Not Fundamentalists?
Offline You all claim not to be atheist fundamentalists, but then refuse to see the validity of the bible as anything but black and white. Because it contradicts itself it must be 100% crap? Why can't it be a series of accounts of real life events with mistakes in it, and sometimes even things that are made up?
The bible gives several accounts of the life of Jesus. Just because all the events and facts don't match doesn't mean everything is wrong. Their are plenty of other histories of people that contradict one another, but the rational thing to do is to try and sort out fact from fiction, not simply call it a house of cards and throw out all the facts.
You say that you are for inquiry and critical thinking, but when liberal Christians try to do that you judge them based on the same kind of fundamentalism that the right-wing Christians take to heart.
Fundamentalism is a bad thing, whether you are atheist, Christian, Muslim, or Pastafarian.
-Shawn
- Login to post comments
Regarding the veracity of the Bible, theists often point out that many architectural facts, dates and figures are correct. This is an association fallacy. Part of the Bible is true therefore the whole thing is true, this is ridiculous. I could make an equally fallacious argument, the Bible says many things which are completely ridiculous, therefore the whole thing is false. Is that true? Of course not! It is not "one book" anyway but a chaotic compilation of accounts spanning more centuries than I can count on my fingers. Essentially, using the truth by association fallacy is stating that two completely unrelated documents are both true because it is proven that one of them is. It is clear that the Bible is partially true, partially false (it was, after all, written by ancients whose understanding of science was nil), and partially it seems to be nothing more than myth spread by word of mouth.
The Bible was distorted. What is the Bible? What is the New testament? The Bible is a collection of documents, letters, accounts, laws and essays that took so long to collate that the first Bible was not fully canonized until the time of the first printing press by Gutenberg. the authorship of the Bible spanned eleven centuries, many of the authors long forgotten, anonymous or unknown. After the advent of printed type, the bible became distributed so widely that it was retranslated so many times in so many languages, that any Christian who picks up the Bible on his table can, from an etymological standpoint, be guaranteed that it is completely irrecognizable from the original. With regard to it's veracity, the modern Bible is completely worthless. The bible's canonization was so poorly handled by the ecumenical bodies that oversaw, that the Hebrew old testament was still being finalized in 100AD, 4000 years after the original. Between canonizations so many different random copies and pages were floating around, we will never know how many were rewritten.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
That's my point. Many people on this site and associated atheist sites point out contradictions in the Bible and then say, "See, this is wrong so all of Christianity is wrong/false!"
Oh, come on! The bible translastion I read today isn't one that has been handed down from person to person for thousands of years. It was translasted from manuscripts, not the originals, but copies that are ancient and are only removed from their source by a matter of one or more centuries.
"4000 years after the original?" 4000 years after the original what? The whole of the old testament spans centuries of authorship with the newest parts being only 500-600 BCE.
You said that the Bible is a collection of authors and sources that spans centuries. I agree, and this makes it a wonderful source of information for how God was acting in the lives of people in different times and different cultures.
You might as well say that we can't know anything about world history because it was written by a bunch of different people over a long period of time and we've lost a lot of the writings.
There are people who believe that the bible is 100% true. Are these people right or wrong?
What are the facts in the bible and what is fiction? How do YOU determine the difference?
The only way to think critically is to have standards of reason. If you do not meet the standards of reason, then of course we will judge you as reasoning poorly. Having standards is not the same thing as being a fundamentalist. The standards make sense and are necessary for reasonable debate.
That was a nice big Straw Man Fallacy. "Oh no! He pointed out my ignorance and fallacious reasoning! He's a FUNDAMENTALIST!!!!"
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
That's my point. Many people on this site and associated atheist sites point out contradictions in the Bible and then say, "See, this is wrong so all of Christianity is wrong/false!"
Ding. Archeological recordings made at the time may be accurate, but stories about a guy who turned water into wine and was raised from the dead are not.
Oh, come on! The bible translastion I read today isn't one that has been handed down from person to person for thousands of years. It was translasted from manuscripts, not the originals, but copies that are ancient and are only removed from their source by a matter of one or more centuries.
