Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bernard Muller · 10-07-2003, 05:18 PM

Jim wrote:
I would like to ask your opinion on the prophecy of Daniel 2 ... [Snipped]

You came to the right place again Jim, because I have a very detailed two pagers on the prophecies in 'Daniel'. Dare to read it (and I mean read, not browse!)?
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/daniel.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 10-07-2003, 07:37 PM

Jim wrote:
I think in some cases where you show Parenthetically a "Q" correction or complementation is "speculation" more than credible evidence for "Q". The writers redaction doesn't necessarily indicate a "Q" correction or complimentation of any passage. I'm not saying you indicate that but its almost apparent behind what you are saying and commenting on. Editing is something all writers do and these apparent corrections could be simply the work of the writers themselves.

Let me be clear on that:
I said the Q authors complemented, "corrected" (embarrassments), added, embellished, all of that on GMark, which they knew already.
I did not say that Q was interpolated by later "editors", if it is what you are trying to say.

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore · 10-08-2003, 06:41 AM

Gregg,
I believe you have as a philosophical approach to the Bible of something that is known as onery agnostism. You not only don't know but you will not be convinced. True agnostics keep an open mind and are willing to learn what is true.Your facitious statement about empire raising was noted and shows you do not have an open mind. The point I was trying to make is this. If you and all those like you put all of history to the same scrutinizing criteria as you do the Bible then we would have to invalidate most of history as " unprovable, rediculous and unbelieveable"

There is ample evidence of authentic Biblical claims found in archeological digs, as a matter of fact I was reading a statement made by an outstanding jewish archeologist recently who said "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference."
The Bible and its prophecies are accurate and show authenticity and a basis for my faith. This is my choice , your choice is to close your mind to the possibilities that the Bible is actually right. When you talk about the miracles Jesus performed keep in mind that to God there are no miracles. Thats correct ,,,, To God there are no miracles because He knows and understands all. To us its miraculous because the occurrence is outside the realm of our understanding and comprehension at this time. Maybe like radio waves or computers would be to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson if they were transported to our time.

I won't try to convince you of the validity of the Bible based on the incredible evidence found in the dead sea scrolls, evidence found in ancient tombs, or anything like this because you can't convince someone who has a closed mind.

Jim Larmore · 10-08-2003, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
[B]

Let me be clear on that:
I said the Q authors complemented, "corrected" (embarrassments), added, embellished, all of that on GMark, which they knew already.
I did not say that Q was interpolated by later "editors", if it is what you are trying to say.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard,
No that was not what I was saying, What I was trying to say was the "Redaction" ( editing ) by the writers themselves could be considered part of what you are calling "Q". You showed a lot of parenthetical "Q" in your web-site of the writings of GLuke and GMatthew, all I was saying is that you were speculating that these accused add ins were "Q". All of us edit our writings , heck I've done it already in this post. I'll go back and change a word or phrase, sometimes in the process of doing this we make an addition or correction which could be considered a "complimentation or correction" by someone else.

I'll read your web on Daniel.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-08-2003, 09:57 AM

Jim:

Quote:

There is ample evidence of authentic Biblical claims found in archeological digs, as a matter of fact I was reading a statement made by an outstanding jewish archeologist recently who said "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference."

There's no particular reason to assume that the Biblical authors would invent everything. We shouldn't be surprised to see many historical events of the time mentioned in the Bible. But that doesn't make the supernatural stuff true.

In any case, your archaeologist is wrong. There was no Great Flood or Tower of Babel: these are contradicted by archaeological evidence.

Quote:

The Bible and its prophecies are accurate and show authenticity and a basis for my faith. This is my choice , your choice is to close your mind to the possibilities that the Bible is actually right.

...Except that it frequently is not. I suggest you look over the SAB's False Prophecies section. Especially as you've already listed Micah 5:2 as a true prophecy.

As for Jesus "fulfilling prophecies": are you considering the likelihood that many of the alleged actions of Jesus were invented by the authors to make them appear to fulfil prophecies? This is (more or less) admitted several times, where Jesus is said to have done things "that it may be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets". But there's no independent evidence that Jesus actually did those things.

