Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Apikorus · 12-12-2005, 11:30 PM

That is your answer? That lying is "endemic in much of the human race"?

LOL!

At any rate, if the author of Dan 8-12 had wanted to "lie," and he was writing after 164 BCE, one presumes he would have continued with his very elaborate vaticinium ex eventu and would have manufactured a "prediction" of Antiochus' death during his battle with the Parthians. Are you following any of this, Johnny?

At any rate, your much ballyhooed "invalidation of the Tyre prophecy" has now been reduced to a profession of "belief" that "it is plausible that the prophecy was revised." Sure, Johnny, it is plausible. Congratulations!

Jack the Bodiless · 12-13-2005, 01:45 AM

I think you may be missing some background context here.

We have had several extensive threads on the Tyre "prophecy" recently. Every aspect of it has been pulled apart and examined. It is quite clearly a false prophecy (for reasons already discussed elsewhere). But certain intransigent fundamentalists won't let go.

This is a spinoff thread, in which JS sought to address a general principle: that, if a fundamentalist wishes to claim "prophecy", it is incumbent upon THEM to demonstrate that the "prophecy" was written before the event "prophesied".

So this has "now been reduced" to what he was arguing all along.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-13-2005, 06:46 AM

Message to apikorus:

Regarding dating, you brought up a prophecy in Daniel. Is it your position that the prophecy was divinely inspired, or than any prophecies are divinely inspired? You asked me why whoever the author was would have wanted to lie, but that is not relevant to this thread, which is only about the Tyre prophecy. When you apply your question about lying to the Tyre prophecy, here is what I said in a previous post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

One example of what I think is a reasonable possibility regarding a revision of the original prophecy is the claim that Nebuchadnezzar would go down ALL of the streets of the mainland settlement. There is no evidence that that happened. Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar "a king of kings," and yet this king of kings failed to conquer the mainland settement and eventually went home. Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26:

7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

12 And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

All of the verses refer to Nebuchadnezzar, and the destruction that they mention is extensive, and yet it took "many nations," reference Ezekiel 26:3, centuries to accomplish what this king of kings could not do. Ezekiel might have learned about Nebuchadnezzar's planned invasion in advance by oridnary means and expected him to defeat the mainland settlement by himself. The words "a king of kings" and that his forces would go down "all" of the streets of the mainland settlement suggest this possibility. In addition, Nebuchadnezzar's prior conquests would have caused many people to believe that his invasion of the mainland settlement would succeed. Once it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to defeat the mainland settlement, Ezekiel (or someone else) might have tried to save face by adding "many nations" to the prophecy.

Another important issue is that even if the prophecy was written before the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the norm, not the exception. Due to Nebuchadnezzar's power, his proven penchant for conquest, the riches of Tyre, and Babylon's close proximity to Tyre, it would have been surprising if he had not attacked Tyre. I believe that it is much more probable that Tyre angered Israel, not God. [If Tyre had angered God, he wouldn't have taken centuries to "take care of business." Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example.] Ezekiel 26:2 says "Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste." Even the New Testament speaks harshly against Tyre. Israel was and still is in close proximity to Tyre, and I believe that a squabble must have developed between Israel and Tyre, just like squabbles developed between the Jews and a number of other groups of people. Quite a few Old Testament prophecies are directed against enemies of the Jews, and yet God allowed the Jews' enemies to demolish them on a number of occasions. It is interesting to note that the Old Testament deals mostly with the Middle East and areas adjacent to the Middle East, because that is where most Jews lived. Why was God not concerned with the rest of the world? Why didn't he protect anyone but Jews?

As I have told Lee Merrill and bfniii, since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, it is not a question of who can predict the future, but of who has good character. I believe that God's character is suspect for a number of reasons. Therefore, I would not follow him even if I believed that he could predict the future.

I can reply to your posts more adequately if I know specifically what your belief system is. What is it?

