The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[Dilettante]

SpinyNorman wrote:

Dilettante,

Yes I believe we can be confident in the accuracy of the translations today even thought the original writings are lost to time.

When scribes set down to make copies they followed STRICT copy rules. If there was the slightest error thes WHOLE COPY was destroyed.

Also the original writings were not copied one at a time. It wasn't a case of using one copy then recopying it when that one wore out. Copies were made in groups. And each finished copy had to be checked numerous times.

And even if that isn't enough, we have VERY early manuscripts, some complete and some fragmentary. Even using the EARLIEST of these documents, which are little more than pieces, they always match up with our current bible. There are minor inconsistencies with numbers or spelling, but in NO CASE have there been any errors found in any key doctrinal or theological passages.

I agree. Scribes no doubt went to great lenghts in order to ensure that their copies were faithful to the original. But I guess the question still remains of whether the original authors were the ones God directly spoke to. I mean, whether God dictated the text or just inspired them to put what previously had been oral tradition into written language.

[samuelbb7]

Good question. The way to tell the bible is true varies. One is it as far as we can tell historically accurate. Most archeologist will give a qualified yes. There are numerous parts uncorrobated but it is reasonably accurate.

Now parts of the Bible makes miracules claims: Six day creation, Jesus rising from the dead. Etc. These must be taken on faith.

Does the bible have knowledge that men did not know when it was written. Yes for instance the Bible gives laws of sanitation and eating that were not put into effect by most people until the 20th century.

Then there is prophecy: One of the most famous is this one:

70 WEEKS OF DANIEL

The Bible has in the middle of Daniel the time prophecy of the first coming of JESUS CHRIST and what would happen when he came. It reads:

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


The starting of the 70 weeks is dated from 457 B.C. when the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was given. You can read about it in Ezra 6:14 and chapter 7. It took forty-nine difficult years to rebuild Jerusalem as told in Ezra and Nehemiah. Seven weeks of years or one year for each day brings us to 434 B.C. That leaves us sixty-two weeks of years or 434 years.

The two together or sixty-nine weeks of year is 483 years. When you take 483 and subtract 457 you get 26 A.D. the year of the baptism of JESUS CHRIST. Three and one half years-latter JESUS was crucified sealing the covenant with his blood. This was in the midst of the Seventieth week just as the Bible had foretold. Then three and one half years after that is the approximate date of the killing of Stephen the first martyr of Christianity and the beginning of spreading the gospel to gentiles. Thus the seventy weeks are

There is more if you wish and I can give more details.

[Dilettante]

samuel bb7,

Thanks for your comment. The alleged prophecy in Daniel was pointed out to me before on this site, but I still do not see any obvious connection with Jesus (who isn't even mentioned explicitly). I guess there is always at least a possibility that you are right and I'm wrong, but I doubt it. My reasons for not accepting that text as a prophecy are many, but the main one is that Daniel is no longer considered a prophetic book at all by Bible scholars. It is now generally classified as an apocalyptic book (like Revelation). In other words, although the style adopted by the author is that of prophecy, in reality Daniel is what Bible specialists call "retrospective history", written after the events had already happened.
According to most specialists, the author ( who is reflecting on Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy) behind the name of Daniel is a contemporary of the events described in the days of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes).

As for historical accuracy, I have read all sorts of opinions. Almost certainly not all of the authors of the Bible were concerned with accuracy. I read that the battle of Jericho as described in the Bible had been questioned (perhaps even disproven, I don't remember) by archaeologists. I'll try to find out more about it. Certainly the ancient Hebrews are known to have greatly exaggerated their heroic exploits on certain occasions (the story of the mass suicide to avoid capture by the Romans, etc)

Now parts of the Bible makes miracules claims: Six day creation, Jesus rising from the dead. Etc. These must be taken on faith.

As far I understand, those are very different. While taking the Resurrection on faith is certainly essential, no Christian is required to believe in the Six Day Creation literally. Genesis being an epic, poetry takes precedence over accuracy.

the Bible gives laws of sanitation and eating that were not put into effect by most people until the 20th century.

Perhaps (I haven't looked into the matter), but it is also true that the Chinese were in many ways more advanced than the Medieval Christians, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that better sanitation and better dietary hygiene are evidence for God's intervention.

