FunkyRes

This is a flaw because it assumes that predictive prophecy is not possible, and that can not be proven.

In fact, just the opposite has a lot of support.

Have you heard of Morphology?
It's a linguistic method of breaking down words into what are called Morphenes, which are the smallest components that have meaning.

This can be used to see how a language evolves and can be quite effectively used to date the writing of a text.

They applied this to the Aramaic in Daniel, comparing it's morphology with that of other aramaic documents found at Qumran that they know are from 2nd/3rd century BC and found that the Aramaic in Daniel requires it was written several hundred years earlier.

This poses a serious problem for the late date theorists as this would be extremely difficult to fake, especially since Morphology has been developed in recent history, and the concept of which morphenes to use would not have been known to the author of Daniel.

This places a serious problem for those who hold to the unproven philosophy that predictive prophecy is not possible, because Morphology is pretty much a science.

At any rate, I do not agree that predictive prophecy is not possible- I'm not that closed minded.

So unless you can prove that it is not possible to me, then arguements from that philosophy are useless.

Vorkosigan

This is a flaw because it assumes that predictive prophecy is not possible, and that can not be proven.

Flaw or not, it is the basic assumption of all modern scholarship and science. You challenge it, you put up the evidence.

In fact, just the opposite has a lot of support.

ROTFL. There are no substantiated specific divine prophecies.

Have you heard of Morphology?
It's a linguistic method of breaking down words into what are called Morphenes, which are the smallest components that have meaning.

The would be a "morpheme"

They applied this to the Aramaic in Daniel, comparing it's morphology with that of other aramaic documents found at Qumran that they know are from 2nd/3rd century BC and found that the Aramaic in Daniel requires it was written several hundred years earlier.

"They" are wrong. The text was written around 165, as it refers to events of that era. This is well-known scholarship.

This poses a serious problem for the late date theorists as this would be extremely difficult to fake, especially since Morphology has been developed in recent history, and the concept of which morphenes to use would not have been known to the author of Daniel.

Of course, there is another, simpler answer: your analyst, whoever "they" was, has screwed up, or deliberately slanted his analysis.

This places a serious problem for those who hold to the unproven philosophy that predictive prophecy is not possible, because Morphology is pretty much a science.

Hmmmm...methodological naturalism is a proven method for giving reliable and useful information about the world. Its up to you to prove that the last 500 or so years of western science are in error. Methodological naturalism is confirmed by success; divine prophecy is disconfirmed by its long record of failure in hundreds of cultures around the world. If something fails thousands of times, and also violates known natural laws, what more do we need to say it is a wrong concept?

At any rate, I do not agree that predictive prophecy is not possible- I'm not that closed minded.

It is good to see that you're open-minded. Just don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out. As for me, I shall continue to require evidence that prophecy works.

So unless you can prove that it is not possible to me, then arguements from that philosophy are useless.

They may certainly be useless in convincing you. But they convince the vast majority of scholars and scientists. There's is no need for me to prove anything, I've got 500 years of science on my side. You will need powerful evidence to overturn that.

Are you going to address my other points?

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

Vorkosigan-

Isn't it called circular reasoning when you evidence of A because you accept B without proof and B says that A is not possible?

How hypocritical of you skeptics.
How hypocritical.

FunkyRes

I should correct myself-

Not all skeptics believe that non falsifiable arguements are valid.

So it is not hypocritical of skeptics, just hypocrytical of you.

That is what you are saying, btw- that morphology MUST be incorrect in this instance WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE because you hold to the notion that predictive prophecy is impossible WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

That's called a non falsifiable claim, and science rejects that notion.

Vorkosigan

Yes, but we don't accept B without proof. The success of methodological naturalism in producing reliable and useful knowledge about reality is validation of its correctness. Skeptics would dump methodological naturalism in a flash if you could offer a more successful system.

Are you going to address my other points? There are many reasons to consider Acts much later than 62. I gave several.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

You're all over the place here, FunkyRes. A non-falsifiable claim is one that cannot be tested in a way that might disconfirm it. "There is an invisible massless pink unicorn" in the room is non-falsifiable. The date of writing of the book of Daniel is based on sound, and falsifiable, methodology.

I do not reject the possibility of prophecy in the Book of Daniel on methodological naturalism alone. I reject it because (1) Daniel is a well-known Middle Eastern legendary figure that the Hebrews borrowed in their sojourn abroad (2) There are numerous historical errors in Daniel. For example Dan 1:1 offers a famous one. Another famous one is the confusion over who conquored Babylon, which Daniel gets wrong. Belshazzar was never the king of Babylon. And so on. This would suggest that Daniel did not live at that time, but at a later date (3) Daniel seems very knowledgeable about events of the 2nd century (4) There is no mention of Daniel in the records of Bablyon.

Note that this is a settled issue among scholars; only a few extremely conservative scholars still put Daniel in the sixth century; the vast majority of scholars put it in the second.

Please refer to the debate between Hatcher and Till in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/1/index.shtml" target="_blank">The Skeptical Review</a>. Sounds scholarship underpinned by sound methodology, assigns the book of Daniel a second-century date. If your scholar believes the Aramaic is from an earlier date (not all of Daniel was written in that language) please supply us with a proper citation and a more detailed presentation of his argument.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

Why did Mark definately write after AD 70?

The dates I am familiar with are all pre temple destruction- some suggesting as early as 50 AD though most between 60 and 70 AD.

So that would not be a problem for Luke to be pre temple destruction either.

Vorkosigan

Again, nobody but very conservative scholars dates Mark so early. The vast majority of datings fall after 70, and the text is intimately familiar with the destruction of Jerusalem and its aftermath. There are too many indications to list here. See Peter Kirby's discussion of Mark at <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com." target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com.</a>

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes

You are a skeptic of the authenticity of the Bible.
I am a skeptic of modern liberal scholarship.

I guess that makes us both skeptics

At any rate- I will start a new thread in a few minutes (well- probably more) as this is drifting off of the topic of evidence for a census.

Sauron

[quote]Originally posted by FunkyRes:
[QB]

This is a flaw because it assumes that predictive prophecy is not possible, and that can not be proven.

In fact, just the opposite has a lot of support.

Yes, I have. And so has copernicus - are you out there, copernicus? :-)

Morphemes.


Hold it right there. Explain this claim, step by step.



Show the proof.


No, it isn't. Linguistic study is not nearly as bedrock as physics or chemistry. You're inflating the abilities of linguistic analysis, in an effort to make your position on Daniel seem stronger than it really is.

Predictive prophecy - the claim that this is impossible isn't a philosophy. It's an established scientific position, bolstered by (among other things) a total lack of confirming examples.

It's one thing to be open-minded.
It's entirely another thing to be empty-headed.

You seem to have this backwards. It's up to YOU to prove that such prophecy is possible. You are the one making the affirmative claim here; it's up to you to support that position.