from c.164 BC. Also, there are linguistic similarities between the Aramaic of Daniel and the Aramaic of other second-century BC authors.

Once again all I've seen it probibility rather than evidence, probibility and opinion, Basicly you are saying that the prophecys where written in 160 bc? why cause you chose not to believe in them? cause you still havn't debunked the evidence.

It is debunked by the observed laws of nature and the precedent set by other so-called prophets. Never in all of history has anyone accurately and consistently foretold events of the future. If I were to, say, find a old manuscript bearing the name of Nostradamus, which claimed to predict the events of Waterloo, I would conclude that it had not been written by Nostradamus, but instead an anonymous forger living after 1815.

It all comes down to what we call the "best explanation." Which is more likely: that an anonymous author falsely attributed retro-active predictions to the prophet Daniel, or that Daniel actually predicted the future so precisely? In the opinion of most, the answer to that question is clear as a bell. Linguistic and external evidence (which also supports a late date, by the way) is just icing on the cake.

Which christian scolars believe that it was written in 160 bc?

Why does it matter? Well, if this is what it takes to satisfy you, then check out W. Sibley Towner.

that is actualy opinionated, get it through your head, Non christians do not have seniority and christian views are just as valid, , as you said Scholars can be wrong, especially when they are Christians looking to prove the validity of their faith, well non-christian scholars, can be wrong as they seek to prove the validity of their faith, by disproving. Honestly you cannot say that this is wrong because Non christians are better, and that is what you are asserting as evidence.

Again, you seem to have missed my point. Your quote from Harvardhouse innanely proclaimed, "liberal scholars acknowledge that the textual style and linguistics for the book of Daniel supports that it was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls community came to exist." That is just completely untrue, unless it refers to the first six chapters only, in which case it is misleading if not intentionally deceptive. Hence my request that you give a supporting example.

now, are you compairing your evidence for the majority only on non christian views on this matter? The majority, I would say the majority bible scholars are christian.

You would say? Based on what? In my experience, the majority of literature on the subject which has passed peer review has been non-Christian.

so once again you are asserting that non-christians are more valid and better, basicly your whole post back is in faith of credits, and people who seek to disprove it, and there is no valid evidence for your claims. The fact still remains the same, the date still stands at 6th cent b.c. Oh by the way, if it was written in 160 b.c. why wan't there any greek written in it? if it was there would be more greek.

Why must a second-century BC Jewish text be written in Greek, especially if it was meant to masquerade as a sixth-century-BC text?

Josh, I understand your concerns, but you really need to understand that most non-Christians do not have a vehement anti-Christian bias, especially in the realm of academia. Despite the volume of press coverage given to public personalities such as Richard Dawkins, the majority of scholars are highly successful in their strivings for an unbiased approach to historical inquiry. The community has a reliable system of peer review which keeps in check the opinions of extremists on either side of a given field. I urge you to reconsider its conclusions.

[Joshua-777]

You misunderstood what I was saying: It doesn't matter what Josephus thought. He was in no position to decide whether or not the book was authentic. At any rate, it appears he did no such thing.

Also, doubt you're correct about there being as many Christian as non-Christian scholars. I would suspect there are many more of the latter. Are you just guessing, or did you actually

hear that from some reputable source?

Not a guess, Just the majority of Scholars who study the bible, usualy are christian, but there are many who study the bible who are non-christian, most of wich, do chose a bias mindframe I'd say it's about even, if you combine the amount of Christian schalors vs. non Christian.

I do have hard evidence: remarks in the text describing events from c.164 BC. Also, there are linguistic similarities between the Aramaic of Daniel and the Aramaic of other second-century BC authors.

Minor simularitys, and the remarks in the text, where visions and dreams, which is very accurate to what happened, the visions and dreams also lign up with revelation, dead on, which the accuracy of danial, I feel is vital, and it is a prophetic book, just because the prophecies came true doesn't mean it was written at a later date, You can actualy find so many prophecies in the bible, like Isaiah 53, goes into perfect description of Jesus Christ, 700 years before he walked the earth, There are prophecies after prophecies int he bible that has come true. The only evidence supporting strongly for it being written in 160bc rather than 6th cent, is disbelief, As far as the evidence, it's neutral, which I do find it interesting how In Danials vision, God tells him to seal the words of this book until the end, interesting.

It is debunked by the observed laws of nature and the precedent set by other so-called prophets. Never in all of history has anyone accurately and consistently foretold events of the future. If I were to, say, find a old manuscript bearing the name of Nostradamus, which claimed to predict the events of Waterloo, I would conclude that it had not been written by Nostradamus, but instead an anonymous forger living after 1815.

