Religimyth...

[crowTrobot 2]

How about the book of Daniel where Daniel predicted the fall of the Babylonian empire, and the rise and fall of the next 3 major world dominating super powers through Rome?The only way to conclude that this isn't clearly prophecy is to argue that this was written after the time of Rome and then you Jews tried to lie about it's date. Of course the proof for this late date, is that it predicted the 4 world powers and you just can't do that, therefore it must have been written after the fall of Rome.

false. there are other reasons why scholars believe daniel is a 2nd century BC composition that have nothing to do with prophecy. given that there is no way for you to prove daniel was written before the events you claim it predicts and valid reasons to suspect it was written after, it's not evidence for anything.

Or we can go with the tribe of Israel, which is predicted for many future events, even though it was destroyed as a nation for almost 1900 years. Can you come up with one other nation from the BC times that was driven from their homelands for centuries and still came back together with the same culture, religion and general belief system?

claimed biblical prophecy of extra-biblical events are all subjective. not evidence.

Then there are the many prophecies about Christ that were fulfilled. Link

NT authors would have been well aware of OT prophecy. before you can claim christ fulfilled prophecy you first have to prove the gospels aren't fiction, which you can't. not evidence.

You do know Dawkins said he thinks aliens might have seeded the life on earth?

he also thinks god might exist. he doesn't think either are probable.

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm glad my instruction has begun to seep into that psychotropic laden brain of yours.Now if only crow's wasn't so closed...

you mean if only crow was as good at sarcasm as VB

[Balloon guy 158]

The only place this is recorded is in Matthew. I'm not saying with 100% certainty that it didn't happen, but this doesn't count as objective historical evidence that a prophesy was fulfilled.

The following is from this site

1. Is there any other evidence to support the account?While a Syrian text and early Byzantine liturgy speak of such an event, these references are likely quite embellished. The Syrian reference, for example, speaks of 64,000 "innocents" being massacred. Moreover, they were written well after the time frame of Herod's alleged atrocity. As to contemporary evidence, there is none. Aside from the Gospel of Matthew, no document from the first century A.D. (or before) attests to this event. Consequently, most secular, mainstream historians have looked upon the "Massacre of the Innocents" as more legend than factual history.2. Is the Gospel of Matthew itself a credible and trustworthy source of information?The fairest and most reasonable way to assess Matthew's credibility is to examine it with the same standard that one would bring to any ancient text. Yet determining the credibility of Matthew is often premised on what presuppositions one brings to the exercise itself.If a person is inclined to accept the existence of God and the possibility of miracles, then the Gospel of Matthew receives a more benign examination - and usually comes off quite well. If, however, a person leans agnostic and discounts miracles, then the Gospel of Matthew is often dismissed immediately as religious legend.This much is certain: the Gospel of Matthew was written sometime between the death of Jesus (the third decade of the first century A.D.) and the close of the first century. The early church attributed the Gospel to Matthew, an eyewitness disciple of Jesus, and there is no record of anyone in the first century challenging Matthew's authenticity, particularly with respect to Herod's alleged genocide.3. Is the episode consistent with the nature of King Herod?One of the reasons why no contemporary of Matthew appears to have challenged the tale is that it's very consistent with the ruthless king at the center of the story.Writing for the British-based Daily Mall, Peter Stanford explains: "Any threat of an uprising was put down with brutal and bloody ferocity. Encouraged by his Roman masters, Herod believed in singling out individuals for public execution as well as the mass slaughter of opponents."While Stanford's article casts some doubt on Herod's massacring babies, it does nevertheless conclude (as do most historians) that such an atrocity was not beyond Herod.The bottom line is that there is no evidence for the "massacre of the innocents" story outside of the Bible. This fact, however, does not disprove the tale. King Herod may very well have issued such a terrible order, and we may one day uncover additional evidence to confirm it.Read more at Suite101: Did Herod Kill Children?: A Look at Herod the Great and the Massacre of the Innocents | Suite101.com http://near-eastern-history.suite101.com/a...n#ixzz0YrXcuzM9

Seems to me to be a rational explanation

[Balloon guy 158]

That's pretty cool. What were the next 3 that he predicted?