Regards,
Dilettante

[samuelbb7]

It is true that many scholars now take the position that portions of the Bible are not true. The effort for the late date of daniel is based on the belief that it had to be written after the events happened since to write it before would mean that Daniel had know events before they happen which many of the scholars say is impossible. Now according to legend when Alexander the Great came through Israel they knowing the prophecy of Daniel concerning grecia See Daniel 8 went out and greeted Alexander. Now in history it can be proved Alexander the Great went through there and meet no opposition but they do not know why. If however the legend is true we would know why and would also know that the book was written before the antidaniel scholars think.

By the way an apocalyptic book is a book that deals with last day events and coming events. So that would be correct.

Now true the Chinese had some advances over medieval europeans. But we are talking about people prior to that. Israelites were taught to wash their hands before eating, to bath regularly, bury their waste and not use rivers as bathrooms. They were also counciled to isolate the sick so as to not spread diseases and that some items could be washed and reused while others had to be purified by fire or destroyed and never reused. All of which is fine if you understood about germs. But germs were not even thought of then.

[Dilettante]

Hi samuelbb7,

The scholars I consulted are not "anti-Daniel" or anti-Bible in any way. The issue here is not whether the events depicted in the Bible constitue a faithful journalistic account. The Bible probably wouldn't pass a test in objectivity and accuracy in reporting. But it would be unfair to judge it that way because that doesn't seem to have been the intention of the writers. Some Bible stories are rooted in Hebrew folklore. Some are symbolic or mythical. Still, what counts in a religious book is its spiritual value. I think that when we read the Bible we need to make an effort and try to put ourselves in the mindset of the times, and familiarize ourselves with the different types of texts and styles used. My Bible textbook says the book of Daniel was written between the years 167-164 BC by an unknown author. The first six chapters belong to the narrative genre. Then chapters 7 through 12 are apocalyptic visions. The context is one of persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is referred to in Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar, a Babylonian king of the past ( reigned 605-562 BC). Apocalyptic books were written in times of great crises, when no prophets were available. The author of an apocalyptic book typcally used the name of a famous prophet to whom the visions were attributed. Apocalyptic books are written in cryptic, symbolic language which only the initiated can understand. The intention is to invoke the end times (the final triumph of God) so that people don't get discouraged by the hardships of the present. In order to interpret apocalyptic literature we must remember that certain words, certain colors, and certain numbers had a hidden meaning. This is what my Bible textbook (by T. Cepedal) says about them:

White=victory, purity
Red=murder, violence
Black=death, impiety
7=perfection
6=imperfection
Three and a half=imperfection, suffering, hard times
12=Israel (twelve tribes)
4=the worlds (four points of the compass)
1000=a number too large to count
Horn=power
White hair=eternity (the old man in Daniel 7 is not old but eternally young)
Long robe=priest's attire
Golden belt=royal power
rams=villains
sheep=God's people

You are right that apocalyptic literature and prophetic literature are similar. The difference between prophetical books and apocalyptic books is that the former looks for signs of hope in the form of predictions of future events, whereas the latter draws our attention to the end times, rather than some unspecified point in the future.

As for knowledge of hygiene, the Hebrews were not alone. Before them, the ancient Egyptians had reached a high level, and had even produced the oldest known medical treatises. Check out the following site for details:

http://www.wrf.org/news/news0010.htm

Best wishes,

Dilettante

[Dilettante]

Ah, I almost forgot...

samuelbb7 wrote:

Now in history it can be proved Alexander the Great went through there and meet no opposition but they do not know why.

Very true. But then again, only the Persians really put up a fight against Alexander. The rest of conquered peoples offered little or no resistance, perhaps out of fear...who knows?

[samuelbb7]

My bible says very much opposite in it's reference to what your says. Yours starts off sayint it does not know who wrote it. So it starts off saying this person who calls himself Daniel a man of GOD is a liar and these events did not really happen. He was not taken captive did not choose a vegetarian diet was not thrown into a lion's den etc. So why should we trust this liar to tell us anything correct. Also If GOD is so weak that he would allow this liar to add to his word he is not too strong or powerfull either. You see the problem is these people do not want the Bible to be true so they make up execuses for it like you said to make it untrue.

