Dean Anderson

This attitude by inerrantists is something that I have encountered time and time again, and it always baffles me.

For some reason, many inerrantists give the impression that they can only imagine two alternate attitudes to the Bible:

1) It is 100% true and inspired by God.

2) It is 100% false and every writer was deliberately lying.

Therefore we see statements like the above - where hatsoff's scepticism about a particular claim is misrepresented as an absurd "all those who wrote the Bible were liars" stance.

Similarly, mdd344 seems to think that if one does not believe particular claims in the book of Daniel, then one must therefore not believe anything written in the Bible and one must "deny the captivity of Israel by Babylon, the reign of the Medes and Persians and etc."

mdd344 - do you accept (and I am not asking you to agree with this view - just to accept that it is our view) the viewpoint that some things in the Bible are true, some are mostly true but exaggerated, and some are false (and some bits are inspirational poetry or parable and were never meant to be taken as "historically accurate")?

As I said, I'm not asking you to support that viewpoint. I'm merely asking you to acknowledge that you understand that the viewpoint exists and is held by most of us on this board (Christian and atheist alike).

Because otherwise you will keep arguing against a false dichotomy (100% true or 100% false) and you will keep erroneously attributing a "100% false" viewpoint to us - which does no-one any good, since you end up arguing against a position which no-one is in fact taking and ignoring the position that we actually are taking.

Gamera

Paul felt no urge to prove the existence of God, since virtually everybody in the classical world believed in gods. The issue was which god for Paul, not theism per se. So Paul is making an arguing his audience understood, i.e., you guys all believe in the gods, so going from that assumption let's talk about what the world tells us about divinity.

In short this is not an argument to prove the existence of God - Paul already assumes that his audience believes in God (a good assumption for the time), so he's arguing about God's attributes.

Sauron

I'm late to the game, but in case anyone else has failed to tell you -- your statement above is 100% wrong.

No.

What you provided was a re-hash of what other bible writers have claimed.

That isn't proof.

Sauron

In a discussion on evidence, it shouldn't matter what Amaleq13 believes.

You should be able to demonstrate, using evidence, that your position is right and that Amaleq13 is misguided.

Using *evidence*.

Your basis for the argument won't work here, because you are the only one who accepts it. You'll have to use *evidence* - not the quotations from other like-minded believers, but actual *evidence* - to persuade Amaleq13 or anybody else on this forum.

Does that make it any clearer?

Sauron

You are aware that there was no such widespread captivity, right? The upper class, some artisans and the priestly class were taken to Babylon. But the vast majority of the Hebrews stayed right where they were - in Israel and Judah.

Moreover, the prophesied captivity in Babylon (of 70 years duration) was not, in fact, 70 years long.

1. Except that Babylon was not destroyed - contrary to the claims of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel - it was a peaceful transition and the city remained a functioning metropolis;

2. It was the reign of the Persians, actually. Ezekiel, Daniel and Isaiah all jumped the gun and picked the wrong kingdom to spearhead the invasion of Babylon - by the time of Cyrus II, the Medes had been subjugated and lost any claim to co-ruling status in the empire;

Because the people you are addressing here do not share your common ground of faith. Because of that, any attempts to base your apologetics in that ground of faith are doomed to failure.

You'll have to deal with the concrete evidence, if you want to persuade anyone.

itsamysteryhuh

Unfortunately, this forum is filled with both baseless assumptions and speculations, mdd344. I suppose that best suits the purpose here. :huh:

itsamysteryhuh

100% proof would not do much good here, Sauron, for it (proof of that which you do not want to believe) would require a change in some ways of life... which some would not have regardless of what the evidence may or may not show.

Sauron

I find that people without any proof often try to toss dark hints and assertions instead. It's their substitute for evidence.

My willingness to believe is not the problem. It's the weakness of the bible literalist position that is the problem here. And your wishful thinking won't change that fact, poptart.

spin

Some people go for evidence. It's no skin off one's nose if Daniel were written in the sixth century. It's no problem if the text is filled with mysteries that christian fundamentalists seem to need to have to elucidate. (Non-fundamentalists have a much more laid-back approach to the text.) It is skin off the literalist's nose. The situation can only be one way for them. The scholarly approach requires one to abandon positions that cannot be maintained and not to take on any position without sufficient evidence.


spin

mdd344

Spin,
Let me ask you a question. What is the real situation between those who claim the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century, and those who claim it was written in the 6th, on this site?

By that I mean, does the issue come down simply to a source vs. source approach? If not, why not? If so, exactly what is proved by such a situation, if anything, or if nothing?

Think about it.