Medeo-Persians, Greeks and Romans

It was written during a time that the tribe of Israel was "destroyed"? I guess that's a good one, but I'd have to read more about it. What were the future events prophesized about?

Basically that the end times would be centered around the nation of Israel. For the last thousand years the anti-bible argument was that there was no Israel so this was proof that the Bible is flawed.

I can't really buy that one for obvious reasons...the legend of Christ could easily be manipulated to fit what was prophesized. I'm not saying I know for sure it wasn't true, but this isn't really evidence for anything, per se.

I can understand your position here. How about allowing that if there were 100 prophecies about Christ that predate him, and they came to pass...that would be pretty much a big plus on the side of the Bible is real side?

I'm not sure what you posted is quite enough to make someone believe if they didn't already, but I can see how they're good "See?" points for you. Which goes back to the root of the whole problem when someone from any given religion tries to convince someone that they're right. Here's a question...are there any prophecies in the bible that are pretty obviously off the mark? I guess that's one for the crows of the forum.

I would be interested if this is attempted.

But, see, I agree with this, and you seem to disagree with it. As far as I can tell, I think that the bible is kind of a morality guide, while you seem to take it as a textbook full of literal truths. Right?

It kind of boils down to how can you equate the notion that the Bible has a very moral guideline, and at the same time is trying to lie about the life of Christ and the other words He spoke where He said " I am the Way and the Truth, there is no other way to get to Heaven except through Me."

You know, not all of us think that Dawkins is the end all be all of everything atheism. Actually, I bet that none of us agree with everything he says, it's just that he does a good job clearly articulating certain thoughts. You're the one that makes him out to be some kind of god-like figure for atheists.

Well that and he is the one getting the richest off the book sales demeaning the entire notion of religion and of Christianity in general. His attitude in most of his books is extremely arrogant and as such he deserves the ire I have for him.

I think aliens might have seeded the life on earth. It's certainly possible. And you agree...what's god if not a super crazy powerful alien?

Then I guess when the alien return to eat us, you will be okay with that? IT'S A COOKBOOK!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I love the reference.

Just that ST:NG was superior to the original

[Balloon guy 158]

false. there are other reasons why scholars believe daniel is a 2nd century BC composition that have nothing to do with prophecy. given that there is no way for you to prove daniel was written before the events you claim it predicts and valid reasons to suspect it was written after, it's not evidence for anything.

Well there is the part that it claims to be written during the time of the captivity in Babylon, and it describes life in ancient Babylon pretty accurately. something that might be a little hard for a guy 500 years later without google.

claimed biblical prophecy of extra-biblical events are all subjective. not evidence.

Subjective....born in Bethlehem....thought that would be empirical?

NT authors would have been well aware of OT prophecy. before you can claim christ fulfilled prophecy you first have to prove the gospels aren't fiction, which you can't. not evidence.

So, if the Gospels are not fiction you would believe them? Seems that you get to have your cake and eat it. but given the mountain of evidence against you, I guess this is the only position you can take

he also thinks god might exist. he doesn't think either are probable.

Of course not, why would the sheep keep buying his books that claim there is no God?

[Balloon guy 158]

Slow down you crazy old kook, this thread started off with intelligent thought until you showed up

I think you are mistaking the words intelligent with the words completely thoughtless.It's a character trait of your side

[speedz99 145]

Basically that the end times would be centered around the nation of Israel. For the last thousand years the anti-bible argument was that there was no Israel so this was proof that the Bible is flawed.

Ah. I completely separate "tribes of Israel" from the current country of the same name. Semantics, I suppose.

I can understand your position here. How about allowing that if there were 100 prophecies about Christ that predate him, and they came to pass...that would be pretty much a big plus on the side of the Bible is real side?

Honestly, I'd still have the same problem with it. They'd have to be very specific prophesies with proof that they came true coming from sources other than the bible.

