Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 01-05-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

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.

Talk about appalling ignorance.

You don't even know how your own bible was constructed or the history of your own religion.

Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Donatists, Arians, etc.

Executions, persecutions, crusades, inquisitions...

One long history of "questioning".

mdd344 · 01-05-2007, 08:54 PM

The Evil One,
The evidence of miracles is right before your eyes in the pages of the Bible.

mdd344 · 01-05-2007, 09:14 PM

Sauron,
You stated,

"It's like you saying, "Guess what? There's an elephant in my living room." Well, if there is, there ought to be elephant poop on the floor, some kind of food, lots of broken furniture, dirty stains on the carpet, the smell of elephant everywhere, etc. If I go over to your house and I can't find any of those things in your living room, that is NOT "argument from silence." Missing evidence, where there *ought* to be evidence, is a real problem for your claim. Once you've made a testable statement, there should be confirming evidence for it. If there is no such evidence, then you either have to explain the lack of evidence, or the claim can safely be called a lie."

I'll let Dr. Paul reply. He stated an example simliar to yours above. But then he stated that if it were a tiny grain of sand in the midst of a large room, the fact that no one has yet to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I am really surprised that you would really try and suggest that if no archeological evidence, or otherwise, exists, then the fact claimed is false. Really, trying to be kind, but that is absolutely absurd.

I also would wonder which, if any, Bible apologists you would accept as legit? It seems to me you are requiring me to produce a destructive critic who agrees with the Bible. And that is another absurd position.

What requirements must a Bible "apologists" have to meet your 'high' standard?

Coleslaw · 01-05-2007, 09:17 PM

Just to add to the fun, I thought I'd cite some of John Joseph Collins comments on the book of Daniel from The Apocalyptic Imagination:An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk), Crossroads, 1987. I note that the author has a book with a similar title The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (The Biblical Resource Series) (or via: amazon.co.uk) currently in print, but whether it is a reissue with an altered title or a newer edition with modifications I am not in a position to say.

At any rate, some of Collins observations on the book:

Quote:

Unlike the prediluvian Enoch, Daniel is presented as a figure from the relatively recent past. Details of the stories could, in principal, be verified from historical sources, and conservative scholars have labored unceasingly, and in vain, to do so. The tales in Daniel bristle with historical problems. The famous case of Darius the Mede may serve as an illustration. The conqueror of Babylon was Gorbryas, governor of Gutium, a general of Cyrus, King of Persia. No such person as Darius the Mede is known in history. The successor of Cyrus as king of Persia was named Darius. The author of Daniel inherited a schema of four kingdoms in which Media preceded Persia, and it seems highly probable that he created the figure of Darius the Mede to fit this schema.

(p.68)

Quote:

What is at issue in all this is not the veracity of "the word of God", as literalists usually construe it, but a question of genre. An assumption that the "word of God" must be factually historical reporting, and cannot be literary fiction, is theologically unwarranted. Whether or not a given passage is historically accurate is a question of relative probability in view of our total evidence. Nothing is gained by straining credibility in hope of saving the historical appearances.

p.69

Quote:

The crucial argument on the date of Daniel was already formulated by the Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry in the third century. Porphyry argued that Daniel was not written in the course of the Babylonian exile but in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. His basic point was that Daniel "predicted" accurately the course of events down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes but not beyond it. This argument has stood the test of time. The issue is not "a dogmatic rejection of predictive prophecy" as conservatives like to assert, but a calculation of probability. Everyone recognizes that the predictions of Enoch are after the fact. The same logic holds in the case of Daniel.

The second century date for the visions of Daniel (chaps 7-12) is accepted as beyond reasonable doubt by critical scholarship.

p.70

Quote:

On one level, the story in Daniel 2 can be read as an adaptation of a traditional folktale, in which a person of lower status is called on by a superior to solve an initially insoluble problem and is rewarded. This type of tale is widely known. Important Near Eastern precedents include the tale of Ahikar and the biblical story of Joseph.

p.72

Quote:

The test of Daniel's wisdom, and that of his God, is the revelation of Nebuchadnezzer's dream. Because of its famous prophecy of the four kingdoms, the dream has been more intensively studied than any other part of the tales. Yet, as the chapter stands now, the emphasis is not on the content of the dream but on the fact that Daniel is able to reveal it. Nebuchadnezzer is apparently oblivious to the implied demise of the Babylonian kingdom and even does homage to Daniel. The king's apparent disregard for the future of his kingdom has been explained as an illustration of the staying power of the old motifs of the folktale, which requires that the hero, Daniel, be rewarded at the end.Yet it is clear that the content of the interpretation carries political implications that strain the conventions of the folktale. If the story had been composed as a vehicle for a prophecy of the kingdom of God we should expect that the traditional motifs would have been adapted to reflect this emphasis at the end.

pp73-74 (page numbers refer to the paperback version.)

I know a lot of these points have been made already but I like the way Collins puts things.

Coleslaw · 01-05-2007, 09:25 PM

Quote:

It's like you saying, "Guess what? There's an elephant in my living room." Well, if there is, there ought to be elephant poop on the floor, some kind of food, lots of broken furniture, dirty stains on the carpet, the smell of elephant everywhere, etc. If I go over to your house and I can't find any of those things in your living room, that is NOT "argument from silence."

Well, to be perfectly fair, Sauron, I think we've been smelling a lot of elephant poop on this thread.

spin · 01-05-2007, 09:26 PM

Jack,

When Darius the Mede becomes Gobryas (who becomes the white rabbit) is the standard of response, you know when you don't have a communication channel open.

