Jack the Bodiless

...And what would these "disadvantages" be?

It seems that you are again hinting that there is evidence which indicates an early authorship of Daniel: evidence which contradicts the notion of a 2nd-century-BC authorship.

And yet, as far as I can see, you still haven't presented any. Maybe you should?
Well, no, the whole point of the "musical instruments" argument is that the four Greek musical instruments were NOT in vogue in the Persian court in the 5th century BC. This is a rather well-known "disadvantage" of the EARLY-authorship position. So why did you bring it up? And even if all of them WERE in vogue in the Persian court at that time: so what?

Quite a lot of modern books set in pre-industrial times mention horses, a form of transport which was in vogue then. If such a book says that "Mordred's tanks and horses surged into battle against Arthur's knights", does this represent a "disadvantage" for the theory of a modern authorship of this book?

John A. Broussard

Interesting, but I wonder if you could answer the question I asked earlier:

"Additional message to bfniii: And if god does heal people, why doesn't she/he/it ever restore a missing limb?"

Thank you.

bfniii

this is not an accurate representation of my position. i haven't negated what the bible says and "clear" is subjective. "therefore" in verse 23 could include anything prior to that but you haven't shown that it should only include verse 22. this is just one example of misrepresentation. we can discuss the others if you like.

does that include the non-christians in these forums who criticize the bible? can i quote you anytime someone is misinterpreting daniel or ezekiel?

is this also true of non-christians who don't believe the claims of christianity? do they operate from this bias?

this is an irrelevant comment. the charge i made was that it is insufficient to judge God's desires concerning the fate of mankind from just this one passage of this one book.

John A. Broussard

You're implying that more than one passage is necessary to explain god's desires.

Do you have a specific number in mind? Two, six, twenty?

And if they contradict each other, how do we decide which one(s) to accept?

Just generally, how do we know that the bible is a way of finding out what god desires?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions.

Johnny Skeptic

No one knows what God's desires actually are. Hearsay evidence is bad enough in court trials, but the notion of human proxies claiming to speak for God is patently absurd. What evidence do you have that God was good in tangible ways during the time of Jesus, and today as well?

Sven

You are becoming more and more ridiculous. Everyone should look up the verses and judge for himself if it's possible that verse 23 refers to more than to verse 22. Besides, I didn't even argue about this.
Apart from this, you entirely ignored my main point: That you are the only one advocating this interpretation of Genesis I've talked to so far. Since you claimed: "apparently, the metanarrative is accepted by christians and jews all over the world.", I expect some support for this acceptance, which goes contrary to my experience.

Sure. One can. Doesn't mean in anyway that every reading is equally reasonable and actually based on the text.

Umm, you may notice that it's rather the other way round: People deconvert because they can no longer make sense of their reading of the bible; they are no longer able to force-fit their beliefs on the text. That's called "honesty", you know. So the bias, as you call it, obviously isn't there; they were still Christians when they realized their cognitive dissonance.

Not at all. If people can not determine god's plan by reading more (all) books, it's pretty useless to read more than one.

spin

Can I quote you, bfniii, on that strange day when you actually get an interpretation of Daniel or Ezekiel right?


spin

bfniii

not the volcano, jack. even today, snake handlers know how to coax a snake into a staff-like, rigid position. then, at the right moment, they can snap the snake out of it thus making a "staff" appear to turn into a snake. there are different theories for each of the miracles.

what are we trying to accomplish by pursuing this line of questioning?

i tell you what, when you come up with a reason that ezekiel was only referring to that set of walls and no others, then you might have a case.

"many nations" aren't necessarily going to the be the ultimate downfall as ezekiel does not specifically say so. what ezekiel does say is that God will be the final judgment.

that may be, but the verses you cite aren't referring to the place.

tyre as ezekiel knew it is gone. therefore, it did pass.

this apparently occurred on the mainland thus fulfilling that part of the prophecy.

referring to the city-state which was fulfilled in at least three ways.

since you're so fond of literal readings, notice the word "like" meaning the language is metaphorical. he is saying the city-state will be uninhabited "like" desolate cities. additionally, we see literal examples of this being fulfilled in nebuchadnezzar clearing out the mainland and alexander clearing out the island. even if there were people who escaped to sidon and returned (which you haven't expounded on yet), the prophecy was fulfilled.

fulfilled in multiple ways; nebuchadnezzar, alexander, "many nations" and God's wrath.

some do, some don't.

the chapter does not specify that nebuchadnezzar or alexander would be the only instruments of this end result. they fulfilled their part.

some people think there is. what kind of evidence would you require? this evidence would take what shape?

you seem to claim that morality comes from social evolution? where does the idea of society come from?

you are assuming that said god does not have a good reason for allowing pain. additionally, making such a statement requires smuggled-in authority.

oh my word. would the subject actually learn anything? in your scenario the answer is no because God has forced the subject to ineluctably accept a lesson by intellectually raping them.