Apikorus · 12-13-2005, 07:31 AM

Johnny, you are setting a world record for obtuseness.

My position on Dan 8-12, which should be abundantly clear, is that it is a vaticinium ex eventu. Do you know what this means? Be a good lad and look it up.

Apikorus · 12-13-2005, 07:40 AM

By the way, you asked about my "belief system." I am not sure why it is necessary to know about this in order to respond to my posts, which are largely self contained. At any rate, while you are looking up the Latin expression in my last post, you can also look up the Hebrew term apikorus (really an Hebraization of a famous Greek name).

Rather than answer your question directly, I will tell you a delightful story, which I found on the internet:

Quote:

So once upon a time in Poland a young apikorus decides he's had it with life in his little village. He sets out for Lodz, one of the major cities, to learn at the feet of the Great Apikorus of Lodz.

He arrives in Lodz on Friday morning, and asks the inkeeper where he can find the Great Apikorus. The inkeeper says to go to the local synagogue. The young apikorus goes to the synagogue and sees a crowd of men in the beit midrash hunched over volumes of Talmud. He asks the sexton where the Great Apikorus is, and the sexton points to one of the bearded men.

"Hello, I'm an apikorus just like you, and I've come to Lodz to study at your feet..."

"Excellent! Welcome! But before we study any apikorsis together, we need to go to the mikveh and prepare for Shabbos."

The young apikorus, perplexed, follows the Great Apikorus to the ritual bath, then back to the synagogue for Friday night services. Then he goes home with the Great Apikorus and has a traditional Shabbat dinner -- the Great Apikorus even says all the appropriate blessings before and after the meal. They meet at the synagogue the next morning, but the Great Apikorus keeps putting the young one off, because of services, lunch, an afternoon Talmud class....

Finally, the young apikorus can contain himself no longer. "I don't understand what's going on. I came to Lodz to study apikorsis at your feet, but you're doing all the same stupid rituals as everyone else. What kind of apikorus are you, anyway?"

The man draws himself up to his full height and declares: "I am the Great Apikorus of Lodz. You are a goy."

Philadelphia Lawyer · 12-13-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

This is a spinoff thread, in which JS sought to address a general principle: that, if a fundamentalist wishes to claim "prophecy", it is incumbent upon THEM to demonstrate that the "prophecy" was written before the event "prophesied".

If Johnny, in his OP, had merely stated this general principle and challenged supporters of the prophecy to show the pre-event writing of the prophecy, no one would have any issue with him. But that's not what he did. He asserted that it was impossible to date the prophecy accurately, and that, therefore, the prophecy was invalid. Then, he refused to prove his assertion.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-13-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

Johnny, you are setting a world record for obtuseness.

My position on Dan 8-12, which should be abundantly clear, is that it is a vaticinium ex eventu. Do you know what this means? Be a good lad and look it up.

What does Daniel have to do with the dating of the Tyre prophecy, and whether or not the Tyre prophecy has been revised? In addition, does Daniel 8-12 influence your belief system in any way? Does any prophecy influence your belief system in any way?

I do not have any idea whatsoever what your explanation meant regarding your world view. How do you believe that the universe got here? Why do you make posts at this forum? What do you want people to believe? Why are you so evasive? Are you at this forum just for entertainment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacktheBodiless

This is a spinoff thread, in which JS sought to address a general principle: that, if a fundamentalist wishes to claim "prophecy", it is incumbent upon THEM to demonstrate that the "prophecy" was written before the event "prophesied."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Lawyer

If Johnny, in his OP, had merely stated this general principle and challenged supporters of the prophecy to show the pre-event writing of the prophecy, no one would have any issue with him. But that's not what he did. He asserted that it was impossible to date the prophecy accurately, and that, therefore, the prophecy was invalid. Then, he refused to prove his assertion.