Imagine a disk. You copy it, thus making it slightly corrupt. The copy is used to make another copy, which in turn is used to...the languages of the two testaments are long dead, this is why the etymological veracity of them are often called into question. No other ancient document was retranslated beyond the point of trust in it's etymological veracity. It appears that the West went through two mellenia of sexual and intellectual neurosis because the Gospel writers could not read hebrew. Likewise, it appears that Young Earth creationists also have this same trouble with the language of Genesis (not that the biblical account is a remotely accurate account of life's beginning)
4000 years after the original?" 4000 years after the original what? The whole of the old testament spans centuries of authorship with the newest parts being only 500-600 BCE.
Must have been a typo. That should have been a two. sry.
You said that the Bible is a collection of authors and sources that spans centuries. I agree, and this makes it a wonderful source of information for how God was acting in the lives of people in different times and different cultures.
No. The Bible has some good archeological information but regarding theological myths, like God, it cannot be trusted to be accurate in saying that a man rose from the dead because it gets the location of some tombs right. By your logic, we would assume all historical documents to be true, so if a medievil king wrote that he saw Jesus in his sword reflection or whatever, we would accept that "because it was written along time ago". This is an example of the time-lapse effect.
Religion has this bizarre formula whereby things become more accepted as time passes, that were once myths. Nobody here believes the Greek myths of Athena or Medusa, nor does anyone in Greece. But stories that were simply made up over the centuries that seem like nothing more than good fiction, like immaculate conception and six day creation, or the idea of the Christian God, for some reason, because they were made up along time ago, are accepted as true. This explains why many regard Mormonism as insane. Joseph Smith received his revelations in the early 1800s...but Catholicism, which believes equally ridiculous things, is somehow more credible to the point where it has one billion followers. Every religion has concepts that seem to be pulled from thin air, that were simply meshed into truth by nothing but time with no evidence whatsoever. In Christianity, there is the Trinity and the ascension of St Mary, In Judaism the strange obsession with the Demiurge verses the High God.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
You all claim not to be an athorist fundamentalist, but then refuse to see the validity of the Greek oral-poetic tradition, Greek literature, The Iliad and The Odyssey, The Theogony, The Works and Days and The Epic Cycle as anything but black and white. Because those sources contradict themselves they must be 100% crap? Why can't it be a series of accounts of real life events with mistakes in it, and sometimes even things that are made up?
The Greek/Hellenic accounts of the gods give several accounts of the lives of Zeus, Poseiden, Athena, etc.. Just because all the events and facts don't match doesn't mean everything is wrong. There are plenty of other histories of people that contradict one another, but the rational thing to do is to try and sort out fact from fiction, not simply call them all houses of cards and throw out all the facts.
You say that you are for inquiry and critical thinking, but when liberal Greco-Roman Pantheists try to do that you judge them based on the same kind of fundamentalism that the right-wing Greco-Roman Pantheists take to heart.
Or put another way:
Maybe we understand that the Bible is the much the same as other mythological works - it blends real events and descriptions with unverifiable and fantastic phenomena and purports to be the account fo the true god(s). The Bible is a priceless piece of literature that should never be banned, or destroyed or anything - it should be preserved in much the same way we preserve the works of the pagan and non-Abrahamic texts and ideas.
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Also, does anyone want to pick up on how intellectually bankrupt Liberal religions esp. Christianity is? ... I'd comment seeing that I was in the Episcopal Church USA for a couple of years but I'm at work ...
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
Because then it would be classified as fiction, along with every other piece of fiction that is based on places and people who are real (prime example being The Davinci Code).
But which parts are real and which aren't? Seeing as the bible is the only text which ever mentions jesus we have no other sources to compare it to and find these things out. If you cannot figure out which parts are real and which aren't, all must be treated with suspicion and a pinch of salt.
We criticise them because their sources are things which cannot be validified and is often nothing more than heresay. Many of them use things which have proven to be false.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
my pastor when i was a christian told me that scripture can't contradict scripture, because it is the word of god.
Please tell me you are not using miracles as a reason to not believe the Bible. I would think that within the times we now live and the science we now know that there would be at least the smallest allowance for such things as miracles. Right now with our knowledge of quantum mechanics and General Relativity we know that there are some pretty strange things out there, a lot of which would really freak us out if we experienced it. Have we become so arrogant that we cannot entertain the notion that there are things out there we will never understand. It seems we are no different today then we were in the past. We thought we knew everything when we said the world was flat then we circled the globe. We thought we knew everything when Newton discovered the laws of physics then we discovered quantum and relativity. We thought we knew everything when we discovered the electro-magnetic laws then we discovered the strong and weak forces. Once we thought the atom was the smallest thing then we discovered electrons and then neutrons and protons and then leptons and quarks.