Actualy ya they have, but they where all in the bible, lol you wouldn't believe me, but Prophecies have come true in my family, and prophecies are still happening today, it's nothing new that prophets in the bible, the Lord shows them whats going to happen, And accuracy? yes it is very accurate.

It all comes down to what we call the "best explanation." Which is more likely: that an anonymous author falsely attributed retro-active predictions to the prophet Daniel, or that Daniel actually predicted the future so precisely? In the opinion of most, the answer to that question is clear as a bell. Linguistic and external evidence (which also supports a late date, by the way) is just icing on the cake.

So basicly the only evidence is a non-christians best explanation why the prophecies are so accurate, and the linguistic, and external evidence, supports both views, but I still feel it supports 6th cent bc actualy moreso, I don't go by the opinion of most, lol I dont put my faith in credits, or best explanations. 6th centry has enough evidence to believe in it, and the accuracy of it, if you have to make a best explanation, I understand. You would rather put your faith in someones opinion who wasn't there v.s. a book which accuratly describes the events happening in 6th cent bc, as well as the future till Jesus came back.

Why does it matter? Well, if this is what it takes to satisfy you, then check out W. Sibley Towner.

I checked out some of his stuff, but I couldnt find what date he says.

Again, you seem to have missed my point. Your quote from Harvardhouse innanely proclaimed, "liberal scholars acknowledge that the textual style and linguistics for the book of Daniel supports that it was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls community came to exist." That is just completely untrue, unless it refers to the first six chapters only, in which case it is misleading if not intentionally deceptive. Hence my request that you give a supporting example.

I have a question, if danial was written when it said it was, when medo-persia took over babylon, wouldn't the hebrew change to a aramaic? because the two languages used in that book, are acutaly most logical, because in 6th cent b.c. isreal used both languages. Aramaic is most logical to be used in 6th cent b.c. Same with the hebrew used though.

You would say? Based on what? In my experience, the majority of literature on the subject which has passed peer review has been non-Christian.

Which is interesting, peer review is from non-christian points of views, part of the reason that ID, even if it's totaly logical, cannot be peer reviewed,

Why must a second-century BC Jewish text be written in Greek, especially if it was meant to masquerade as a sixth-century-BC text?

once again, an opinion, Yes if it was written in greek, it would point directly to second century b.c. yes, but it's not, it's written in the two languages used in 6th cent b.c. And this is your best explanation? That it was meant to be a hoax? it's sad you actualy believe that.

Josh, I understand your concerns, but you really need to understand that most non-Christians do not have a vehement anti-Christian bias, especially in the realm of academia. Despite the volume of press coverage given to public personalities such as Richard Dawkins, the majority of scholars are highly successful in their strivings for an unbiased approach to historical inquiry. The community has a reliable system of peer review which keeps in check the opinions of extremists on either side of a given field. I urge you to reconsider its conclusions.

Reconsidering my conclusions, so I have a question, based on the evidence, would you say that it has an equal possibility for being 6th cent bc? and If it was 6th cent bc, what would you say to the prophecies that have come true in the book?

[cjrose]

And how about the prophecy that "the virgin shall be found with child". How could anyone know for certain that Mary was a virgin? (I'm not saying it's true or it isn't. I'm just pointing out that it can't be known that Mary was a virgin.) Some say virgin should simply be translated "young girl" and not necessarily in the way we currently think of virgin. However, there would be nothing remarkable about, "...and behold, a young girl will be pregnant..."

You say that you are not saying it's true or isn't yet you laugh. What purpose would it serve for this to be an untruth? God does not lie.

Many,many so-called prophecies are incredibly imprecise and vague. Not all have been fulfilled, for example, Jesus was not called "Immanuel" by Mary. The prophecy about the destruction of Tyre is often used to prove the Bible's "remarkable prophecy", but it was not at all fulfilled "100%", as in your criteria of prophecy. So, if it was a partial fulfillment, it is a false prophecy.

Much of science is all based on man's falliable theories, logic, thought etc...

Prophecy is still in the process so claiming it to be false is false in itself. We haven't seen the end yet and it is finished when "It is done." So sayeth the Lord.

[tdrehfal]

And how about the prophecy that "the virgin shall be found with child". How could anyone know for certain that Mary was a virgin? (I'm not saying it's true or it isn't. I'm just pointing out that it can't be known that Mary was a virgin.) Some say virgin should simply be translated "young girl" and not necessarily in the way we currently think of virgin. However, there would be nothing remarkable about, "...and behold, a young girl will be pregnant..."

You say that you are not saying it's true or isn't yet you laugh. What purpose would it serve for this to be an untruth? God does not lie.