There is a rather telling lack of genuine and verifiable fulfilled prophecies. The last time this subject came up, nobody could find any at all...

Jim Larmore · 10-08-2003, 10:54 AM

Bernard

I wanted to reply to part of what I have read on your web-site on Daniel. I haven't completed it yet so there will be further statements upcomming on your writings.
You made a statement early on this particular thread of your web-site, " Theres no proof of Daniel being in the original Septuigent"

I was a little shocked at this statement, so I researched it just a little and I must say your statement appears to be in error. According to ancient codexes and commentaries on the LXX there were several sources of ancient manuscrpts the Alexandrian translators used to do the Book of Daniel in the LXX. They are syriac hebrew,chaldean papyri, the old latin or italic, and the arabic.( ancient codexes vol 2 xi CCEL library ) It appears you need to question your source of information which led you to make this statement.

The problem with the LXX is it barely survived thru the ages and its true that the "Theodotian" version of the translation is christian in origin but it is still considered a "literal" translation and the Book of Daniel is right there with the rest of them .

Next I have to take exception with your take on Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn power. I believe this is the Papacy and I'll show you why when I have more time to post a more lengthy explaination of my studies on Daniel. There are litterally ten things from the book of Daniel that points to this. You are also wrong on the 4th kingdom being Greece , it was Rome even though Rome was not mentioned I can still make a good argument supporting why I believe this.

I have to go ( I have a class in minutes to attend to ) but one rebuttal I will make right now about your take on the 2nd kingdom being inferior. The Medo-Persia kingdom was much larger area wise but it never held the same stature as Babylon in luxury and magnificence. The Medo-Persian conquerors adopted the culture and the city of Babylon for their own but was much less civilized and less developed. Babylon was an ancient masterpiece of a nation, city and culture thus the symbology of gold attributed to it.

Jim Larmore · 10-08-2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Jim:

There's no particular reason to assume that the Biblical authors would invent everything. We shouldn't be surprised to see many historical events of the time mentioned in the Bible. But that doesn't make the supernatural stuff true.

I agree that it doen't proove the supernatural stuff is true except that if you find evidence in archeology, history etc it tends to make the "whole thing" credible.

Quote:
"In any case, your archaeologist is wrong. There was no Great Flood or Tower of Babel: these are contradicted by archaeological evidence."

I think there is ample evidence of a great flood, even some agnostic dino bone diggers agree that a great flood happened, they don't necessarily say it was Noah's flood but there is evidence which crosses several continents and oceans of stratified mass drowning of all life forms including fish.

As for Jesus "fulfilling prophecies": are you considering the likelihood that many of the alleged actions of Jesus were invented by the authors to make them appear to fulfil prophecies? This is (more or less) admitted several times, where Jesus is said to have done things "that it may be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets". But there's no independent evidence that Jesus actually did those things.

There is a rather telling lack of genuine and verifiable fulfilled prophecies. The last time this subject came up, nobody could find any at all...

I don't agree with your position here about fulfilling prophecies, your perspective on the places in the Bible where the gospel writers say " that it may be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets", the acts that Jesus did could have been spontaneous and not calculated to fulfill the prophecies per se, but even if they were the narrative was in "retrospect" of what they remembered to have occurred . They then made the connection to prophetic fulfillment of what Jesus did. About your statement concerning "inventing the fulfilling stories"...... Again we could say the same thing about any historical writer as to their honesty etc. How do we know for sure that any ancient writings are an accurate account of what happened back then? You guys who critisize the Bible aren't doing the same to other ancient historical writings I don't care what you say.

I have a good idea why. I think its because if you admitt in the slightest that the Bible may be correct then you will have to say you believe in God or a just and reasonable facsmile' thereof. Right ????????!!!!!!!!!!!

Bernard Muller · 10-08-2003, 01:29 PM

Jim wrote:
You made a statement early on this particular thread of your web-site, " Theres no proof of Daniel being in the original Septuigent".

