Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 01-05-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Prophecy must:
...
3. Be fulfilled in a way that is clear and unequivocal. Mere prediction is no evidence of super –natural presence and power. It is the clear fulfillment of the prediction in an unmistakable fashion that proves its divine character (Shelly, p. 22).
...
H. The fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy takes place on the day of Pentecost (Approx. A.D. 29) f

JW:
I find this all Amazing! Not the prophecy fulfillment but your claim of prophecy fulfillment. You yourself give a criteria of "clear and unequivocal" yet in your prime example from Daniel no specific date is predicted and no specific date is claimed as fulfillment (I suppose there is an Ironic matching there). And God knows how your related explanation of why these unspecified dates are correct is "clear and unequivocal". You also confess to us that even Jesus' own disciples didn't understand what you claim to understand for Christ's sake.

While we continue to wait for "clear and unequivocal" proof you have the following Categories of evidence that Daniel is 2nd century BCE:

1) Predictive prophecy is Impossible. If there was such a thing Jesus wouldn't be in Heaven right now. He'd be in Vegas rolling away the stones, casting his die while saying, "C'mon, let's win Father a new pair of Jews. Damn! Snake-eyes."

2) There is no extant direct evidence of pre 2nd century BCE Daniel.

3) Anachronisms.

4) Wrong prophecy after the 2nd century BCE.

5) Fits the Style of 2nd century BCE.

I will now make my own prophecy which if correct will give me one more than John the Baptist had in his entire career whom Jesus called the greatest prophet of all time. You will soon understand why Apologists normally Avoid detail arguments here.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Sauron · 01-05-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

This is yet another remarkable statement, in that the evidence used hardly ranks as any certain proof. The source of this seems to come from the Dead Sea Scrolls’ fragment of “The Prayer of Nabonidus.” Archer states that many of the words and phrases of the prayer have to be supplied on a conjectural basis because they are missing in the original fragment in order to make it sound more like the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Archer, 1985, citing Harrison (1969) 1118-9) (Wikipedia also confirms this source).

Archer is wrong, and desperately reaching. And Wikipedia - a poor source at best - merely quotes Archer's claim. Actual historians know better, however:

The verses in the Book of Daniel (4,28-33) which attribute to Nebuchadrezzar a period of madness are clearly a corruption of the stories about Nabonidus; indeed a fragment from the recently discovered Qumran scrolls shows that other Jewish traditions assigned this long sojourn in the desert to the correct Babylonian king, ascribing to him a seven-year illness brought on by divine wrath.

Joan L. Oates. Babylon. Thames and Hudson, 1986. Page 133.

Oates is actually an Ancient Near East scholar, having written an enormous two-volume set on the topic of Babylon's long history.

Quote:

There are substantial differences in the affliction of Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar affliction was of the mind, while Nabonidus’ was a “burning” of the skin. Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment was because of his presumptuous crediting of what he had done to himself (Dan. 4) while Nabonidus’ affliction was supposedly due to idolatry. Nabonidus claimed that an exorcist pardoned his sin, while Nebuchadnezzar returned to normal when he recognized who God truly was—he required no human agent. Nabonidus had his malady in Tema, and Nebuchadnezzar had his in Babylon.

Which does not prevent them from being the same story. There is no guarantee that the story would get copied with all the details the same. From my article on Josh McDowell's classic bad treatise, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict":

Quote:

Problem 1: Kings Trading Places

In the fourth chapter of Daniel, we read a passage that implies that Nebuchadnezzar was made temporarily insane because he refused to honor and acknowledge the Hebrew god:

DAN 4:28 All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.

DAN 4:29 At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon.

DAN 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?

DAN 4:31 While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.

DAN 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

DAN 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.

This same story is repeated in Daniel 5:19-21. But what does history itself tell us?

After Nebuchadnezzar, there was a period of disarray in Babylon; many rulers came to the throne, albeit for brief reigns. Nebuchadnezzar's son, Amel-Marduk (the biblical Evil-Merodach) was first; he was followed by Nergal-sharra-usur (biblical Neriglissar). Still others followed these two men; but all of these rulers had very short reigns. Nabonidus was the first true successor to Nebuchadnezzar that was not immediately overthrown or killed.