Is this the GOd you serve?

Look again at Daniel 2 and then Daniel 7 read them and let me know if you think you cannot understand them.

The theology you are referring to is a school of thought called preterism which supposes that GOD cannot really foretell the future. but if that is so then why does Daniel say after Rome the iron legs no future kingdom will be in complete control. Why does he say the kingdoms of the feet and toes will intermarry but not stay together. Think about this.


More then persians put up a fight. They put up the biggest one.

Yes the egyptians had some good medical knowledge. But they did not recognize how disease spread and did not quarantine patients or understand the rules of hygene. In a PBS special they are finding many of the diseases that plagued the egyptions many having to do with diet and improper sanitation.

Exd 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] the LORD that healeth thee.

[Colter]

Question, If the authors of the bible are of the same corrupt priest class that killed the prophets, then killed Jesus and after that killed Christian converts, why are are we expected to believe all of their self exalting history and interpretations of God?

Were not the scribed and pharisees in the best position to "know" the scripture yet they rejectd Jesus however and now were told that (their) writings are perfect and indisputable ?????????????

[Dilettante]

samuelbb7,
What you say proves my point that there is more than one way to read the Bible.
You are looking at the Bible with modern eyes. My opinion is that we need to look at it in the way its authors did. Without an effort to think like those people of old and translate their language and culture into ours, I don’t think anyone can properly understand their message. Any translator will tell you that it's better to communicate the essence (the spirit) than to stick to the literal meaning of the words.

But the first thing to do is find out what kind of book it is we are reading. This has nothing to do with preterism or any particular theological position. Daniel is a midrashic book (i.e., a commentary).The author of Daniel is not a liar for using Daniel's name. That was common practice in Jewish apocalyptic literature, as far as I can tell. When the US Government issued the famous "I want you for US Army" posters they put those words in Uncle Sam's mouth. Were they liars for that? I don't think so. I don’t see why it is important to believe, against evidence to the contrary, that Daniel and the author of the book of Daniel are one and the same. If Daniel had written the book, he wouldn't have made certain basic mistakes. He would have known that Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar’s son and that Darius could not be the son of Ahasuerus.

Also If GOD is so weak that he would allow this liar to add to his word he is not too strong or powerfull either.

Many people have claimed to have additions to the Old Testament and the Bible in general (the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc). While Daniel clearly belongs in the Bible, I don't believe those other books are really legitimate additions. However, God didn't destroy those people. What is your point?

Is this the GOd you serve?

What do you mean? I'm not Jewish, so I don't feel bound by the Old Testament. I don't see what you're trying to tell me.

Look again at Daniel 2 and then Daniel 7 read them and let me know if you think you cannot understand them.

What I understand is that Daniel 2 tells us about Daniel's adventures with his friends and how they come out victorious. Then Daniel 7 is a very different kind of narrative, including apocalyptic visions only an ancient Hebrew could fully understand. Of course, people read all kinds of things into the Bible. There's even a guy who wrote a ridiculous book about a supposed "Bible code".

Alexander didn't meet with much opposition anywhere but in Persia. Perhaps because his "empire" was largely a virtual one consisting basically of himself and his men. In fact his empire did not survive him. Without a road network like the one the Romans built, Alexander's hold could not be very tight. Now, the Roman Empire was a real empire!

Regards,
Dilettante


P.S.: As for hygiene and the Hebrews, they had no knowledge of germs either. It was not until 1530 that the theory that germs caused disease was first proposed. If you look closely, most of the supposedly hygienic practices are prescribed for religious reasons rather than sanitary ones. Circumcision—a practice pioneered by the Egyptians-- is not justifiable in terms of hygiene. It was a religious practice rather than a medical one, a fact confirmed by their practice of circumcising even dead babies. Burying excrement was done for the purpose of not offending God. I can’t see any Bible recommendations which are primarily hygienic rather than religious.

[/b]

[hannahjoy]

Question, If the authors of the bible are of the same corrupt priest class that killed the prophets, then killed Jesus and after that killed Christian converts, why are are we expected to believe all of their self exalting history and interpretations of God?

If their history were "self-exalting" it wouldn't include those accounts of them killing the prophets and others. They testified against themselves as a testimony to the way God had changed them.