I was a little shocked at this statement, so I researched it just a little and I must say your statement appears to be in error. According to ancient codexes and commentaries on the LXX there were several sources of ancient manuscrpts the Alexandrian translators used to do the Book of Daniel in the LXX. They are syriac hebrew,chaldean papyri, the old latin or italic, and the arabic.( ancient codexes vol 2 xi CCEL library ) It appears you need to question your source of information which led you to make this statement.

What are your sources?
Do you have a dating for each of those?
Old Latin? Arabic? Really.
Where are the Chaldean papyri?
Show me the evidence, or the websites, whatever you have.

The problem with the LXX is it barely survived thru the ages and its true that the "Theodotian" version of the translation is christian in origin but it is still considered a "literal" translation and the Book of Daniel is right there with the rest of them.

Theodotian version of Christian origin? Is it your reference?
"considered" is no evidence.

... one rebuttal I will make right now about your take on the 2nd kingdom being inferior. The Medo-Persia kingdom was much larger area wise but it never held the same stature as Babylon in luxury and magnificence. The Medo-Persian conquerors adopted the culture and the city of Babylon for their own but was much less civilized and less developed. Babylon was an ancient masterpiece of a nation,

The Medo-Persian conquered Babylon, and Lydia, and Egypt, with all their alleged spendors. That would make them superior. And does more civilized make a nation superior to more powerful ones?
And the splendor of Babylon might have been largely legendary, and confined to only one city. Actually the Babylonian Kingdom was decaying for many years big time before it got conquered by the Persians.

That's what I wrote:
>> How can this second kingdom, inferior to the Neo-Babylonian empire, be interpreted as the Persian empire?
The Medo-Persian empire was three to four times bigger in size and population than the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. Not only it included the conquered kingdom of Babylon, but also Lydia (western part of Turkey), Egypt, Afghanistan, a large part of central Asia and the Medo-Persian homeland (today's Iran & eastern Turkey).
Also, the Persian empire (539-330) lasted longer than the Neo-Babylonian kingdom (626-539). <<

Best regards, Bernard

gregor · 10-08-2003, 01:52 PM

Being hoisted on your own petard in three easy posts.

Step 1: Mr. Larrimore�s attack on non-believers as thick-headed folks who�ll never accept controverting evidence:
______________
�You not only don't know but you will not be convinced. . . .�

�[Y]our choice is to close your mind to the possibilities . . .�

�[Y]ou can't convince someone who has a closed mind . . .�
______________

Step 2: Set forth some baldly inaccurate generalizations about historical support for the Bible (e.g. DSS [which actually hurt your claim]; archeology [minor support for background information, but not real support]; and the like).

Step 3: Exclaim that you�re personally thick-headed and will never accept evidence that contrverts Biblical inerrancy:

�[I�m right, blah blah] I don't care what you say. . .�

Gregg · 10-09-2003, 03:10 AM

Hi Jim,

I have a closed mind?

As a teenager I firmly believed in the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and UFOs. I believed Erich von Daaniken's "ancient astronauts" theories. I believed in ESP and telekenesis and spirit writing.

As a young man I accepted the teachings of metaphysical Christianity, including the belief that prayer, properly and scientifically practiced, could bring spiritual "substance" into manifestation, and that Jesus' resurrection involved his "spiritualizing" the atoms of his body.

However, at the same time I believed all this stuff I also had a great appreciation and enthusiam for real science. Carl Sagan was a hero of mine. Gradually I began to adopt a more skeptical attitude, and began to examine, and in most cases, discard my beliefs in the paranormal. (I still hope against hope that Bigfoot is real, though!)

This process did not involve closing my mind. It did involve not opening it so wide that my brains fell out.