It kind of boils down to how can you equate the notion that the Bible has a very moral guideline, and at the same time is trying to lie about the life of Christ and the other words He spoke where He said " I am the Way and the Truth, there is no other way to get to Heaven except through Me."

I attribute that to well-intentioned authors realizing that a general book on morality wouldn't move mountains, but the key to getting to heaven would.

Well that and he is the one getting the richest off the book sales demeaning the entire notion of religion and of Christianity in general. His attitude in most of his books is extremely arrogant and as such he deserves the ire I have for him.

He is no more arrogant than you are. I mean, he's more of a jackass maybe, but you think you're 100% correct and leave no room for the opposing view having any merit, same as him. Although he does leave room for more possibilities than you do (even though Christianity isn't one of them), so it could be argued that he's less arrogant than you. But again, I'm separating arrogance in terms of certainty from arrogance in terms of being kind of a jerk about it.

I think you are mistaking the words intelligent with the words completely thoughtless.It's a character trait of your side

Uh oh, I may need to amend my previous statement.

Just that ST:NG was superior to the original

There's no doubt about that. Sidebar: I loved the new Trek movie and can't wait for the next one to come out.Summary: I understand why these prophesies (wait...prophecies or prophesies...I can't spell) make you even more sure of your belief. I just have yet to see one that is truly independent of a prior belief. Which is fine, I'm just trying to explain my point of view in terms of why they don't bring me closer to your side of the debate.

[crowTrobot 2]

Seems to me to be a rational explanation

if by rational you mean retarded, particularly this part -

The fairest and most reasonable way to assess Matthew's credibility is to examine it with the same standard that one would bring to any ancient text. Yet determining the credibility of Matthew is often premised on what presuppositions one brings to the exercise itself.If a person is inclined to accept the existence of God and the possibility of miracles, then the Gospel of Matthew receives a more benign examination - and usually comes off quite well. If, however, a person leans agnostic and discounts miracles, then the Gospel of Matthew is often dismissed immediately as religious legend.

christians dismiss the acceptance of gods and discount miracles in all other ancient texts but the bible, so this is nothing more than blatantly admitting your own double standard.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well there is the part that it claims to be written during the time of the captivity in Babylon, and it describes life in ancient Babylon pretty accurately. something that might be a little hard for a guy 500 years later without google.

name one specific statement in daniel corroborating something confirmed by anthropologists about ancient babylon/persia unlikely to have been common knowledge after the fact.

Subjective....born in Bethlehem....thought that would be empirical?

i meant attempting to use subjective interpretation to apply vague stuff like revelations to post-biblical times. some dude's guess of what it means is not evidence for fulfilled prophecy.obviously the nativity story could potentially be objectively fulfilled prophecy if it were factual, but only apologists claim it is factual. nobody else thinks it is. even non-apologist scholors who believe jesus existed think his birth story is obvious mythology.

So, if the Gospels are not fiction you would believe them? Seems that you get to have your cake and eat it. but given the mountain of evidence against you, I guess this is the only position you can take

another lame attempt to shift burden of proof

Of course not, why would the sheep keep buying his books that claim there is no God?

his books do not claim that. they claim a personal god is highly improbable.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I think you are mistaking the words intelligent with the words completely thoughtless.It's a character trait of your side

I do believe you are mistaken sir.These characteristics you note are very much traits of your side.*, its fun and easy responding like BG does. just take what people say and reverse it to counter their points and offer no real content for your argument in the process.lol i guess thats kinda how religion works anyways.

[SweetDee 0]

I like bible type conversation but a good part of this whole thread is just a mess. Kind of mean, too. I don't know that I will venture into this part of the site a whole lot.

[speedz99 145]

I like bible type conversation but a good part of this whole thread is just a mess. Kind of mean, too. I don't know that I will venture into this part of the site a whole lot.

You mean the BG/Royal, "I know you are but what am I?" That's all gold right there.

[Royal_Tour 0]

You mean the BG/Royal, "I know you are but what am I?" That's all gold right there.

You'll burn in hell for your ways

[vbnautilus 48]

I like bible type conversation but a good part of this whole thread is just a mess. Kind of mean, too. I don't know that I will venture into this part of the site a whole lot.

