arnoldo

Is Jeremiah 29:10 also inaccurate, written after the fact, fiction, disproven by archaelogical/geological evidence ( I won't ask for your source) or all of the above?

makerowner

Josephus didn't have access to archaeology, nor could he read Babylonian documents AFAIK, meaning that his information on the subject was rather less than ours.

spin

What's the relevance? If you'd like to make a case for when Jeremiah was written, you might like to start another thread.

Please deal with my post on chapter 11, so that we can approach Daniel coherently. You seem to have a tendency to go off on tangents. If we can deal with one thing we can go on to others. So, do you have any problems with that post? Would you like to suggest a better scenario that covers all the information?


spin

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter. If a God exists, there is no way that he wants anyone to believe that he can predict the future. If President Bush was able to predict the future, and wanted to convince people to believe that he could predict the future, within one week he could easily convince at least 99% of people in the worth that he was able to predict the future.

There is no way that God used prophecy to stregthen the faith of Old Testament Jews. No Jew who lived during Ezekiel's time saw the Tyre prophecy fulfilled, nor did any Jew for several subsequent generations. If anything, that would have weakened the faith of Jews, and would have stregthened the faith of Tyrians who knew about the prophecy, especially when Nebuchadnezzar, who Ezekiel called "a king of kings," failed to defeat Tyre, and especially since God broke his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. When Alexander finally defeated Tyre, if anything, that would have weakened the faith of Jews who must have wondered why Ezekiel did not mention Tyre. Not only that, but any Jews who had just a modest amount of common sense would have known that historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the rule, not the exception to the rule.

No rational God would make disputable predictions when he could easily make indisputable predictions that would convince at least 99% of the people in the world that he is able to predict the future.

Have you ever wondered why there are not any credible records of Bible miracles from non-Christians sources? Please do not mention Josephus. Some of his writings provably contain interpolations, and those are only the interpolations that are obvious.

The New Testament says that the Pharisees claimed that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub. If we had some copies of writings by the Pharisees that confirmed that, that would be very helpful. The most convincing writings would be writings that were written by people who saw Jesus perform miracles, and rejected him, and said why they rejected him. That way, we would have an agreement from two opposing groups regarding what happened. If there were any such records, they would have been quite a prize for Jews to preserve. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have made sure that testimonies from hostile people confirmed what the Bible says.

Regarding the Ten Plagues in Egypt, the only record of them is in the Bible in spite of the fact that if they happened, they would easily have been the biggest news story in the entire world at that time. Travelers and traders who frequently visited Egypt would have carried the new far and wide. Many historians would have recorded the events, but yet only the Bible mentions the Ten Plagues, and quite conveniently I might add, and much too coincidentally to be believable. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have made certain that some records would have survived from hostile or neutral sources. The very best source is a hostile or a neutral source. Proof of that is that the Ten Plagues would have been much more believable if ten non-Jewish historians had recorded them than if the Bible writers recorded them.

It was God's fault that there was confusion regarding whether or not Jesus was the messiah, not the Jews' fault. That is because God could easily have prevented confusion by inspiring Old Testament writers to make better predictions. Micah 5:2 says "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." God could have made it clear that the ruler would rule a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom.

Regarding the claim that the Pharisees said that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub, God could have made it clear that Jesus would heal people by his (God's) power.

God could have made many other predictions that would have left no doubt in most people's minds that Jesus was the messiah.

Of course, there is no way that the Pharisees could have said that Jesus healed people by the power of Beelzebub. Exodus 15:26 says "And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee." Deuteronomy 32:39 says "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Psalm 103:3 says "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases." Psalm 107:20 says "He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions."

God deceived the Jews. They expected a ruler who would rule in this life, and they did not get one. They also expected a genetic descendant of David, and then did not get one since Jesus was supposedly conceived by the Holy Spirit. They also expected that one day, Jews would have a homeland of their own whether they would not be bothered by anyone. That is not going to happen. In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. Since 2 Samuel 7:10 can never be fulfilled in this life, and since it refers to this life, it is a false prophecy. If you wish to claim that Jews will make peace with Muslims, I will remind you that the New Testament says that there will always be wars and rumors of wars in this life. The Middle East was certainly not excluded in that prediction.

