A few things I don't understand about the bible

by Leander 64 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JanH

  littletoe,

  Daniel was included in the canon that was translated into the Greek Septuagint. Work started on that during the 4th Cent. BC.

  A sorta deceptive statement. No evidence exists that Daniel was translated into Greek before the 1st century BC. That is the bottom line.

  In addition, tradition states that Alexander the Great was shown scriptures that highlighted his arrival at the gates of Jerusalem.

  A "tradition" without any supporting evidence, and knowing the credibility of such "traditions", totally spurious.

  I will happily stand corrected if it can be PROVED that the OT wasn't fixed by this time.

  You can't have any "proof" in questions of history. You can, however, have evidence. And it's a very good evidence that Daniel "predicted" events up to 167 (from memory) quite accurately (being in error on some about ancient details though, mixing up Darius and Cyrus), while his actual predictions, about a final war between Antiochus and Ptolemy, failed completely.

  That said, you reverse the burden of evidence. If I claim I had predicted, say, the events on Sept 11, before the fact, people would reasonably demand very solid evidence that I had actually made such a prediction before the fact. If no records of such predictions could be produced, the claim had to be rejected. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  Same about the Bible. The burden of evidence is on those who claim some text predicted an event to show that 1) a text predicting these events was really written before the fact and 2) that what was foretold in those texts did actually happen.

  All claims to Biblical prophecy fail at least one of these tests. The "prophecies" about Jesus, for example, generally fail on both.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  gumby

  2. Another thing that I find a bit odd is the account of Noah. Everyone on the planet with the exception of Noah and his small family perished by means of a flood. Whats the odds of someone believing a man who tells you that water is going to fall from the sky for 40 days and 40 nights? Especially considering that rain had never occured before. I don't if Noah had any special significance or proof back then as being known as a man of God, but would'nt it be hard for the average person to believe such a message? But whatever the case many lives were lost.

  The bible says that at the time of the flood.....God saw that the HEARTS of men were bad from the youth up. It appears that God reads the hearts of those he chooses to directly destroy.
  It only seems fair to bring judgement on those who in their hearts....choose to reject him...and have had an honest opportunity to recieve him.
  I would like to say more but have to go to work.
  I wish you the best in your examination.
• 

  Leander

  In regards to the replies on prophecy. Prophecy is definitely an area I need to study up on, I've basically just accepted what the Society has said. But now that I'm a bit more critical about things that they teach I'll definitely be going back to look at those subjects again.

  Gumby - Thats an interesting verse that I did'nt think about. But what about the children though, would they have turned out differently depending on how they were raised?
• 

  LittleToe

  Jan:
  

  A sorta deceptive statement

  
  No intention of that from this baby. I don't play at that game.

  knowing the credibility of such "traditions", totally spurious.

  
  I disagree. They exist. To be totally spurious you would have to prove them such, not just flippantly declare them to be such.

  you reverse the burden of evidence

  
  Aye, that was my intention, alright.
  The Septuagint has stood for a couple of millenium. Why should I suddenly accept the burden of responsibility of re-proving it?
  The responsibility lies on the sceptics to disprove it, since their contention is by far the newer and unproven.

  You will notice that I only extended my point to cover the Roman dynasty. As for 20th Cent. - well the jury is still out on all of that.
  I'm not being dishonest Jan, I'm just stating what I hold to be true.
  In addition, I'm only going from a rather imperfect memory. If I remember I'll double check the dates and such-like.

  Other than that - how ya doin'?

  LT
• 

  SixofNine

  The Septuagint has stood for a couple of millenium

  What absolute balderdash! It either "stands" and therefore "has stood" or it does not and never did.

  The answer seems to be it does NOT. The more we find out, the less it looks as if it has ever "stood".

  Does it "stand" because it remains a part of a large part of the earths populations culture? Sorry, that isn't good enough for a reasonable person.
• 

  LDH

  The really important question, though, hasn't even been asked!

  Is that really a picture of YOU in your profile, Leander?

  LOL.

  Lisa,
  Wiping her brow and slowing her breathing class.
• 

  LittleToe

  Hi six,

  My conjecture was that Daniel was part of the LXX before the Roman dynasty, and therefore supports the possibility of some accurate prediction being contained therein (compelling enough for me - whether you class me as reasonable or not).
  In that context it has "stood" as an established work.
  Where is the "absolute balderdash" in that?

  If you have evidence to suggest that it was seriously contested during even the first millenium of its existance, then I'll happily retract. What little evidence exists seems to suggest that it was held as being far older still.

  You've raise a straw man of "culture" and painted my comment as unreasonable on that basis. THAT'S not reasonable.
  Debate my comments, by all means, but please don't make them up for me.

  LT

  Wiping his brow and having a good belly laugh with Lisa
• 

  SixofNine

  whoa liltoe. You didn't say "why" you thought the septuagint "stands". I see now that you are being specific about this one incident, not the septuagint itself. Big difference, and, as I am not "up" on that particular point, I can't really comment. The rest of the book being such obvious balderdash however, makes me inlcined to speculate as to where that research will take me. I know, I shouldn't be like that.
• 

  Leander

  LDH - Thats not me in the picture. (although it is similar) When I get around to buying a scanner I'll post the real me. lol

  I wish I knew why its so hard to determine who or what religion is really the true one.
• 

  LittleToe

  Six:
  No problem

  Leander:
  Now let's not get back into that "what is truth" thang again!!!
  You'll probably find that the majority of opinion (especially on this board) is that there isn't one true religion, or even one true religion.

  Could be wrong though .

  LT