Many,many so-called prophecies are incredibly imprecise and vague. Not all have been fulfilled, for example, Jesus was not called "Immanuel" by Mary. The prophecy about the destruction of Tyre is often used to prove the Bible's "remarkable prophecy", but it was not at all fulfilled "100%", as in your criteria of prophecy. So, if it was a partial fulfillment, it is a false prophecy.

Much of science is all based on man's falliable theories, logic, thought etc...

Prophecy is still in the process so claiming it to be false is false in itself. We haven't seen the end yet and it is finished when "It is done." So sayeth the Lord.

Sorry if i'm quoting the wrong person here but for a response to the "virgin" issue...

[tdrehfal]

And how about the prophecy that "the virgin shall be found with child". How could anyone know for certain that Mary was a virgin? (I'm not saying it's true or it isn't. I'm just pointing out that it can't be known that Mary was a virgin.) Some say virgin should simply be translated "young girl" and not necessarily in the way we currently think of virgin. However, there would be nothing remarkable about, "...and behold, a young girl will be pregnant..."

You say that you are not saying it's true or isn't yet you laugh. What purpose would it serve for this to be an untruth? God does not lie.

Many,many so-called prophecies are incredibly imprecise and vague. Not all have been fulfilled, for example, Jesus was not called "Immanuel" by Mary. The prophecy about the destruction of Tyre is often used to prove the Bible's "remarkable prophecy", but it was not at all fulfilled "100%", as in your criteria of prophecy. So, if it was a partial fulfillment, it is a false prophecy.

Much of science is all based on man's falliable theories, logic, thought etc...

Prophecy is still in the process so claiming it to be false is false in itself. We haven't seen the end yet and it is finished when "It is done." So sayeth the Lord.

Sorry if i'm quoting the wrong person here but for a response to the "virgin" issue...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

[Joshua-777]

hatsoff, I honestly don't think we're going to come to an even conclusion on the date of danial, so, what would you say to calling it even on both sides of the arguement, and looking into other prophecies?

[cjrose]

...cont'd...

Probibly because he was jewish? thats not a valid debunk, and you can't concider most scolars as a whole, because there are just as many Christian scolars as there are non-christian,

You misunderstood what I was saying: It doesn't matter what Josephus thought. He was in no position to decide whether or not the book was authentic. At any rate, it appears he did no such thing.

Also, doubt you're correct about there being as many Christian as non-Christian scholars. I would suspect there are many more of the latter. Are you just guessing, or did you actually hear that from some reputable source?

Of course it does have to begin somewhere, but you cannot say it is religious forgery without having hard evidence to support that, IT has to begin somewhere, well how about when it says it began? it did begin somewhere 6th cent bc.

I do have hard evidence: remarks in the text describing events from c.164 BC. Also, there are linguistic similarities between the Aramaic of Daniel and the Aramaic of other second-century BC authors.

Once again all I've seen it probibility rather than evidence, probibility and opinion, Basicly you are saying that the prophecys where written in 160 bc? why cause you chose not to believe in them? cause you still havn't debunked the evidence.

It is debunked by the observed laws of nature and the precedent set by other so-called prophets. Never in all of history has anyone accurately and consistently foretold events of the future. If I were to, say, find a old manuscript bearing the name of Nostradamus, which claimed to predict the events of Waterloo, I would conclude that it had not been written by Nostradamus, but instead an anonymous forger living after 1815.

It all comes down to what we call the "best explanation." Which is more likely: that an anonymous author falsely attributed retro-active predictions to the prophet Daniel, or that Daniel actually predicted the future so precisely? In the opinion of most, the answer to that question is clear as a bell. Linguistic and external evidence (which also supports a late date, by the way) is just icing on the cake.

Which christian scolars believe that it was written in 160 bc?

Why does it matter? Well, if this is what it takes to satisfy you, then check out W. Sibley Towner.

that is actualy opinionated, get it through your head, Non christians do not have seniority and christian views are just as valid, , as you said Scholars can be wrong, especially when they are Christians looking to prove the validity of their faith, well non-christian scholars, can be wrong as they seek to prove the validity of their faith, by disproving. Honestly you cannot say that this is wrong because Non christians are better, and that is what you are asserting as evidence.

Again, you seem to have missed my point. Your quote from Harvardhouse innanely proclaimed, "liberal scholars acknowledge that the textual style and linguistics for the book of Daniel supports that it was written centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls community came to exist." That is just completely untrue, unless it refers to the first six chapters only, in which case it is misleading if not intentionally deceptive. Hence my request that you give a supporting example.

now, are you compairing your evidence for the majority only on non christian views on this matter? The majority, I would say the majority bible scholars are christian.

You would say? Based on what? In my experience, the majority of literature on the subject which has passed peer review has been non-Christian.

so once again you are asserting that non-christians are more valid and better, basicly your whole post back is in faith of credits, and people who seek to disprove it, and there is no valid evidence for your claims. The fact still remains the same, the date still stands at 6th cent b.c. Oh by the way, if it was written in 160 b.c. why wan't there any greek written in it? if it was there would be more greek.