We thought we knew everything when we said the Old Testament was just myth and legend and then people started to do archeaology in the holy land and discovered that there was more truth to the bible then they thought.
Haven't we learned anything from our previous arrogance? Obviously not. We still jump to the conclusion that we know everything and things we can't understand are made up.
As for the Bible and God... God makes the claim that we can know that he is because he predicts the future. (Isaiah 46:9-10) But it is not surprising that some things are hard for atheist to understand since a we are told as much from the Bible. (1 Corinthian 2:14)
Are you refusing to make a distinction between bizarre effects like quantum tunnelling (ie "the universe is not just queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose) and what is clearly mythological story?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
let me ask you a question,
using that logic, what makes you think the bible is any more truthful than lord of the rings? with our knowledge about science now im sure there could be orcs...
What I am saying is that just because something sounds unbelievable to you does not make it necessarily impossible so you should not be giving miracles as a reason for doubting the Bible. As I said, what we think as science today may be called superstition/stupidity tomorrow. You tell me if walking through walls is a miracle or science since quantum allows for such things.
I think at this point you need to look at revolver's question because quantum tunnelling and such is supported by science, but Biblical stories are unsubstantiated.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
what i'm not understanding is just because something sounds unbelievable, why you think it's true.
Well I don't think anyone believes orcs are real but then again have you heard of the field of cryptozoology? They might have something against you making fun of the possibility of orcs.
Of course the main problem with your question is that as far as I know no one has ever made the claim that Lord of the Rings is history. We know when it was created and we can probably easily find someone who knew Tolken and could tells us that Tolken created the book from his imagination. We cannot do that for the Bible. Anything you say about the Bible, since you are removed from the times in which it was created and from its authors, is just an educated guess. You can't do anything better then that and so there is no reason for me to believe you anymore then anyone else. What you can say about a document that is that old is just limited. If you see contradictions and I see none who is to say that you are right and I am wrong. You have access to nothing that I don't have access to. You have no secret document that puts your conclusions ahead of mine. Since we both are rational beings therefore my conclusions are just as valid as yours.
JamesAChristian
That would be valid except...for the mutual exclusivity of religion. 2 billion people claim the Bible as true, 1 billion claim the Quran as true, 900 million the Vedic texts of Krishna as true, and about 10 million the Book of mormon as true. The mutual exclusivity of the doctrine makes it obvious to all that religion is mythology. Especially considering that all of them can be traced from earlier myths.
Maybe revolvers question was not so good, let me give you a better one:
How is the Bible any more valid then the Qur'an?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What, you think that Christians go on just what you do? I don't think you understand what Christianity is all about. It's like you are trying to understand a picture by just analyzing the color. You are missing the point that it is how the color is used that defines the picture not just the colors used... the shapes, shades, strokes and how they work together in harmony. Or you look at the mechanics of the neuron and then say man can't exist. It's how they work together that makes man. There is more then just the mechanical process. Or better still, you look at the bible like you look at a puzzel. You try to understand what the puzzel is about by just looking at individual pieces and you pride yourself on what you discover but your conclusions are invalid because you have not put the puzzel together. But that is your problem not mine. If you cannot see that then so be it.
Obviously just because stuff can be traced back... or it seems they can means nothing. There is still the problem that you live now and you cannot tell how things came about. It would be perfectly logical to assume that there was a flood and a few people survived and that is why in mythology many of the early themes of Genesis occur. Nothing you can say can change the fact that that is a perfectly plausable conclusion. So once again until you can produce a living being that has lived through the ages you are making far reaching conclusions on... and they can substantiate your theories you still stand on nothing more then I stand.
As for the Bible and the Quran... the Bible gives it's own solution to that problem. God says... know that I am God because I tell you the future before it happens. No other religions claims to be able to do that. Have a very close and long look at Daniel and Revelation and let the Bible speak for itself. The fact is that the very organization that you claim created the canon is the very organization which the Bible speaks against. If they had known that the Bible would never have survived.
That response had absolutely nothing to do with my question.
