Jack the Bodiless

Well, the E/C forum is the proper place for this, but...

I think you may be confusing several issues there. There's plenty of evidence for several mass extinctions, such as the one that killed off the dinosaurs. But these long predate humanity. There is also evidence of worldwide sea-level rise due to the melting of the glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age, but that was a gradual process. There is reason to believe that the inundation of the Black Sea basin could have been rapid, but that wasn't a worldwide cataclysm.

Evidence against the Flood include the records of civilizations unaffected by it at the time (2300 BC or thereabouts, which can be determined from Biblical genealogies), and evidence against the Tower of Babel comes from the lack of any worldwide change in languages that should have happened about 200 years later (and no worldwide common language evident before).
Jesus was "made to fufill" several prophecies which were not even about him at all, such as the "Emmanuel" prophecy (Isaiah 7, actually fulfilled in Isaiah 8). And Micah, in which "Jesus" is supposed to fight the Assyrians.

Steven Carr

Please have a go at validating eg the killing of people by Elijah using evidence found in ancient tombs, or perhaps Paul's trip to the third heaven.


Have you seen the way the miracles of Jesus are pure literary inventions, using the same critical analysis Christians apply to the Koran

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

as you wrote 'You guys who critisize the Bible aren't doing the same to other ancient historical writings I don't care what you say.'

But we are, but we are.....


As I say in

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/motyer5.htm

'While we are discussing the events of Herod's last few years, Josephus's 'Antiquities' records that Herod ordered many people to be killed when he died, so that there would be people who mourned that he was dead. Emil Schuerer's 'The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ', says that this may not be historically reliable, because it resembles a legend about Alexander Jannaeus. It is not only religious works where people examine stories to see if they have a literary source. I am not singling out the New Testament for treatment I would not apply to other works.

Jim Larmore

Bernard
The sources you may look at for the existence of Daniel in the original LXX is the one I gave when I posted , try,
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment...l25/htm/xi.htm

also try http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/daniel.htm

Bernard Muller

Jim, that's what I get from one of your two proposed sites:

The earliest external evidence would come from the Sibylline Oracles:

"Sibylline Oracle 3 - Many scholars date this book from the reign to Ptolemy VI Philometor. It is thought to have originated in Egypt because of the profusion of Egyptian references. It was probably written, says Collins, by followers of Onais the founder of the Leontopolis temple, because of the good relations between Jews and gentiles in Egypt during this period."

Associated to that, comes from the same oracle:

"Also at a certain time there will come to the prosperous land of Asia a faithless man clad with a purple cloak on his shoulders, savage, stranger to justice, fiery. For a thunderbolt beforehand raised him up, a man. But all Asia will bear an evil yoke, and the earth, deluged, will imbibe much gore. But even so Hades will attend him in everything though he knows it not. Those whose race he wished to destroy, by them will his own race be destroyed. Yet leaving one root, which the destroyer will also cut off from ten horns, he will sprout another shoot on the side. He will smite a warrior and begetter of a royal race and he himself will perish at the hands of his descendants in a conspiracy of war, and then the horn growing on the side will reign (Charlesworth 1983, Vol. 1, 370-1)."

That was apparently written sometimes around 180–145BC, that is around when 'Daniel' was written (168-164BC).
I recognize the imagery of 'Daniel' ("ten horns", "horn"). And the man from Asia appears to be Antiochus IV, the twice invader of Egypt. And it seems the author knew by whom the king was succeeded: the root/sprout/horn on the side likely refers to Demetrius I (ruled 162-150BC), the legitimate heir, son of Seleucus IV, the king before Antiochus "usurped" the throne.
So, maybe, the author of that oracle knew about 'Daniel' (and wrote his so-called oracle in 162-150BC or later). (but the whole passage is contested as a later interpolation by some scholars)

As for the rest, reading your two referred websites, there is still no evidence there whatsoever that "Daniel" was part of the earliest LXX translations:

From my website, the following still applies:
>> The O.T. apocryphal book 'Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach', written in Hebrew around 200-180BC, comments on the (Jewish) "famous men" in chapters 44-51: Joseph (the counterpart of Daniel at the Pharaoh's court) is named and three of the four major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) are mentioned, but NOT the fourth one (and the most phenomenal!), Daniel. <<
and
>> There is no proof that the book of Daniel was included in the original Septuagint (LXX):
"Behind the legends lies the probability that at least the Torah (the five books of Moses) was translated into Greek c. 250 B.C. for the use of the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria.
The rest of the O.T. and some noncanonical books were also included in the LXX before the dawning of the Christian era, through it is difficult to be certain when."
(The NIV Study Bible) <<

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steven Carr
Please have a go at validating eg the killing of people by Elijah using evidence found in ancient tombs, or perhaps Paul's trip to the third heaven.