Even if God did choose the Jews to be his chosen people, I do not approve of favoritism. I also do not approve of God punishing Jewish babies for their parents' disobedience. I also do not approve of God forcing animals to kill each other, and people. I also do not approve of God punishing people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. I also do not approve of God forcing people to sin. God has ensured that everyone has to sin at least some of the time by genetically passing on a sinful nature to everyone in every generation. Thus, God essentially demands that in order for people to go to heaven, they have to become saved from sins that he forced them to commit, not particular sins, but sins none the less.

arnoldo

Ok, I'll do more research and start another thread in a future date. However since Daniel reads the prophecy of Jeremiah it is relevant to this thread. Can we trust the following archaelogical evidence?
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore..._delivery.aspx

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter since God does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future. Some skeptics would be happy to discuss Jeremiah 29:10 with you if you start a new thread. Are you going to do that?

Prophecy is one of the worst possible defenses of Christianity because Christians cannot produce reasonable motives why God refuses to make predictions that are indisputable. No reasonable motives = no God of the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter since even if spin ended up agreeing with you he could defeat you with the following arguments that I posted:

spin

Yes, obviously the writers of Daniel use the Jeremiah passage about the 70 years and then change it to seventy weeks (of years). Jeremiah is merely a starting point for Daniel and not directly relevant to anything we have been dealing with.

Sure, why not? It's not relevant to Daniel and won't help very much in dating Jeremiah either. It merely provides an earliest possible dating. You need a latest possible dating being the 6th century BCE.


spin

arnoldo

Thank you for illustrating that prophecy will never convince anyone to believe in God, in fact it was never meant to. First any prophecy in the past that came true was obviously written after the fact. Secondly, if it was announced that the third Jewish temple was going to be built, it would be a self-fulfilled prophecy and just due to the Israel having a superior military to enforce it's political will. Thirdly since your morality(from a flatlanders perspective of a higher dimensional being) does not equal God's morality(morality of BiblicalGod, Yeshua, his believers, church, whatever) God does not exist .

juergen

Incoming Strawman from another thread!

I think it would be fair for anyone using this argument to apply it to oneself as well, not just "the others who are wrong." If flatlanders can't understand a higher dimensional being, it must be true of all flatlanders. Or so you argued. In one post you say you can't make sense of how God's sense morality in the Old Testament makes any sense because we're you're a "flatlander" but in another one you say you can.

But there's the Holy Spirit. Well, let's see, let's be fair and look at all of Christianity, all different existing denominations in the real world, that write real books defending their theology contra other real denominations' theology, sold in real bookstores.

It seems different groups have different moral absolutes. For example, some denominations say wine is of the devil, others say wine is a-ok. Insert ANY topic with diverging opinions, it's always the same.

Each of these groups testifies to being led by the same Spirit. The only sense I can make out of that is that, best case scenario the Spirit doesn't really care and doesn't bother to intervene and fix this problem. Why does it make sense to assume this?

For one, each group testifies to being led by God and feel peace. One could argue that other Christians are just deluding themselves and that it's just a feeling they have, but by which objective standard can you say that you are right, and the other is wrong?

For two, each group has the same set of subjective arguments - interpretations that make best sense to them in the context of cultural norms. You can't walk away from this, you can't ignore that this is not part of the process. You are part of it, and live according to it.

There is a whole lotta stuff that could happen to convince skeptics - assuming your argument for God is the correct one, one could easily conclude that God would know exactly how each person would react favorably, and he'd have the means to do it. But he doesn't, since we don't see skeptics left and right converting out of being convinced. How could you possibly know what could and what could not convince a skeptic?

Do you really claim to understand those "higher ways" that are not really "your ways"? On what merits? Why would you be right about it, and others wrong? A feeling you have about it? A certain sense of peace?

Welcome to all religion's evidence that authenticates their own text.

I'm sorry for jumping onto this tangent, but let's be fair and reasonable to what standards we adopt.