In many ways, Nabonidus was an enigmatic and unlikely figure. As a monarch, he was more of a priestly scholar than a warrior or politician. His mother was a votaress of the moon god, Sin, which no doubt was an influence on his later life. Like his mother, he was a devoted follower of the cult of Sin. Nabonidus spent much time studying the religious rituals of Babylon's predecessors, the empires of Sumer and Akkad. At one point in his reign, we know that he went on a ten-year pilgrimage in the deserts of Arabia, in obedience to a divine command that he is said to have received in a dream. Perhaps he also was building military or trade alliances with the Arabs against the Persians; there are records of a base being built at Taima. The details of Nabonidus' sojourn in the deserts have puzzled historians and archaeologists for many years; to this day, the reasons for his long absence from Babylon are still not clear.

No matter what his reasons for going, however, Nabonidus' long absence had several effects back in Babylon, effects that form the background of events here. First, during his absence, Nabonidus placed his son Belshazzar on the throne, to rule as co-regent. Second, the king's long absence meant that the New Year's Festival could not be celebrated in Babylon. (More information about this particular festival will come later. For now, suffice it to say that an important annual feast-event was canceled for several years in a row, while the king was away in a foreign country.)

So evidently, there was a well-known story of a Babylonian king going into the desert on a divine quest. In Daniel, however, we see that the details have been transposed and mistakenly associated with a different king, Nebuchadnezzar, instead of Nabonidus. It is interesting to note that other Jewish sources actually get the details of this story correct:

The verses in the Book of Daniel (4,28-33) which attribute to Nebuchadrezzar a period of madness are clearly a corruption of the stories about Nabonidus; indeed a fragment from the recently discovered Qumran scrolls shows that other Jewish traditions assigned this long sojourn in the desert to the correct Babylonian king, ascribing to him a seven-year illness brought on by divine wrath.

How did this transposition occur?

When dealing with ancient sources; it is not uncommon for the details of one person's life to become grafted onto a different person's life. Tales about real historical people who did great deeds are recycled and used elsewhere. These heroic legends often contain telltale echoes of the actual historical events. The factual details of those events are dimly remembered, of course; but that misses the point: the heroic tale is a morality play; not a biography. The life-lesson that the tale illustrates is the important thing.

The Norse poem The Lay of Atli provides an example from another culture. In that saga, we read about the great Germanic warrior Atli, as well as the deeds of other players such as Gunnar and Jormunrek. Woven throughout the whole tale, we see mythological heroes such as Sigmund and Sigurd, who perform impossible feats and win renown for themselves. We also observe the behind-the-scene machinations of the gods, working their will through the actions of the players, rewarding some, while punishing others. Surprisingly enough, The Lay of Atli has some basis in historical fact and actual historical figures. But is that enough to accept it as an ancient testimony to factual history?

Not at all. Just because a story starts with factual history, that is no guarantee that the story will conclude with all those facts fully intact. For example, the real Atli was actually not a Germanic warrior at all; the name is a corruption of Attila, the selfsame Hun who overran Europe. Gunnar, Gudrun's brother, is a corruption of Gundicar, king of the Burgundians. Another character in this Norse poem, Jormunrek, is actually Ermanaric, king of the Goths. Any interaction between Ermanaric and Attila is, of course, flatly impossible; we know Ermanaric died 59 years before Attila ever became king of the Huns. Other historical impossibilities also surface in The Lay of Atli. Sigurd's father is referred to as the king of the Franks; yet Sigurd himself is referred to as the king of the Huns. Gunnar's historical predecessor (Gundicar) was king of the Burgundians; yet Gunnar himself is impossibly referred to in this tale as king of the Goths. In spite of all these errors and transpositions of detail, the story stubbornly continues, oblivious to the twisted history it contains.

The parallels between the book of Daniel and The Lay of Atli are obvious. Both are great tales, recounted to bind a people together with a sense of common destiny. They both have a hazy connection to historical facts; but they are not reliable history. We cannot take the events in either one at face value. As always, the skeptical, critical approach is best.

Moving along.....

Quote:

The actual record of Nebuchadnezzar, found on tablets by archeologists, show the king to suggest a period of about 4 years where he accomplished nothing in his kingdom. This very well may be proof that the 3 ½ years of which Daniel writes concerning this ‘madness’ took place.

You're going to have to support this claim of a gap in the record of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

Sauron · 01-05-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I located this quote on the teachinghearts website, including the misspelling. But the webpage for "Nadine Gordimer" does not exist, and I suspect there has been some confusion there.