Well, do keep us up to date on your thought process regarding this decision.

[Balloon guy 158]

Honestly, I'd still have the same problem with it. They'd have to be very specific prophesies with proof that they came true coming from sources other than the bible.

So you want an outside source proving that the Greeks were world leaders? Or you want an outside source that the Bible predicted it hundreds of years before it happened?

I attribute that to well-intentioned authors realizing that a general book on morality wouldn't move mountains, but the key to getting to heaven would.

So it was just unfortunate for people like me that dozens of men over hundreds of years all willingly fudged the truth in order to fool the masses in order to protect a movement that they knew to be based on falsehoods...

He is no more arrogant than you are. I mean, he's more of a jackass maybe, but you think you're 100% correct and leave no room for the opposing view having any merit, same as him. Although he does leave room for more possibilities than you do (even though Christianity isn't one of them), so it could be argued that he's less arrogant than you. But again, I'm separating arrogance in terms of certainty from arrogance in terms of being kind of a jerk about it.

I guess I disagree with your standards, here I am a bit arrogant in response to certain people and their stupid posts, but I would never think to assume that all people who believe in evolution are blind sheep that are hurting the world by their very existence....Dawkins is getting rich from his books about itI have also stated many times that I do not hold the belief that people who subscribe to evolution are wrong because of faulty logic, just faulty data. Their conclusions with only limited secular data can very easily lead you to evolution. I have also stated the areas where my side of the argument is weak. Crow can't even find it in himself to critique Royal Tour because he cannot remotely acknowledge any errors from his side of this debate.But if you think I am arrogant in my beliefs than I guess I will try to check my tone.

Uh oh, I may need to amend my previous statement.

Never could hold onto a thought long could you doofus....oh sorry

Sidebar: I loved the new Trek movie and can't wait for the next one to come out.

That was a test to confiorm that you are a geek, I know not much of a stretch, but it's always good to define people into narrow definitions should their ideas be needed to be discounted when confronted with an alternative belief. At least that's what this thread has taught me.

Summary: I understand why these prophesies (wait...prophecies or prophesies...I can't spell) make you even more sure of your belief. I just have yet to see one that is truly independent of a prior belief. Which is fine, I'm just trying to explain my point of view in terms of why they don't bring me closer to your side of the debate.

Well, I can say that I am confident that a person who seeks will find the truth. All you need is to be open to truth, like me.

[Balloon guy 158]

if by rational you mean retarded, particularly this part -christians dismiss the acceptance of gods and discount miracles in all other ancient texts but the bible, so this is nothing more than blatantly admitting your own double standard.

Well that's all fine and good, but these guys aren't Christians...So you once again prove that you can't handle anything that disagrees with your worldview and will resort to personal character attacks to deflect your weak non-existent arguments.

[Randy Reed 0]

So you want an outside source proving that the Greeks were world leaders? Or you want an outside source that the Bible predicted it hundreds of years before it happened? So it was just unfortunate for people like me that dozens of men over hundreds of years all willingly fudged the truth in order to fool the masses in order to protect a movement that they knew to be based on falsehoods...I guess I disagree with your standards, here I am a bit arrogant in response to certain people and their stupid posts, but I would never think to assume that all people who believe in evolution are blind sheep that are hurting the world by their very existence....Dawkins is getting rich from his books about itI have also stated many times that I do not hold the belief that people who subscribe to evolution are wrong because of faulty logic, just faulty data. Their conclusions with only limited secular data can very easily lead you to evolution. I have also stated the areas where my side of the argument is weak. Crow can't even find it in himself to critique Royal Tour because he cannot remotely acknowledge any errors from his side of this debate.But if you think I am arrogant in my beliefs than I guess I will try to check my tone.Never could hold onto a thought long could you doofus....oh sorryThat was a test to confiorm that you are a geek, I know not much of a stretch, but it's always good to define people into narrow definitions should their ideas be needed to be discounted when confronted with an alternative belief. At least that's what this thread has taught me.Well, I can say that I am confident that a person who seeks will find the truth. All you need is to be open to truth, like me.