I have already restated my position, so there is no need for you to refer back to my opening post. Jack was right that "if a fundamentalist wishes to claim 'prophecy', it is incumbent upon THEM to demonstrate that the 'prophecy' was written before the event 'prophesied.'" I have challenged Christians to accurately date the prophecy, and so far, not of them have done so. Just plain old common sense should tell anyone that anybody can write about anything anytime that they want to, and anybody can revise anything anytime that they want to. And, as I have asked Christians on a number of occasions without ever getting a reasonable answer, even if the prophecy was written before the events, what about it indicates divine inspiration? Historically, kingdoms rising and falling has been the norm, not the exception.

Apikorus · 12-13-2005, 09:58 AM

Johnny, do you even read the posts you respond to? You seem as one afflicted with chronic short term memory loss.

I invoked Dan 8-12 as an example of an ancient text which could be reliably dated to within a few years, contra your assertions that such accuracy is in general impossible. This has very little to do with Ezekiel and the Tyre prophecy.

Regarding Ezekiel, I of course presume that the author had no divine knowledge of the future. My purpose in joining the discussion was not to comment on the Tyre prophecy, but rather to object to the shoddy way in which you were treating PL. His point was that you had not in fact proven that the Tyre prophecy is invalid. Rather, you have simply asserted this, and challenged Christians to prove otherwise. Do you understand the difference? Your triumphal "case closed" assertion is laughable.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-13-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

Johnny, do you even read the posts you respond to? You seem as one afflicted with chronic short term memory loss.

I invoked Dan 8-12 as an example of an ancient text which could be reliably dated to within a few years, contra your assertions that such accuracy is in general impossible. This has very little to do with Ezekiel and the Tyre prophecy.

Regarding Ezekiel, I of course presume that the author had no divine knowledge of the future. My purpose in joining the discussion was not to comment on the Tyre prophecy, but rather to object to the shoddy way in which you were treating PL. His point was that you had not in fact proven that the Tyre prophecy is invalid. Rather, you have simply asserted this, and challenged Christians to prove otherwise. Do you understand the difference? Your triumphal "case closed" assertion is laughable.

Yes, I understand the difference, and if you had read my other posts you would already know that I have revised my arguments and that my current position is to challenge Christians to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, which after all is the topic of this thread.

You DID NOT reasonably prove that Daniel 8-12 was not revised by the author or someone else. You asked me why anyone would want to lie. What a preposterous and outlandish question. Lots of religious writings and other writings of antiquity contain lies and innocent but inaccurate revelations.

Regarding my "triumphal 'cased closed' assertion," the case IS closed regarding the inability of Christians to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and their inability to reasonably rule out later revisions. Christians have also been unable to reasonably prove that the prophecy is divinely inspired even if it was written before the events.

I guess you never make mistakes and never do anything that is laughable, right? You have quite a high opinion of yourself, don't you? How were you to able to achieve your fine character, intelligence, and politeness? Maybe you could open up a school and teach other people to be like you.

I notice that you refused to explain what your world view is and why you chose it. Would you care to explain your evasiveness?

I took a look at your posts in other threads, and it appears that you have little if any interest in Biblical Criticism and History, so I wonder why you are at this forum except to attack fellow skeptics, that is, if you are actually a skeptic.

I have made plenty of mistakes in my life, and I will make plenty more. I should have stated my title and my opening post differently, but I made a mistake, and I made the necessary revisions. Are you happy now? Somehow I doubt it.

Apikorus · 12-13-2005, 01:54 PM

Johnny, why don't you try looking specifically at my posts in BC&H. (A significant majority of my posts have been in BC&H). Here are some you may enjoy:
Some hermeneutical mischief
Continuation...
Isaiah 7:14
The James ossuary
That eid thang
Back and forth with spin

You still seem unable to comprehend that the "lie" (to use your poor choice of term) in question in Dan 11:45 is one which clearly weakens its status as a "prophetic" text, since the prediction of Antiochus' death in Palestine is historically false. It would be bizarre, to say the least, for an author engaging in retrojective prophecy to intentionally include obviously wrong data -- get it?