Here's a little part of the "Nabonidus Chronicle" for the 17th year, ie 539/8:

In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle.

We clearly have Nabonidus as the ruler of Babylon and narrative focus at this stage, no sign of Belshazzar, in contrast with Dan 5:30-1. We also can see that Gobryas is in a subservient role to Cyrus, so Darius the Mede is right out of the historical landscape. There was no Darius, king at this stage, to set satraps over the kingdom as in Dan 6:1.

Next we come to such dishonesty as "Belshazzar was coregent with Nabonidus" and you know the shutters are up. I already said that Belshazzar was the regent for his father, but now he becomes "co-regent" in order to put him on the same par as his father, ie king, which is grossly absurd, when Belshazzar only acted as regent for his father, yet as I've indicated in another thread he was unable to perform the kingly role in the New Year celebrations during the absence of Nabonidus, causing a lot of resentment in Babylon. Year after year it was noted that "the king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of" whichever month. Obviously there was no king except Nabonidus, but that doesn't matter to the apologist. He can fudge his way through issues like this making himself feel like he's dealt with the inconvenient reality.

spin

The Evil One · 01-05-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

The Evil One,
The evidence of miracles is right before your eyes in the pages of the Bible.

No. Right in front of my eyes in the pages of the Bible are reports of miracles.

Reports of miracles is not the same thing as evidence of miracles. In much the same way that reports of alien abductions are not evidence of alien abductions.

Evidence of miracles would be something that gave me a reason to believe that the reports are true. The reports alone are not reasons to beleive because people have been known to report all kinds of false things.

Evidence of miracles would include the sort of thing which you were trying to do with Daniel - show that it refers prophetically to events which took place after the time it was written. That would be evidence of a miracle - if you can get past all the historical problems, which so far you have not been able do.

spin · 01-05-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

The evidence of miracles is right before your eyes in the pages of the Bible.

Why deal with this incoherence? Imagine what this person would do with the miracles in the Voyage of the Argo or the Odyssey.

spin

The Evil One · 01-05-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

What requirements must a Bible "apologists" have to meet your 'high' standard?

Can't speak for Sauron, but for me it's a question of whether or not they construct flawed arguments and twist the evidence. Most bible apologists do. Most real scholars don't.

Coleslaw · 01-05-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

also would wonder which, if any, Bible apologists you would accept as legit? It seems to me you are requiring me to produce a destructive critic who agrees with the Bible. And that is another absurd position.

What requirements must a Bible "apologists" have to meet your 'high' standard?

You asked a version of this question once before, and gregor gave you an answer which was seconded by Sven, with the caveat that "relevant degree" did not have to mean PhD:

Quote:

"Scholar" - vernacular definition - relevant degree, primary work in actual field discussed, and publication of peer-reviewed articles.

If you can't find someone who meets those qualifications who also agrees with your dating of Daniel, then that ought to tell you something.

01-05-2007, 09:26 PM	#156
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jack, When Darius the Mede becomes Gobryas (who becomes the white rabbit) is the standard of response, you know when you don't have a communication channel open. Here's a little part of the "Nabonidus Chronicle" for the 17th year, ie 539/8: In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he massacred the confused inhabitants. The fifteenth day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The sixteenth day, Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. We clearly have Nabonidus as the ruler of Babylon and narrative focus at this stage, no sign of Belshazzar, in contrast with Dan 5:30-1. We also can see that Gobryas is in a subservient role to Cyrus, so Darius the Mede is right out of the historical landscape. There was no Darius, king at this stage, to set satraps over the kingdom as in Dan 6:1. Next we come to such dishonesty as "Belshazzar was *coregent* with Nabonidus" and you know the shutters are up. I already said that Belshazzar was the regent for his father, but now he becomes "co-regent" in order to put him on the same par as his father, ie king, which is grossly absurd, when Belshazzar only acted as regent for his father, yet as I've indicated in another thread he was unable to perform the kingly role in the New Year celebrations during the absence of Nabonidus, causing a lot of resentment in Babylon. Year after year it was noted that "the king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of" whichever month. Obviously there was no king except Nabonidus, but that doesn't matter to the apologist. He can fudge his way through issues like this making himself feel like he's dealt with the inconvenient reality. spin

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

01-05-2007, 08:54 PM	#152
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	The Evil One, The evidence of miracles is right before your eyes in the pages of the Bible.

01-05-2007, 09:14 PM	#153
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron, You stated, "It's like you saying, "Guess what? There's an elephant in my living room." Well, if there is, there ought to be elephant poop on the floor, some kind of food, lots of broken furniture, dirty stains on the carpet, the smell of elephant everywhere, etc. If I go over to your house and I can't find any of those things in your living room, that is NOT "argument from silence." Missing evidence, where there ought to be evidence, is a real problem for your claim. Once you've made a testable statement, there should be confirming evidence for it. If there is no such evidence, then you either have to explain the lack of evidence, or the claim can safely be called a lie." I'll let Dr. Paul reply. He stated an example simliar to yours above. But then he stated that if it were a tiny grain of sand in the midst of a large room, the fact that no one has yet to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. I am really surprised that you would really try and suggest that if no archeological evidence, or otherwise, exists, then the fact claimed is false. Really, trying to be kind, but that is absolutely absurd. I also would wonder which, if any, Bible apologists you would accept as legit? It seems to me you are requiring me to produce a destructive critic who agrees with the Bible. And that is another absurd position. What requirements must a Bible "apologists" have to meet your 'high' standard?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.