BG, I respect that you not only believe what you write, but that you do come here to well, I guess it ends up being "defending" your beliefs. I think even you could see that given you will staunchly defend an idea that,some vague prophecies written in Babylonian times that might have come true, (and even if they did I am not surewhat that would prove.), but what we know as factual scientifec data you completely ridicule and discard. You seem to believe anything is possible, unless there is evidence that it is true.How can you say these prophecies are real, but any other religon's prophecies are false other than always just refering to the bible which even you kind of admit is a bit of a mess. I was about 10 years old when I started questioning it. I really can't make sense of "how" you actually believe it was it a guidebook, a cookbook, or factual? I really don't get why a professor making money by writing a book about his field makes you angry. It's done all the time and you being a republican defend that right constantly. It isn't like he is disguising that fact. You treat it like it is some kind of propoganda, yet I see Christian propoganda that I find very offensive, like glow in the dark Jesus balloons. There are so many people that use faith and fear to steal money from the uneducated that I am surprised this doesn't bother you alot more. I assume that you don't like Dawkin's attitude since he is pretty forthright about these types of bad behavior he believes religon leads too and that you take it personally, though I suspect you wouldn't defend those behaviors.I guess one of the problems I have with Christianity is that it controls through fear. Fear of not achieving afterlife is the controlling factor in how to live own's life. I've always felt the point of the journey, was not to arrive.

[speedz99 145]

So you want an outside source proving that the Greeks were world leaders? Or you want an outside source that the Bible predicted it hundreds of years before it happened?

There are plenty of sources saying the Greeks were world leaders. I'd like an outside source that says the bible was fully written back when you say it was, and has been completely unchanged since. That's the thing...if there is any legitimate debate about it, I can't just accept it as fact. From very quick research about the book of daniel that never mentions prophecies as proof one way or another:Although the traditionalist view continues to be held by conservative Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by most of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Even leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position, while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II.I can appreciate your opinion, but this "since the end of the nineteenth century" is a huge swing in the other direction...that was well before the debate would have even had much to do with disproving certain aspects of christianity. Catholics have accepted it for 60 years? Evangelicals are on board? Believe what you want, but you can't expect something this controversial to be considered proof by someone who doesn't already have your belief structure.

So it was just unfortunate for people like me that dozens of men over hundreds of years all willingly fudged the truth in order to fool the masses in order to protect a movement that they knew to be based on falsehoods...

Actually, I think a lot of them probably truly did believe what they were writing was the truth. My guess is that the lie (or stretch of the truth) can be traced back to just a few very smart and mostly well-intentioned men. But, either way, it's not unfortunate for you...you love what they did.

I have also stated many times that I do not hold the belief that people who subscribe to evolution are wrong because of faulty logic, just faulty data. Their conclusions with only limited secular data can very easily lead you to evolution.

A cursory search of peer-reviewed biomedical journals brings up around 128,000 articles having to do with evolution. There are articles about what you like to call "micro evolution", which narrow research down to a single gene in one species, as well as articles that stick with what you like to call "macro evolution". Go nuts!The data is not limited.

I have also stated the areas where my side of the argument is weak. Crow can't even find it in himself to critique Royal Tour because he cannot remotely acknowledge any errors from his side of this debate.

Crow didn't have to, others did. Besides, it's not like you make a point to pick apart posts by people who agree with you.

That was a test to confiorm that you are a geek, I know not much of a stretch, but it's always good to define people into narrow definitions should their ideas be needed to be discounted when confronted with an alternative belief. At least that's what this thread has taught me.

False. True geeks like the original Star Trek and accept none of the subsequent versions.

Well, I can say that I am confident that a person who seeks will find the truth. All you need is to be open to truth, like me.