Indeed. Nadine Gordimer isn't likely to have ever done such research either; she's a Nobel-prize winning fiction writer.

I occasionally find totally unrelated citations from non-relevant works or authors when I examine apologetic sources; this appears to be one of them.

rlogan · 01-05-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

One can line up the skeptics on one side, and those that oppose them on the other—and the field is split on this topic.

One can line up all the skeptics on one side flipping the bird at your imaginary God, and demonstrating what a total pussy he is while the true believers are on the other whining "oh, but see he's so powerful and awesome that I have to spend my life conjuring up fantastical myths from thousands of years ago..."

They guy can't even fry an egg.

What a loser.

neilgodfrey · 01-05-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Conclusion:

The above represents merely a ‘drop in the bucket’ as far as evidence goes in answering any objections to the Book of Daniel, its predictive prophecy, and its 500’s B.C. origin.

I think it's too small a drop to have answered my objections to your interpretation of Daniel 2 -- Post # 109 in this thread.

You may think they are just "little" questions that mean nothing in the big scheme of things. But I suspect if we are completely honest with such little things then it would be impossible to build such grand prophetic scenarios in the first place. But that would not be nearly as much fun, I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

[B]It is a fact that not one piece of archeological evidence has ever proved the Bible to be wrong.

Questions of historical methodology have called statements like this into question. See In Search of Ancient Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

The work of the heretic Porphyry to discredit the Book of Daniel (304 A.D.)was defeated solidly by the time of Jerome. The book of Daniel remained unquestioned for thousands of years following, and it was not until the 17th century that the work begins to be questioned.

This is scary rhetoric. It reads like godless questions began to raise their ugly heads from the 17th century.

Are you suggesting it was to humanity's credit that for the last of those "thousands of years" most were kept in ignorance to know enough to ask questions while others risked their lives if they did ask questions?

Or that we would be better off if we were no more enlightened than ancients to know enough to ask critical questions?

Or that we should not go beyond the scholarship of the Church Fathers such as Jerome?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

There is one, and only one, reason why the book is resisted so strongly. IF the Book were accepted as genuine and authentic, the predictive prophecy within would constitute unavoidable proof of a divine being (i.e. God).

If you believe this then you do not believe that anyone asking critical questions of Daniel and arriving at answers different from yours has anything except a wilfully perverse motive. But this is what the Bible expects of you. Anyone who does not agree with it is by nature blind, ignorant or sinful. This is Taliban mentality. There is no difference in attitude from fundamentalist biblical mentality -- the only difference being the specific doctrines pushed. I know, because I once argued the same sorts of things as you are, and with the same zeal and certainty as you demonstrate. My last "prayer to god" was: "If you are going to send me to hell for disbelieving in you and your bible when I am simply being as honest as I can be with all the evidence available to me, then you are not worthy of any respect."

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

mdd344 · 01-05-2007, 07:47 PM

Neil,
The atttidue of "enlightenment" that began to be prevalent in the 17th century (German rationalists) has pervaded our world in a negative way. It is never bad to ask questions. It is bad to take first the assumption that miracles and such cannot exist, and then go and try and make that stick.

Here is what history of philosophy.com says about it in part:

Quote:

"As has been noted in the preceding paragraph, German Rationalism had strong affinities with English Deism and French Materialism, two historic forms in which the tendency has manifested itself. But with the vulgarization of the ideas contained in the various systems that composed these movements, Rationalism has degenerated. It has become connected in the popular mind with the shallow and misleading philosophy frequently put forward in the name of science, so that a double confusion has arisen, in which; questionable philosophical speculations are taken for scientific facts, and
science is falsely supposed to be in opposition to religion. This Rationalism is now rather a spirit, or attitude, ready to seize upon any arguments, from any source and of any or no value, to urge against the doctrines and practices of faith. Beside this crude and popular form it has taken, for which the publication of cheap reprints and a vigorous propaganda are mainly
responsible, there runs the deeper and more thoughtful current of
critical-philosophical Rationalism, which either rejects religion and revelation
altogether or treats them in much the same manner as did the Germans. Its
various manifestations have little in common in method or content, save the
general appeal to reason as supreme. "

The German Rationalists were the ones who begin to question the Bible, and to suggest that miracles did not exist. Until their existance, even "smart" and well educated people understood the facts, that the Bible is from God.

mod note: The above quote is not from "history of philosophy.com" - it is from New Advent and is reprinted on Jason Gastrich's site. History-of-Philosophy has a different treatment.