Anyway, Jim, you're avoiding my question. I'm not sure how the Dead Sea scrolls provide evidence that the Bible is "true," but I never said that the Bible doesn't contain some accurate history. My question was, basically, If you believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus performing miracles are true with no outside corroboration, why don't you also believe that accounts of other holy men, kings, and emperors performing miracles are true as well? I am talking about the extraordinary events in scripture, not mundane historical events.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Gregg,
I believe you have as a philosophical approach to the Bible of something that is known as onery agnostism. You not only don't know but you will not be convinced. True agnostics keep an open mind and are willing to learn what is true.Your facitious statement about empire raising was noted and shows you do not have an open mind. The point I was trying to make is this. If you and all those like you put all of history to the same scrutinizing criteria as you do the Bible then we would have to invalidate most of history as " unprovable, rediculous and unbelieveable"

There is ample evidence of authentic Biblical claims found in archeological digs, as a matter of fact I was reading a statement made by an outstanding jewish archeologist recently who said "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference."
The Bible and its prophecies are accurate and show authenticity and a basis for my faith. This is my choice , your choice is to close your mind to the possibilities that the Bible is actually right. When you talk about the miracles Jesus performed keep in mind that to God there are no miracles. Thats correct ,,,, To God there are no miracles because He knows and understands all. To us its miraculous because the occurrence is outside the realm of our understanding and comprehension at this time. Maybe like radio waves or computers would be to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson if they were transported to our time.

I won't try to convince you of the validity of the Bible based on the incredible evidence found in the dead sea scrolls, evidence found in ancient tombs, or anything like this because you can't convince someone who has a closed mind.

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

10-07-2003, 05:18 PM	#91
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Jim wrote: I would like to ask your opinion on the prophecy of Daniel 2 ... [Snipped] You came to the right place again Jim, because I have a very detailed two pagers on the prophecies in 'Daniel'. Dare to read it (and I mean read, not browse!)? http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/daniel.shtml Best regards, Bernard

10-07-2003, 07:37 PM	#92
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Jim wrote: I think in some cases where you show Parenthetically a "Q" correction or complementation is "speculation" more than credible evidence for "Q". The writers redaction doesn't necessarily indicate a "Q" correction or complimentation of any passage. I'm not saying you indicate that but its almost apparent behind what you are saying and commenting on. Editing is something all writers do and these apparent corrections could be simply the work of the writers themselves. Let me be clear on that: I said the Q authors complemented, "corrected" (embarrassments), added, embellished, all of that on GMark, which they knew already. I did not say that Q was interpolated by later "editors", if it is what you are trying to say. Best regards, Bernard

10-08-2003, 06:41 AM	#93
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	Gregg, I believe you have as a philosophical approach to the Bible of something that is known as onery agnostism. You not only don't know but you will not be convinced. True agnostics keep an open mind and are willing to learn what is true.Your facitious statement about empire raising was noted and shows you do not have an open mind. The point I was trying to make is this. If you and all those like you put all of history to the same scrutinizing criteria as you do the Bible then we would have to invalidate most of history as " unprovable, rediculous and unbelieveable" There is ample evidence of authentic Biblical claims found in archeological digs, as a matter of fact I was reading a statement made by an outstanding jewish archeologist recently who said "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." The Bible and its prophecies are accurate and show authenticity and a basis for my faith. This is my choice , your choice is to close your mind to the possibilities that the Bible is actually right. When you talk about the miracles Jesus performed keep in mind that to God there are no miracles. Thats correct ,,,, To God there are no miracles because He knows and understands all. To us its miraculous because the occurrence is outside the realm of our understanding and comprehension at this time. Maybe like radio waves or computers would be to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson if they were transported to our time. I won't try to convince you of the validity of the Bible based on the incredible evidence found in the dead sea scrolls, evidence found in ancient tombs, or anything like this because you can't convince someone who has a closed mind.