So once again until you can produce a living being that has lived through the ages you are making far reaching conclusions on... and they can substantiate your theories you still stand on nothing more then I stand.
No. I just do not believe there is enough evidence to call the Bible valid. This assertion is not a stance in and of itself. merely the denial of someone else's assertion. Until I get evidence, I can presume it false, because it is in mutual competion with other equally unlikely faiths. Your argument is essentially an extension of the "atheism requires faith" fallacy which fails to appreciate the distinguishing between a postive assertion and a negative one.
As for the Bible and the Quran... the Bible gives it's own solution to that problem. God says... know that I am God because I tell you the future before it happens.
What? You are merely reasoning in a circle. Are you aware how many hundred years after Christ the bible was actually written? Furthermore, a Muslim said exactly the same thing to me about the Quran.
No other religions claims to be able to do that. Have a very close and long look at Daniel and Revelation and let the Bible speak for itself. The fact is that the very organization that you claim created the canon is the very organization which the Bible speaks against. If they had known that the Bible would never have survived.
Are you referring to the Roman Ecumenical councils? I don't really see how this argues for the validity of the Bible.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
another example of circular logic. youre saying the bible is surperior to all other books because of something it said in the bible.
This is precisely the paradox that I express in my sig
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
How much do you know of Bible archaeology? People used to think that Daniel was a fabrication made at the time of Alexanders Generals partially because a king, Belteshazzar, occuring in the book seemed to be unknown to the Greeks. The majority of Biblical scholars lost faith in the book. And then archaeology discovered tablets confirming that there was a king going by such a name. Although Bible archaeology has not confirmed everything in the Bible it has confirmed enough for me to know that my faith is not misplaced.
Even your beliefs cannot be rock solid because of this one fact that I have stated twice... all you can do is make hypotheses about the past, you can never truely test them out to see whether they are true because you can not travel back in time.
As for proof for the Bible over other religions... I gave such proof. That proof while internal to the Bible gives external proof... unless you are willing to admit that you and/or any one else can predict the future? If you won't look at the proof then that is not my problem. I have given it and that is all I was required to do.
Let me get this straight... we know that the book of Daniel existed before the time of Christ since it is part of the dead sea scrolls(6 BC or something like that). We also know that Revelation was written around the end of the 1st century. And you are saying that if they can be shown to predict the future (in fact the course of history) 1000s of years into the future then that means nothing? That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
Let me tell you a little secret:
The book of daniel failed to predict anything.
You would say that!
You're atheist, you can't help yourself! After all if it did predict something then you would be in trouble and you would have no excuse for your beliefs. See the good thing about being Christian is that no matter how things are, I end up ok. On the other hand if there is a God then things for you are not so good. Of course God isn't out to scare people but still it makes more sense, after all I still have a happy life now as do you so the only difference that could be is if there is life after death. Any way, I suggest you look at Daniel and Revelation and make sure you know what you are talking about. You don't want to be wrong do you? If you want, I'd be happy to show you what you have missed. Unless you are scared...
And for being the 100,000th theist to use Pascal's Wager incorrectly as a valid reason for following a religion, you've won a stackable washer-dryer from Whirlpool, The Showtime Rotisserie grill, a lifetime supply of Didi-7, and "Music and Passion," the latest from Barry Manilow.
I know I'm quaking. I'm going to read Daniel and Revelation again. I'll be back in a day or two, and you can wow us with all the fortune-telling contained therein.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
the book of daniel is one of the most innacurate books in the bible. read daniel 11:40-45. i haven't read the whole book yet, but those events failed to happen.
hmm... looks like somebody's god isnt very all knowing.
Daniel and Revelation use symbols so since you are the bright one here and you say it has not happened... tell me, who are the kings of the North and South?
Pascals Wager... sorry if the truth hurts.
A little advice when reading Daniel and Revelation... they explain each other. Also over 2/3 of Revelation is taken from the old testament so you might want to brush up on your old testament knowledge. Further more you should also study the sanctuary services and feast given in Leviticus and I believe.. well just look at Exodus through Deut. but especialy Leviticus. Last but not least succesive visions in Daniel are parrallel prophecies, each dealing wih exactly the same time period (well actually slightly different starting points as you go on since Babylon comes to an end): Babylon then Medo-Persia to the end of time. (Daniel of course lived during the time of the kingdom of Neo-Babylonia and the Medo-Persian Empires) Listen to what the angels tell you, it is important! Start with Daniel 2. It is the easiest to understand. Revelation also deals with prophecy to the end of time but starting in the time of Rome (as that is when John was living). Oh, one last thing, you might also want to look at 2 Thess 2:1-12. I'd say you'd better give yourself a couple of years if you want to even understand the basics but if you think you can do it in a couple of days then good luck (the understanding of prophecy has probably been developing over at least a couple hundred years if not more).