The fact that we have fragments of Dan 9 from Qumran scarcely 60 years after the autograph indicates that there wasn't much time for the sort of revision you suggest. And what kind of revision are you suggesting, Johnny? Do you think a later editor substituted the wrong story of Antiochus' death for the right one? That would be, as you say, "outlandish."

At any rate, you don't seem to understand at all my point about Dan 8-12. You're hung up on "proving" that the Bible is full of "lies" -- an utterly pointless and childish enterprise, every bit as misguided as the attempts by fundamentalists to prove that it is "inerrant."

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

12-12-2005, 11:30 PM	#251
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	That is your answer? That lying is "endemic in much of the human race"? LOL! At any rate, if the author of Dan 8-12 had wanted to "lie," and he was writing after 164 BCE, one presumes he would have continued with his very elaborate vaticinium ex eventu and would have manufactured a "prediction" of Antiochus' death during his battle with the Parthians. Are you following any of this, Johnny? At any rate, your much ballyhooed "invalidation of the Tyre prophecy" has now been reduced to a profession of "belief" that "it is plausible that the prophecy was revised." Sure, Johnny, it is plausible. Congratulations!

12-13-2005, 01:45 AM	#252
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I think you may be missing some background context here. We have had several extensive threads on the Tyre "prophecy" recently. Every aspect of it has been pulled apart and examined. It is quite clearly a false prophecy (for reasons already discussed elsewhere). But certain intransigent fundamentalists won't let go. This is a spinoff thread, in which JS sought to address a general principle: that, if a fundamentalist wishes to claim "prophecy", it is incumbent upon THEM to demonstrate that the "prophecy" was written before the event "prophesied". So this has "now been reduced" to what he was arguing all along.

12-13-2005, 07:31 AM	#254
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Johnny, you are setting a world record for obtuseness. My position on Dan 8-12, which should be abundantly clear, is that it is a vaticinium ex eventu. Do you know what this means? Be a good lad and look it up.

12-13-2005, 09:58 AM	#258
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Johnny, do you even read the posts you respond to? You seem as one afflicted with chronic short term memory loss. I invoked Dan 8-12 as an example of an ancient text which could be reliably dated to within a few years, contra your assertions that such accuracy is in general impossible. This has very little to do with Ezekiel and the Tyre prophecy. Regarding Ezekiel, I of course presume that the author had no divine knowledge of the future. My purpose in joining the discussion was not to comment on the Tyre prophecy, but rather to object to the shoddy way in which you were treating PL. His point was that you had not in fact proven that the Tyre prophecy is invalid. Rather, you have simply asserted this, and challenged Christians to prove otherwise. Do you understand the difference? Your triumphal "case closed" assertion is laughable.

12-13-2005, 01:54 PM	#260
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Johnny, why don't you try looking specifically at my posts in BC&H. (A significant majority of my posts have been in BC&H). Here are some you may enjoy: Some hermeneutical mischief Continuation... Isaiah 7:14 The James ossuary That eid thang Back and forth with spin You still seem unable to comprehend that the "lie" (to use your poor choice of term) in question in Dan 11:45 is one which clearly weakens its status as a "prophetic" text, since the prediction of Antiochus' death in Palestine is historically false. It would be bizarre, to say the least, for an author engaging in retrojective prophecy to intentionally include obviously wrong data -- get it? The fact that we have fragments of Dan 9 from Qumran scarcely 60 years after the autograph indicates that there wasn't much time for the sort of revision you suggest. And what kind of revision are you suggesting, Johnny? Do you think a later editor substituted the wrong story of Antiochus' death for the right one? That would be, as you say, "outlandish." At any rate, you don't seem to understand at all my point about Dan 8-12. You're hung up on "proving" that the Bible is full of "lies" -- an utterly pointless and childish enterprise, every bit as misguided as the attempts by fundamentalists to prove that it is "inerrant."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.