Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 04-04-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Vatican 11 did a lot towards embracing evolution and casting a bad light on the authenticity of the Bible.

Talking about evolution... I note that you frequently post at IIDB, but avoid the unanswered threads in Ev/Cr like ... yeah, like what? ... perhaps as if Satan posted there?

(This brings me back to the old question how you can possibly know that it isn't you who is deceived by Satan. Perhaps you take this on ... faith?)

Oh, and BTW since J. P. Holding is the Hovind of Apologetics, I suggest not using him as a source - you will be only laughed at.

Toto · 04-04-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Heres one of them, I haven't verified the writings of Josephus on this but I will.

7) The testimony of Josephus. The Jewish historian records that Alex T. Great was shown a copy of Daniel when he passed through the Jewish realm. [see Meadw.ADGD, 189; Luck.Dan, 10] He was mightily impressed by the prophecy which referred to him, and treated the Jews kindly - as evidenced both by Josephus and otherwise known histories of the period. Josephus also affirms the content of the book of Daniel as historical and authentic[Verm.JosDan]. (Of course, we realize that critics will do as Porteous [Porte.Dan, 47] does - dismiss Josephus' account as biased or inaccurate!)

www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

Read my post above, please!

This passage from Josephus has as much credibility as Josephus' claim that a young cow gave birth to a lamb in the temple. (Wars 6.5.3) Josephus is just trying to puff up Judaism's authority by claiming that Alexander bowed down to his god. Why would you believe it?

Jim Larmore · 04-04-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Oh really? You mean that several books of the Apocrypha, the Community Scroll, the Habakkuk pesher, the Genesis Apocryphon, Noah, Jubilees, Enoch, etc. are also canonical?

The book of Daniel is placed in the Kethubhim or writings and is definetly canonized. Josephus referred to the book of Daniel as being prophetic. Jesus called attention to the book and referred to the author as "the prophet Daniel"

Quote:

So long, in fact, that there existed no such thing as a "canon" at the time you wish it to have been. Do you consider the Apocrypha canonical? If so, which books? 1 Enoch? The additions to Daniel? (That would make the book hardly "closed" or canonical, surely?) 4 Ezra? (What about the 74 books reserved for the wise?) If not, then what were some of them doing at Qumran? Shelved in a special section labelled "spurious"?

Actually, parcels of the book has been found in more than one cave and was considered by the Assenes ( ms ) as sacred writings. You can call it what you want by all practical standards the book was canonized by the time the book was placed in the writings or it wouldn't have been there.

Jim Larmore · 04-04-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We went through this before.

Josephus, writing in the late 1st century, composed a fable about Alexander the Great stopping by Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice to YWHW at the Temple and acknowledging the prophecy in Daniel. The story is not very credible, and has no support in any disinterested source.

Its seems kinda funny to me that you guys want to use the writings of Josephus when He aligns with your philosophies but say "he composed a fable" if it doesn't. Seems you do the same with Tacitus and others tool. Hummm, wonder how credible this makes your observations appear to the clear thinking open minded lurkers on this forum?

spin · 04-04-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Josephus referred to the book of Daniel as being prophetic.

...saying that the prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus IV.

spin

Jim Larmore · 04-04-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Daniel has to be read without any understanding of its historical context or guys like Jim who refuse to see the truth wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

spin

I'm completely comfortable with the historical context of this book you can check a few web-sites that give a favorable consideration of this book and see why I embrace the truth.

Look up www.tektonics.rog/af/danieldefense.html

this one actually gives some of the qumran translations
http://www.3dsxtreme.com/Bookof%20Daniel.htm

then theres www.home.earthlink.net/~ironmen/authen.htm

I could give you a lot more, but just take a walk on the truth side for a change and look at the evidence for authenticity instead of invalidation.

spin · 04-04-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Its seems kinda funny to me that you guys want to use the writings of Josephus when He aligns with your philosophies but say "he composed a fable" if it doesn't. Seems you do the same with Tacitus and others tool. Hummm, wonder how credible this makes your observations appear to the clear thinking open minded lurkers on this forum?

Did Paul write the Letter to the Laodiceans? Did John write the trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7? Did the gospel writer of John write the story of the woman accused of adultery? Did Mark write the text after 16:8? Ancient texts get corrupted and you have to live with that. Your job is not to blindly accept everything you find in a text, but to evaluate it to see whether it is credible and whether the writer could have known the information and who stands to gain from the data. A historian has to evaluate all source materials, otherwise s/he isn't doing history.

spin

Toto · 04-04-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

Its seems kinda funny to me that you guys want to use the writings of Josephus when He aligns with your philosophies but say "he composed a fable" if it doesn't. Seems you do the same with Tacitus and others tool. Hummm, wonder how credible this makes your observations appear to the clear thinking open minded lurkers on this forum?

Sorry - where have I appealed to Josephus as an authority? Josephus wrote a highly opinionated history of the Jewish people to justify them to the Romans. Christians then added (and probably subtracted) from what he wrote, so we are not even sure what exactly he reported. Everything he wrote needs to be examined critically before it is used as historical data, expecially when he has a clear motive to fabricate and is not reporting his own observations.

ex-preacher · 04-04-2005, 02:29 PM

I will admit this: of all the thousands of prophecies in the Bible, this is the only one I know of that comes anywhere close to an unexplained and perhaps miraculous prophecy. It still misses the mark by a few years, even using the most generous and pro-fulfillment assumptions. In view of the thousands of missed prophecies versus one almost-fulfilled prophecy, I think it's safe to say that this was just a lucky coincidence.

Jim, I still would like to see you address the comments I posted earlier from Curt van de whatshisname.

ex-preacher · 04-04-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Larmore

I'm completely comfortable with the historical context of this book you can check a few web-sites that give a favorable consideration of this book and see why I embrace the truth.

...

I could give you a lot more, but just take a walk on the truth side for a change and look at the evidence for authenticity instead of invalidation.

Do you think you will win us over by insulting us? Believe it or not, Jim, I also believe I "embrace the truth" and "walk on the truth side." That's why I left Christianity behind.

Please consider using more evidence and less condecension.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#29
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	I will admit this: of all the thousands of prophecies in the Bible, this is the only one I know of that comes anywhere close to an unexplained and perhaps miraculous prophecy. It still misses the mark by a few years, even using the most generous and pro-fulfillment assumptions. In view of the thousands of missed prophecies versus one almost-fulfilled prophecy, I think it's safe to say that this was just a lucky coincidence. Jim, I still would like to see you address the comments I posted earlier from Curt van de whatshisname.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.