Actually, I'm embarrassed for anyone who would use Pascal's Wager to prove Christianity. I'm equally embarrassed for anyone who believes in miracles. I guess it's partially a response to having believed in them myself. One reason some people have a hard time giving up faith is it means admitting you believed a truly unbelievable story just because a lot of other people believed it and fed it to you with your Pablum. How embarrassing! The whole human race should be embarrassed. Instead we're fighting wars over who has the best invisible friend. Lame.
Yes, I know I didn't debunk Pascal's Wager. I'm too tired tonight. Here's a suggestion: Use Google and do it yourself. Even most Christians who come to the site think Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument. Once you research it, you'll see why. And to think my Christian math prof in college thought Pascal's Wager was clever.
If he couldn't do the math, he shouldn't have been teaching others...oy!
(P.S. I'm still supposed to write a formal debunking of Pascal's Wager for this site because it is The Number One Fallacious Theist Argument™. If this were a drinking game, you'd have to haul me off to the hospital to be treated for alcohol poisoning.
)
Now I shall scamper off to bed. My eyes are crossing with sleepiness. If someone hasn't debunked it by the time I get back to this thread, I guess I'll have to do it...sigh.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
JamesAChristian
I'm just going to keep this:
"Pascal's Wager...sorry if the truth hurts"
Ouch indeed. Pascal's Wager, is, if possible, the worst argument ever concocted. It has been rebutted so many times that most Christians never use it. The fact that you do use it shows me you have no experience whatsoever in theological debate, because if you did you would know the Golden rule: Never use Pascal's Wager.
There are so many debunkings posted on this site you can find them all yourself. My personal take on Pascal's idiocy is:
1. False dichotomy. X exists or does not. What about Y or Z or A, B, C, D, E, G etc. The fact is that there are a vast number of human deities to choose from. None of them are any more valid then any other. There is no more evidence for Yahweh that there is for Allah or Lord Brahma. Ever read the Qur'an my friend? I have. I hated it but I still read it. The Qur'an states explicitly that the deniers of Allah will burn in hell forever. As you accept the Christian Trinity, you are commiting what Muslims call shirk, or denial of Tahwid, genuine monotheism under Allah. The fact of the matter is, Pascal's Wager sets up an insane dichotomy.
2. Prudency: The proposition of Pascal's wager is to believe in God because it is prudent. Sorry, but this fails. I thought faith was from the heart. If my reason and logic (which was as you claim given to me by God) tells me that God does not exist, then I cannot force myself to believe. I can only feign belief, something an omniscient God should see through.
3. Presumptious: Pascal's wager asserts a lot more than "God might exist". God, after all, is an extremely ambigious word that means many different things to different people. In Pascal's time, the words "God", "Religion" and "Christianity" were interchangeable. Thus Pascal asserts a huge amount, much more than "God might exist". He asserts that God exists and is a vengeful, sentient God, he asserts that the afterlife exists, that eternal damnation exists, he asserts that heaven exists. He is asserting that God's criterion for judgement is whether or not you worship him and believe in him.
Pascal is not stating "believe in God because it is prudent", he is stating "believe in a vengeful, sentient, punishing God who wants you to worship him, and believe in eternal damnation for the unbelievers and heaven for believers because it is prudent".
I'm sorry, but considering the complete lack of evidence for any of those things and the fact that their existence probability is infinitesimal, Pascal can forget it.
4. False Statement: "Believe and you are wrong and you lose nothing"? Really? It seems to me that if this is your one shot a life then you've wasted a great deal, devoted a huge amount of unnecessary time and effort to a nonexistent entity for no reason whatsoever.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
in that chapter the author(s) mention specific countries and kings of them. it doesn't sound that symbolic to me.
and i just got done reading the book of daniel, and i would say it barely resembles revelation at all. guess what, the mayans have an end of the world too! they must be the true gods because they can predict the future writing of revelation.
also, if you say daniel and rev. are based off of eachother, that doesn't mean anything about daniel. it just means the stories of daniel were used for revelation. there is no future predicting involved.