Why must a second-century BC Jewish text be written in Greek, especially if it was meant to masquerade as a sixth-century-BC text?

Josh, I understand your concerns, but you really need to understand that most non-Christians do not have a vehement anti-Christian bias, especially in the realm of academia. Despite the volume of press coverage given to public personalities such as Richard Dawkins, the majority of scholars are highly successful in their strivings for an unbiased approach to historical inquiry. The community has a reliable system of peer review which keeps in check the opinions of extremists on either side of a given field. I urge you to reconsider its conclusions.

hatsoff, you have a firm grasp on human knowledge, you are eloquent in your writing and I must applaud your effort in research. However, I must ask this burning question: why do you and many others who visit these forums for a time, seek so determinedly to present your views of opposition, very detailed perspective indeed, and not see the infinite wisdom in the Word? I suppose a more accurate question would be, why? Why do go to such great lengths to oppose?

Seriously, what does it benefit you? Do you feel satisfaction, pride? What need does taking the time to state your case fulfill? I have been in the Word nearly all day today and discovering new messages that speak to me daily that are profoundly connected to a conversation I may have had yesterday or some motherly wisdom for my children that has a direct link to whatever book I may open it to.

An example of this would be... my son is always grumpy through this last year of junior high. I picked him up from school and he grumbled and knitted his brows together, slumped in the seat and crossed his arms over his chest. After several attempts to lighten the mood, suddenly, this burst of wisdom came in rapid fire and it was the Lord speaking to my son through me, giving me the words to say to reach inside his hard little shell. I spoke to him of seeing his predicament from a different perspective. Experience through trauma is a lesson. In every lesson is a truth and in every negative there is a positive. Our character is developed through our experiences. Seek what is freely given as truth and shift your perspective to find the message and how can I apply this as a positive in life.

This was a couple of days ago. During the last 48 hours or so, I've seen countless messages in music, worship, fellowship, and what do ya know? I opened my Bible today with no real agenda, allowing the pages to lead me to His Word which not only connects each confirmation of my window of wisdom to my son, and what do I find but numerous passages directly related to the conversation we had (mostly one sided) My point is, and I do have one, is if you listen with your heart not your mind as so many are mislead with mans knowledge when all is said and done, the effort you have given to disprove and "correct" us, could very well enlighten and disprove what solid facts are from where? Mankind's limited definitions published specifically for non believers as yourself as "facts" to oppose the Truth and deny, deny, deny out of who knows why, what gives the billions of like minded believers in Christ, a peace and joy that transcends beyond what we think we know as mortal man, spiritually dead. This explains why you research the Bible from a worldly perspective through the arrogance of a worldly view. But do you ever try looking beyond the words to find a message of truth that applies to your life? Because, I must say, if you want evidence that Jesus lives, do hang around a while. I am evidence as our Worthy family is evidence. These messages I receive from the Word of God happen often, sometimes in rapid fire. Is it coincidental? No Way! Can you set your pride aside and see the true meaning of what you are reading for a purpose not of an adversary but one of a deeper awareness that just might give life to your spirit and find true knowledge.

I could go through and quote passages but my own personal lessons may influence what it is you need to know. I know, Iknow, very presumptious of your character aren't I? This isn't a personal attack. Many of you come and go here at Worthy and start out as you have only to either come to find a mutual respect or show their true colors with sarcasm and witty, but not humorous retorts until they either disappear or are banned. As a non believer on a Christian forum with an agenda, I am truly not making this personal. With that, I will just say that you are here for a reason. Your counter replies are not going to sway a mature and obedient believer but may cause doubts for new believers. So, this reply to your many responses in this thread comes in peace to do as I am commanded to do and that is simply to plant a seed. It is now for you, today, tomorrow, 10 years from now, find yourself amazed and transformed by a tiny seed. Actually many seeds are scattered here. Where they fall is in the Lord's hands and His timing.

Prov. 16:9; A man's heart plans his way; but the Lord leads his steps.

Peace

[hatsoff]

Don't worry, Cjrose, I don't take what you say personally. I just came here because I enjoy discussing Biblical history. I get a little aggressive sometimes in response to attacks against my character or intellect, and perhaps that is inappropriate, but I have no "agenda."

Edited February 18, 2007 by hatsoff

[cjrose]

Don't worry, Cjrose, I don't take what you say personally. I just came here because I enjoy discussing Biblical history. I get a little aggressive sometimes in response to attacks against my character or intellect, and perhaps that is inappropriate, but I have no "agenda."

Oh I'm not worried