10-08-2003, 10:54 AM	#96
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	Bernard I wanted to reply to part of what I have read on your web-site on Daniel. I haven't completed it yet so there will be further statements upcomming on your writings. You made a statement early on this particular thread of your web-site, " Theres no proof of Daniel being in the original Septuigent" I was a little shocked at this statement, so I researched it just a little and I must say your statement appears to be in error. According to ancient codexes and commentaries on the LXX there were several sources of ancient manuscrpts the Alexandrian translators used to do the Book of Daniel in the LXX. They are syriac hebrew,chaldean papyri, the old latin or italic, and the arabic.( ancient codexes vol 2 xi CCEL library ) It appears you need to question your source of information which led you to make this statement. The problem with the LXX is it barely survived thru the ages and its true that the "Theodotian" version of the translation is christian in origin but it is still considered a "literal" translation and the Book of Daniel is right there with the rest of them . Next I have to take exception with your take on Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn power. I believe this is the Papacy and I'll show you why when I have more time to post a more lengthy explaination of my studies on Daniel. There are litterally ten things from the book of Daniel that points to this. You are also wrong on the 4th kingdom being Greece , it was Rome even though Rome was not mentioned I can still make a good argument supporting why I believe this. I have to go ( I have a class in minutes to attend to ) but one rebuttal I will make right now about your take on the 2nd kingdom being inferior. The Medo-Persia kingdom was much larger area wise but it never held the same stature as Babylon in luxury and magnificence. The Medo-Persian conquerors adopted the culture and the city of Babylon for their own but was much less civilized and less developed. Babylon was an ancient masterpiece of a nation, city and culture thus the symbology of gold attributed to it.

10-08-2003, 01:29 PM	#98
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Jim wrote: You made a statement early on this particular thread of your web-site, " Theres no proof of Daniel being in the original Septuigent". I was a little shocked at this statement, so I researched it just a little and I must say your statement appears to be in error. According to ancient codexes and commentaries on the LXX there were several sources of ancient manuscrpts the Alexandrian translators used to do the Book of Daniel in the LXX. They are syriac hebrew,chaldean papyri, the old latin or italic, and the arabic.( ancient codexes vol 2 xi CCEL library ) It appears you need to question your source of information which led you to make this statement. What are your sources? Do you have a dating for each of those? Old Latin? Arabic? Really. Where are the Chaldean papyri? Show me the evidence, or the websites, whatever you have. The problem with the LXX is it barely survived thru the ages and its true that the "Theodotian" version of the translation is christian in origin but it is still considered a "literal" translation and the Book of Daniel is right there with the rest of them. Theodotian version of Christian origin? Is it your reference? "considered" is no evidence. ... one rebuttal I will make right now about your take on the 2nd kingdom being inferior. The Medo-Persia kingdom was much larger area wise but it never held the same stature as Babylon in luxury and magnificence. The Medo-Persian conquerors adopted the culture and the city of Babylon for their own but was much less civilized and less developed. Babylon was an ancient masterpiece of a nation, The Medo-Persian conquered Babylon, and Lydia, and Egypt, with all their alleged spendors. That would make them superior. And does more civilized make a nation superior to more powerful ones? And the splendor of Babylon might have been largely legendary, and confined to only one city. Actually the Babylonian Kingdom was decaying for many years big time before it got conquered by the Persians. That's what I wrote: >> How can this second kingdom, inferior to the Neo-Babylonian empire, be interpreted as the Persian empire? The Medo-Persian empire was three to four times bigger in size and population than the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. Not only it included the conquered kingdom of Babylon, but also Lydia (western part of Turkey), Egypt, Afghanistan, a large part of central Asia and the Medo-Persian homeland (today's Iran & eastern Turkey). Also, the Persian empire (539-330) lasted longer than the Neo-Babylonian kingdom (626-539). << Best regards, Bernard

10-08-2003, 01:52 PM	#99
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Being hoisted on your own petard in three easy posts. Step 1: Mr. Larrimore�s attack on non-believers as thick-headed folks who�ll never accept controverting evidence: ______________ �You not only don't know but you will not be convinced. . . .� �[Y]our choice is to close your mind to the possibilities . . .� �[Y]ou can't convince someone who has a closed mind . . .� ______________ Step 2: Set forth some baldly inaccurate generalizations about historical support for the Bible (e.g. DSS [which actually hurt your claim]; archeology [minor support for background information, but not real support]; and the like). Step 3: Exclaim that you�re personally thick-headed and will never accept evidence that contrverts Biblical inerrancy: �[I�m right, blah blah] I don't care what you say. . .�

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.