Did you even read my other post? I said start with Daniel 2 (the vision). Read the vision through and then read Daniel explanation keeping in mind that Daniel is talking about countries/kingdoms that have a great influence on God's people (i.e. Jews and latter Christians). You must keep in mind that God does not reveal the future as some sort of party trick but to tell his people relevant information so they can be ready for the future.
As for Daniel and Revelation... I did not say Revelation uses stories from Daniel (read my other post) I said they use each other. Daniel explain things that are hard to understand in Revelation and Revelation does the same thing for Daniel. Also in my previous post I stated that Revelation uses more than just Daniel but in fact it uses all of the old testament. Read my previous post before you jump to conclusions. Just because you read Daniel (and read it without following my instructions) means nothing. You have just begun.
you just explained my point for me, thank you.
i was trying to explain that because similar events are explained in revelation, nobody has predicted the future(at least as of yet). since rev. uses the old testament, daniel did not predict a book written later on like you said.
I don't get what you are trying to say? "Daniel did not predict a book written latter on"... what is that suppossed to mean? Daniel makes predictions about the future from the Babylonian empire until the end of time while Revelation makes predictions about the future from the Roman empire and on. This makes sense because of the time in which they were written. Now how does the fact that they complement one another prove that they don't predict the future. By the way, Revelation goes into more detail then Daniel in general however they both contain information that the other does not. Tell me when you have figured out Dan. 2. By the way, there is internal information to indicate that Dan. 2, 7, 9 are parallel prophecies. It makes sense that God would do this since it makes it easier to pin point what the visions refer to.
you said that you believe the bible is surperior to all other biblical books because it predicted something that will happen in the future, which hasn't yet, so you have no proof of it.
so, after a page of this argument, give me a reason again as to why you believe the bible is correct and all other religions are wrong. again, the mayans predicted an end of the world too.
No! that is not what I said. What I said is that it predicts things from when it was written up until the end of time inclusively. It's like God put little sign post all along the way so you would know where you were at any time in history. Now that I have clarified that for you it is time for you to go back to your studies. I'm not done with you yet. You have my answer all ready and so if you want to know what I know (and millions of others) then you are just going to have to listen and look. (Contrary to what you say the argument is not over but because you did not carefully read what I posted you wasted a page.) I hope I am not coming off as being rude, but if I am sorry. I'll try to not be so impatient.
RevOlver...
have you gone back to studying Daniel or have you given up on that? Where is everybody? Has no one come back on since the crash or whatever yesterday?
yes, i read daniel. and sorry i misunderstood what you were saying before. but still, none of these events have happened yet, so i dont see what makes you so sure that they will. there have been many other religions that predicted the end too.
Ok. Are you ready to look at it with me?
I'll assume your silence means you are ready.
Briefly put the prophetic vision in Dan 2:31-35 is this: there is a statue with a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. A rock is cut out, but not by human hands, which strikes the statue on its feet smashes them. Then the whole statue is smashed and blows away then the rock becomes a huge mountain which fills the whole earth.
Now the interpretation:
Daniel says king Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold. (vs. 38) We know however that gold represents the entire kingdom of the Neo-Babylonians. How? Because another kingdom is said to arise after him (vs. 39) but historically after him came another king, not a kingdom. Further more it makes sense to treat the gold head as the entire kingdom as this is how the other metals in the statue are treated. Next we are told another kingdom will arise. (vs. 39) We know from history that this is the Medo-Persian (or just Persian) empire. We know this is represented by the silver chest and arms as another bronze kingdom is said to arise after that. (vs. 39) This bronze kingdom is the Hellenic empire(s) as Alexander was the one to conquour the Persians. The next kingdom to arise was Rome which is represented by the iron legs. (vs. 40) No empire replaced Rome as it broke up under the barbarian invasions. This is the iron mixed with clay: a divided kingdom which is partly strong and partly weak. (vs. 41-43) This accurately describes Europe, a collection of strong and weak countries which is divided. Note how Europe has never been able to unite even though many have tried just as the bible predicts. Napolean, Hitler, Charles V, Louis XIV, Kaiser Wilhelm II all failed. Any way, we are now living in the broken Roman empire, age of the European nations. The next thing to come on the scene is a rock which destroys all earthly kingdoms which Daniel says is God's kingdom. (vs. 44)
A few things to note: why are these empire mentioned and not others? These are the empires and kingdoms under which Gods people, Jews and then Christians lived. Why does the breakup of the Roman empire focus on Europe? Becuase that is where the majority of Christians where. Christians for the most part disapeared in the Eastern half of the Empire under the onslot of the Moslems. Also note how the metals fit the empires: Herodotus describes babylon as all gold, the medium of exchange in the Persian empire was silver, the greeks were known for their bronze wepons, Rome was known for it's iron weapons, iron and clay might easily be a description of reinforced concrete (concrete was used in the Roman Empire). Notice that "without human hands" indicates something supernatural. Also while Alexanders empire did break up, under his generals the pieces were still a helenic empire. Interestingly God symbolizes the broken hellenic empire as a four headed leopard in chapter 7.