Quote:

But we are, but we are..... As I say in http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/motyer5.htm

A few scrutinizing articles don't show where you guys are anywhere close to being equitable with your judgement compared to what you do to the Bible. And validating Elijah's killing of the prophets of Baal may actually be possible some day if we find the catacombs mentioned in the ancient texts. Not too long ago we ( Israeli archeologists ) found the tomb of Caiaphas a person who played a key role in the trial of Jesus. Until 1961 critics disclaimed the existence of Pontius Pilate, however that year archeologist found near ancient Ceasarea an inscription that revealed the name of Pontius Pilate.

Its interesting to note that when you compare the shear numbers of available ancient manuscripts and parcels of a Biblical nature to others theres no comparison. We have literally tens of thousands of ancient parcels to study and the work continues as we speak.The problem is with the critics is they throw out or invalidate the historicity or authenticity for some pretty trivial reasons that they wouldn't do to other ancient texts. I mean what ever happened to " its genuine until proven otherwise". Many critics use a double source way of invalidating some writings. That is to say if there is any other place in the scriptures where the narrative looks similar they say it is a copy or a fake. I can go on and on how many judge the scriptural writings in an unfair way. Its understanding to degree why scientific minded people would be skeptical of some of the stories in the Bible but I seem to see more of a predisposition to denegrate anything supernatural.

You mentioned Josephus' writings and the scrutiny that was placed on the historicity of Herod. Its kinda funny in a way that they would do that to Flavius because as far as I know they have only scrutinized his comments on Jesus up to now. The comments he made concerning Jesus may be authentic no matter what critics say, theres no proof otherwise. I've read recently that all of the manuscripts of Flavius' writings contain these comments. If it was an add in by christians why haven't they found some versions without the comments?

I guess the main issue here is the authenticity of what we call the Bible. If its a big fake then the christians have lied to millions of people for over 5,000 years and have propagated the biggest hoax in history. I believe there will never be ( until the Lord comes back ) a proof positive for some questions we have on the Bible, however there are very few things we can have proof positive on when it comes to historical writings . If they are backed up by latent physcal evidence. To be sure theres ample proof of an Almighty God in the complexity of nature and His wonderfull word shows His desire to commicate with man.

Gregg

Jim, in the first place, you've claimed that the Jewish and Roman authorities all hated Jesus, and suppressed information about him and his works. So how is it that Josephus even finds out anything about him, much less that what he finds out is all good? And why does Josephus have only bad things to say about other Jewish political and religious agitators, who he blamed for bringing about Israel's destruction?

In the second place, while we may not have an extant copies of Josephus without the Testimonium, there IS the niggling little fact that there is NO CHRISTIAN WITNESS to the Testimonium prior to Eusebius in the early 4th century. Here is what Earl Doherty has to say about that on his Web site, www.jesuspuzzle.org:

"For it is a surprising fact that not a single writer before Eusebius, not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, not Origen, Tertullian, the prolific Cyprian and Arnobius, along with many others, in all their discussions of how the outside world viewed Christians and the figure of Jesus, in all their defences against pagan hostility, nevertheless make not the slightest reference to Josephus’ account of this “wise man” who had “performed many wonderful works,” who “won over many Jews and gentiles,” who was perhaps a “teacher of the truth,” one who was denounced by the (long despised) Jewish leaders, crucified by Pilate but who enjoyed so much love and support from his followers that their numbers grew and their devotion had “continued to this day.” It must be admitted that this silence is incredible."Jim, this is the "all or nothing" fallacy. Nobody here is saying that the Bible is a "big fake" or a "hoax." Everyone acknowledges that the Bible contains some actual facts and some real history. Nobody's saying that the early Christians were deliberately lying--no doubt they honestly believed the Jewish writings contained prophecies of Jesus. (And by the way, Christians have only been around for 2,000 years, not 5,000. Jews wrote the NT, not Christians!) The problem is that you, and Christians per se, make the Bible into something more than it really is, and then when someone suggests that it might be just a collection of ancient myths, highly embellished and biased "histories," prophetical and apocalyptic writings, morality tales, philosophical musings, poems, prayers, and songs, allegories, and correspondence, you exclaim, "So you're saying it's a fake!" No, what we're saying is, YOUR image of the Bible is what's fake.What about the cruelty of nature? Does that say anything about God?I think "Hey down there! I exist! Now behave! Yahweh" written in hundred-mile high Hebrew letters on the Moon would be a much more effective means of communication than a confusing, contradictory hodgepodge of ancient writings.