you are jumbling two different ideas. the respect of choice is identified in the choice of the person who commits the wrong. the consequences of such choices often impact people other than that person. this is part of the uncertainty of this life and God can use such circumstances for ultimate good.

as i stated in the example above, no we don't. humans and animals alike commit all kinds of atrocities against our own kind. the instinct to preserve ourselves often overrides the instinct to preserve the species. even that instinct fails when a person commits suicide.

again, where does the idea of fair play come from? where does the idea of atrocity come from? where does the idea of society come from?

this line started by you claiming that human laws not being applicable to God means that God is unjust by human standards. i am asking you what is "just"?

the only struggle here is that i ask a question and you don't answer it. the bible does not say that God is opposed to punishing people for the crimes of others contrary to your "bible says no" list. however, it is unlawful for people to condemn innocent poeple as outlined in deut 24:16. you say this is a rare example. how many examples do you require the bible to have and why?

in the leviticus passage, "anything which a man sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has," refers to volunteering. the person has volunteered not only himself, but his entire being.

all men devoted to destruction must be sacrificed. this does not include firstborn.

there are theories that range from 2000bc to 10000bc. as i stated in another forum, the flood can't be accurately dated because we currently lack the info to do so.

i'm not the one stating that the text says something it doesn't. when you find a translation of the bible that includes "only because" or "for no other reason" or some other variation, then you might have a point.

but it is clearly not explicit and you haven't been able to show that the bible says that your cited reason is the only reason.

this is simply an appeal to numbers which you either can't comprehend or do not wish to address. i have tried to get you to respond to the fact that there were and still are JEWS who accept Jesus as messaiah. so once again, which set of jews is correct and why?

probably because you keep appealing to numbers and can't or won't state why you think the jews who reject Jesus are right and the ones who don't are wrong. wait, i can already guess your response; "because there are more of the ones who reject Jesus, therefore the larger group is right".

it's well known that your representation isn't completely accurate as we have already discussed. if you would respond to my earlier rebuttal instead of just repeating your belief as is it were fact, we might get somewhere.

i'm sure that there are some jews who would disagree with you. so what do you say to the ones who believe the torah is an accurate representation of their monotheistic history? keep in mind that you earlier set them up as authoritative by claiming "it's reasonable to suppose that they understand THEIR religion." now you seem to be claiming the opposite.

spin

Asherah and Ashteroth were two distinct goddesses. Ashteroth is found as Astarte to the Greeks and Ishtar to the Mesopotamians. Asherah, also found as Ashirta in the Amarna Letters, was more prevalent in Judea, where one finds at Kuntillet Ajrud an inscription which has "Yahweh and his Asherah". Asherah here was Yahweh's consort. We have garbled information about Asherah in the HB, though we find that she had priests and a carved symbol in the form of a tree, which was equated to the goddess by the writers. At Ugarit the two goddesses existed side by side, but Ashteroth apparently had little impact in Judea, though in late Hellenistic times she was combined with Asherah.


spin

bfniii

it most certainly does not. uncertainty is an important human experience and for you to claim that it is evil diminishes the human condition. furthermore, good can come from such uncertainty. you here obviate that resulting good. last, you seem to think God does not have a good reason to allow such events. why do you believe that?

that's just it; THERE IS NO HUMAN STANDARD. no two people are going to completely agree on every aspect of the human experience. there is no international law that is completely ecumenical in application and acceptance. therefore, it is fallacious to appeal to this non-existant law. human morality or jurisprudence is relative, subjective and ever-changing. so i ask you what is evil, justice or decency?

i've got news for you, there are some wackos out there that make this statement untrue. some people have killed their kids because they "loved" them. additionally, making such a statement requires smuggled-in authority. from where does this authority come?

God wants us to choose to live under His protection, but sometimes we choose not to. He respects that choice. furthermore, God allowing temporary suffering and pain does not mean He isn't protecting us.

He has explained in person. people didn't believe. even if He appeared to every single person every day there would be people who still wouldn't believe. if He appeared so much that there was no choice but to believe, then we wouldn't have freewill.

good. because if God acted according to your standards (or any person for that matter), He would be a pitifully finite and limited God.

don't you get it? that's our choice. we choose to be disobedient every day.

they are awful. but that doesn't make God awful. He allows suffering to remind us that this home is temporary.

this is an extremely subjective statement that you are unable to quantify or qualify. there are many people who disagree with you.

what you call noticeably tangible is subjective. to some people, there is noticeably tangible evidence. in addition, what proof do you have that there is more need today than in biblical times? this is another statement that can't be quantified. there isn't "more" or "less" evidence. there is different evidence.

you are quite presumptuous to speak for all christians. i personally disagree for stated reasons. besides, even if there are times when a christian would agree with this statement, i would respond by saying that it's good that God doesn't act according to our vascillating whims.

we have all the explanation we need. some people just don't accept it.

you assume that God doesn't speak directly to true christians.

because they're false? i don't think we have time to get into all the reasons other religions are false.