Heh.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, I respect that you not only believe what you write, but that you do come here to well, I guess it ends up being "defending" your beliefs. I think even you could see that given you will staunchly defend an idea that,some vague prophecies written in Babylonian times that might have come true, (and even if they did I am not surewhat that would prove.), but what we know as factual scientifec data you completely ridicule and discard. You seem to believe anything is possible, unless there is evidence that it is true.How can you say these prophecies are real, but any other religon's prophecies are false other than always just refering to the bible which even you kind of admit is a bit of a mess. I was about 10 years old when I started questioning it. I really can't make sense of "how" you actually believe it was it a guidebook, a cookbook, or factual? I really don't get why a professor making money by writing a book about his field makes you angry. It's done all the time and you being a republican defend that right constantly. It isn't like he is disguising that fact. You treat it like it is some kind of propoganda, yet I see Christian propoganda that I find very offensive, like glow in the dark Jesus balloons. There are so many people that use faith and fear to steal money from the uneducated that I am surprised this doesn't bother you alot more. I assume that you don't like Dawkin's attitude since he is pretty forthright about these types of bad behavior he believes religon leads too and that you take it personally, though I suspect you wouldn't defend those behaviors.I guess one of the problems I have with Christianity is that it controls through fear. Fear of not achieving afterlife is the controlling factor in how to live own's life. I've always felt the point of the journey, was not to arrive.

You began to decide that the Bible was false when you were ten, and you want me to respect your scholarly approach to the discussion? I make fun of Dawkins because like it or not he is the front man for your side of the argument, and his book is full of distortions and false conclusions, so it's an easy target.The fact that you think that I refuse to believe things that are proven true shows also that you have decided to pigeon hole me into a small narrow little classification that you can easily dismiss. In propaganda terms this is called standard, in debate terms it is called Delegitimize One's Opponent. It shows that you are not really interested in a discussion, so why are you here?

[Balloon guy 158]

There are plenty of sources saying the Greeks were world leaders. I'd like an outside source that says the bible was fully written back when you say it was, and has been completely unchanged since. That's the thing...if there is any legitimate debate about it, I can't just accept it as fact. From very quick research about the book of daniel that never mentions prophecies as proof one way or another:Although the traditionalist view continues to be held by conservative Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by most of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Even leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position, while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II.I can appreciate your opinion, but this "since the end of the nineteenth century" is a huge swing in the other direction...that was well before the debate would have even had much to do with disproving certain aspects of christianity. Catholics have accepted it for 60 years? Evangelicals are on board? Believe what you want, but you can't expect something this controversial to be considered proof by someone who doesn't already have your belief structure.Actually, I think a lot of them probably truly did believe what they were writing was the truth. My guess is that the lie (or stretch of the truth) can be traced back to just a few very smart and mostly well-intentioned men. But, either way, it's not unfortunate for you...you love what they did.A cursory search of peer-reviewed biomedical journals brings up around 128,000 articles having to do with evolution. There are articles about what you like to call "micro evolution", which narrow research down to a single gene in one species, as well as articles that stick with what you like to call "macro evolution". Go nuts!The data is not limited.Crow didn't have to, others did. Besides, it's not like you make a point to pick apart posts by people who agree with you.False. True geeks like the original Star Trek and accept none of the subsequent versions.Heh.

There are many reasons to conclude that Daniel wrote the book bearing his name, there are some reasons to argue that things were changed during the transcriptions, I mean it was copied for hundreds of years in order to preserve it. You should have more resources to the methods Jewish scholars took to preserve this text.The fact that the latest date attributed to the text is pre-Roman, and that the prophecies about Israel having a place in the end times were written pre-1948, lends strength to the same argument that I am making that it predicted a lot of stuff.

[speedz99 145]

You began to decide that the Bible was false when you were ten, and you want me to respect your scholarly approach to the discussion?

So you're illegitamizing the approach of any christian that has believed wholeheartedly in the bible since he or she was a small child? I hope not, since that's the vast, vast majority of people who agree with you.

I make fun of Dawkins because like it or not he is the front man for your side of the argument, and his book is full of distortions and false conclusions, so it's an easy target.

I haven't read any of his books. Out of curiosity, what are a few examples of his distortions? I can guess what you think are his false conclusions.