and that's your interpretation of it, the material of different objects used in those periods doesnt mean much to me. thats some pretty far-fetched proof in the way you put it. kings/kingdoms rising and falling wasn't anything new back then, it is to be expected.
I don't think you are thinking clearly. Are you saying you can predict how many empires would rise and fall, but not only that, give major defining characteristics about them? You also imply that I gave the interpretaition but all I did was pull the names out of a history book. Lastly you missed the point that I made previously... there are several other visions which cover the same time period, each which gives more detail to confirm the interpretation. This is the simplest vision. Besides I think you also missed the point about Europe. The Bible predicts that it will never be united. So many people have tried and each has failed.
and history isn't over yet, is it?
none of what was said could be considered a major defining characteristic.
alot of what was said didn't even happen anyway. the bronze kingdom was supposed to "rule over the whole earth". i don't believe any of the native americans have even heard of them at that time.
it said that the fourth and final kingdom that takes its place will last forever etc etc, but babylon was not all of europe. babylon was the modern day middle east. youre referring to something totally different.
p.s. what do you think about the king tut curse? that predicted the future too.
The act of generalized (that is to say unspecific) prophecy is analogous to firing an arrow, and then drawing a target around it after it lands, in my opinion. Just to prove I am not particularly picking on the Bible, Nostradamus (and those who interpret his prophecies) is guilty of this as well.
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
Considering the amount of things the Old Testament got wrong, for instance Genesis, even if really leniantly interpreted, clearly states that God created "created kinds" which is wrong, six-day creation and numerous other factual complete inaccuracies reflecting ignorance of the ancients at the time, I quite simply cannot see how it can be trusted.
My vice is not scripture, I one of the forum biologists, my job is to beat creationist idiots who come to the site, but one does not need to know the fine details of embroidery to see the emporer has no clothes.
"God leaves little signs". OK, this typical proposition of monotheism is one of many highly irrational and illogical things that I am compliling. Do you believe in eternal damnation? If no, skip this, if yes: Are you genuinely trying to tell me that God is so enigmatic that instead of revealing himself, he has to put his creations through mental torture by making them have faith in an event of highly questionable historical veracity? Why not just reveal himself? Why this foolishness? What is he trying to prove to his creations? W
You have still fully failed to justify the Bible. YOu know full well that had you been born in Arabia, you would be a Muslim and you would be saying the same thing about the Qur'an. You know that your religion is more or less an accident of where you are born.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
you talked about the divided empire, which was supposed to have evolved from that one, which was babylon
I believe you have to place yourself in the time of the prophecy to make such a judgement. A lot of kings said they ruled over the entire world... which just meant the entire known world. And as I pointed out these are empire/kingdoms that affected Gods people. So they were large kingdoms ruling over the known world that affected Gods people.
Are you saying god didn't know about the rest of the world? thats not the god i heard about...
and only specific people are gods people? anybody else is some alien creation that isnt from god? if god said they would rule the world, thats ruling the world, he should know the other places.
The truth? No, stupidity hurts.
You mean, adjusting the story to be even remotely feasible in light of scientific advances has been going on a couple of hundred years. I've read the bible. Many times. There is no prophecy, no talking angels, etc. However, I'll get to reading the books again soon anyways, so I can be specific in my mockery.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."