Gullwind · 01-05-2007, 07:48 PM

Regarding Darius the Mede, mdd344 said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

This objection to Daniel must be rejected simply because there is not enough evidence either way to draw any specific conclusion.

Then you can hardly claim it as a fulfilled prophecy, can you?

Amaleq13 · 01-05-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Bad move quoting from an apologetic source without first checking to see if they are being honest. Josephus says no such thing.

But the name "Cyaxares" is technically part of the text but it wasn't written by Josephus and is found in an endnote criticizing him. It also isn't in reference to the cited passage but to 10.2.2.

"This expression of Josephus, that the Medes, upon this destruction of the Assyrian army, "overthrew" the Assyrian empire, seems to be too strong; for although they immediately cast off the Assrian yoke, and set up Deioces, a king of their own, yet it was some time before the Medes and Babylonians overthrew Nineveh, and some generations ere the Medes and Persians under Cyaxares and Cyrus overthrew the Assyrian or Babylonian empire, and took Babylon." From (Early Jewish Writings)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The Biblical Flood cannot be verified because it did not happen (the Smithsonian know this). This is only one of many parts of the Bible that are NOT accurate historical documents (the Smithsonian know this). On the other hand... parts of the Bible are indeed accurate (and everyone knows this).

For reference: Smithsonian's Statement on the Bible.

Sauron · 01-05-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Neil,
The atttidue of "enlightenment" that began to be prevalent in the 17th century (German rationalists) has pervaded our world in a negative way.

On the contrary. It has been responsible for most of the improvements in mankind's understanding, health, and standard of living.

Quote:

It is never bad to ask questions. It is bad to take first the assumption that miracles and such cannot exist, and then go and try and make that stick.

The position is that miracles have never occurred, and so far no one has brought forth any contrary evidence for them. So why not be the first to do so? All you need to shoot them down is proof of a miracle.

Quote:

This Rationalism is now rather a spirit, or attitude, ready to seize upon any arguments, from any source and of any or no value, to urge against the doctrines and practices of faith.

Nonsense. And if you're doing to try and discuss the history of western philosophy, you'd be well advised to spend more than 30 minutes in a web search.

Quote:

The German Rationalists were the ones who begin to question the Bible, and to suggest that miracles did not exist.

1. Wrong. People questioned miracles long before that time. Of course, the Church tended to punish them for doing so.

2. It doesn't matter when people started to question claims of miracles; I'm not sure why you would bring it up - if people accepted a claim for a thousand years, do you think that somehow makes the claim solid? People accepted for thousands of years that the earth was flat and that demons cause disease. Because a belief is old does not make it correct. So instead of focusing on *when* people started to question the bible, you'd do better to focus on what is being said. After all, all that matters is whether or not the objections being raised are valid or not.

Quote:

Until their existance, even "smart" and well educated people understood the facts, that the Bible is from God.

"The facts"? I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself here, pardner. The statement above is what you hope to prove here - but so far you haven't done that.

The Evil One · 01-05-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Neil,
The German Rationalists were the ones who begin to question the Bible, and to suggest that miracles did not exist. Until their existance, even "smart" and well educated people understood the facts, that the Bible is from God.

You cannot simply point out that the German rationalists proposed a view that no one before them had proposed, and expect this to stand as evidence that they were incorrect. Every viewpoint, every idea was new once.

If you want to suggest that the German rationalists were wrong, you will have to examine WHY they decided what they did, and point out exactly where the flaws in their reasoning are to be found.

Or, alternatively, since no one on this thread is a member of that particular philosophical movement, you could actually address the arguments in question.

You are, once again, falling victim to your inability to distinguish an assumption from a conclusion. You are attacking the assumption that there are no miracles, whereas (if you hope to convince anyone here) you need to attack the conclusion that there are no miracles.

Since the conclusion that there are no miracles is based solely on the lack of evidence for miracles, you can do this quite simply by providing evidence for one or more miracles.

You clearly understand this, since that is what you were trying to do in showing Daniel to be miraculously prophetic. Having failed ot do this, you have now fallen back on the assertion that the only reason we don't believe you is because we have made an assumption that there are no miracles.

I assure you that I for one have made no such presumption and if you present me with adequate evidence for a miracle - whether a miraculous prophecy in Daniel or any other miracle - I will beleive it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.