Steven Carr

Isn't this a barefaced lie? Which critics disputed the existence of Pontius Pilate until 1961?

Why should we discuss things with somebody who repeats lies and myths , as part of his efforts to show that Christians of 2,000 years ago did not repeat lies and myths?

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
The comments he made concerning Jesus may be authentic no matter what critics say, theres no proof otherwise. I've read recently that all of the manuscripts of Flavius' writings contain these comments. If it was an add in by Christians why haven't they found some versions without the comments?

The earliest (oldest) copies we have date to the 10/11th century and come from Christian archives.
There were plenty of times for additions when the Christians were controlling almost everything.

If it was not an addition by Christians, why do we have to wait for the 4th century & Eusebius to know about the Testimonium of Ant. 18?
Earlier, no other fathers, many who knew about Josephus' works, reported on the Testimonium, even if these ardent apologists had to invent some of their "evidence".
Obviously you did not read my page on the TF. Here is an extract:

>> a) Irenaeus, the very influential bishop of Lyons at the end of the second century and a prolific author, knew about Josephus and 'Antiquities':
"Josephus says, that when Moses had been brought up in the royal palaces, he was chosen as general against the Ethiopians;"
"Lost Writings", XXXII
b) Clement of Alexandria, a contemporary of Irenaeus, and also an author,
"who cites the Antiquities of Josephus but never cites the testimonies now before us ..."
Wm. Whiston, 'The complete work of Josephus', Dissertation I, XI
c) "Fieldman names two Fathers from the second century, seven from the third, and two from the early fourth, all of whom knew Josephus and cited from his works, but "do not refer to this passage [the TF] ..." (Josephus, p. 695)" 'The Jesus Legend', G.A. Wells <<

I guess the main issue here is the authenticity of what we call the Bible. If its a big fake then the Christians have lied to millions of people for over 2,000 years and have propagated the biggest hoax in history.

I corrected your typo: 2000 & not 5000.
Regardless, the same can be said of any other major religions and their believers (regarding their respective beliefs & sacred ancient books).
Therefore it is clearly demonstrated that big hoaxes can be propagated for thousands of years regarding religious matters. Why would Christians & Christianity be different?

PS: the passage of the Sibylline Oracles, the one mentioning "ten horns", was written much later than I postulated earlier: the author knew of Tralles being thoroughly destructed by an earthquake, and that happened in 26BC.

Best regards, Bernard

Toto

I've seen this claim on Christian sites that claim that archeology proves the Bible, but I've never heard of anyone who doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate, who is mentioned by Philo and Josephus. It is these sources that paint a picture of Pilate that is at variance with the portrait in the Bible.

(edited to add: This apologetic site - Archaeological Evidence for Scripture claims "Pontius Pilate's historical authenticity was in doubt until 1961, when an inscription was found "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans", thus proving his existence".

Gregg

I found a couple of Christian sites that make this claim but don't name the scholars:




On the other hand, this skeptic's site states:

What do we know about this man from other, secular, sources? That he existed, we have no doubt. There were numerous contemporary references to him, including in the works of Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus.

So, it would be interesting to know exactly who these Pilate doubters were.

Also, the site advances excellent arguments as to why Pilate's actions in the gospels are completely out of character for him, and why the events of the trial and crucifixion lack historical authenticity.

So, Jim, proving Pilate's existence doesn't prove the gospel events happened exactly as described. Pilate was a historical figure drafted to play a role in a piece of allegorical fiction, kind of like Hitler making a cameo to sign Professor Jones' diary in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."