[crowTrobot 2]

So it was just unfortunate for people like me that dozens of men over hundreds of years all willingly fudged the truth in order to fool the masses in order to protect a movement that they knew to be based on falsehoods...

it doesn't follow that if the bible is inaccurate it's authors and apologist scholars and historians of the early church who put it together were all liars. some may have been, but it's likely many if not most were simply people who genuinely believed mythology based on false assumptions.

Their conclusions with only limited secular data can very easily lead you to evolution.

secular data lol? you're implying all of modern science is one giant anti-religious conspiracy, which is quite insane. after all most of the world and 40% of scientists believe in god. subversion of genuine data is not remotely possible. on the contrary if anyone actually had data refuting evolution they would win the nobel prize.

[speedz99 145]

There are many reasons to conclude that Daniel wrote the book bearing his name, there are some reasons to argue that things were changed during the transcriptions, I mean it was copied for hundreds of years in order to preserve it. You should have more resources to the methods Jewish scholars took to preserve this text.The fact that the latest date attributed to the text is pre-Roman, and that the prophecies about Israel having a place in the end times were written pre-1948, lends strength to the same argument that I am making that it predicted a lot of stuff.

But, based on all of the arguments, as well as the fact that many sects of christianity agree with them because of the mounting evidence, I'm sure you can understand why I can't accept these supposed prophecies, taken on their own, to be proof of anything. Also, and again I know this is semantics, but the "tribe of Israel" is a whole separate entity from the "nation of Israel", in my opinion. Or at least it could be debated, another reason why I can't just accept those prophecies. To believe in the fact that a man could actually predict the future, it has to be pretty damn ironclad.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well that's all fine and good, but these guys aren't Christians...

last i checked YOU are. you're using their argument about presuppositions to support your belief in the historical accuracy of miracles in the bible. i was pointing out YOUR double standard.

[Randy Reed 0]

You began to decide that the Bible was false when you were ten, and you want me to respect your scholarly approach to the discussion? I make fun of Dawkins because like it or not he is the front man for your side of the argument, and his book is full of distortions and false conclusions, so it's an easy target.The fact that you think that I refuse to believe things that are proven true shows also that you have decided to pigeon hole me into a small narrow little classification that you can easily dismiss. In propaganda terms this is called standard, in debate terms it is called Delegitimize One's Opponent. It shows that you are not really interested in a discussion, so why are you here?

To delegitimze my opponent now that you mention it. This is poker forum and you hardly follow accepted debating tactics or logic. The fact I mentioned I, like many, at a young age found the bible anything more than similar stories to mythology and comic books and there was no factual basis other than "it takes faith" or the "you'll go to hell". I remember these discussions at the catholic school I attended vividly.I still think it was fair that you can claim "prophesies as factual" and "dinosaurs as fictional" and do anything other than deligimitize you. I guess I just don't know how to talk to you.

There are many reasons to conclude that Daniel wrote the book bearing his name, there are some reasons to argue that things were changed during the transcriptions, I mean it was copied for hundreds of years in order to preserve it. You should have more resources to the methods Jewish scholars took to preserve this text.The fact that the latest date attributed to the text is pre-Roman, and that the prophecies about Israel having a place in the end times were written pre-1948, lends strength to the same argument that I am making that it predicted a lot of stuff.

In any single one of these prophecies was there anything specific like someone's name or an exact place and date? I would think that if he could truly see the future, with a god-given power it wouldn't be a reach. Or are all these just generalized prophecies that can be molded to fit different situations? One name? One date? One specific place?

So you're illegitamizing the approach of any christian that has believed wholeheartedly in the bible since he or she was a small child? I hope not, since that's the vast, vast majority of people who agree with you.I haven't read any of his books. Out of curiosity, what are a few examples of his distortions? I can guess what you think are his false conclusions.

I think most of the basic tenets were discussed here ad nauseum but I can't remember BG actually doing anything close to discounting a single theory let alone proving him a charlatan. I suppose that's each's point of view though.BG despises him so much that throwing a few tidbits out should be fairly easy.

it doesn't follow that if the bible is inaccurate it's authors and apologist scholars and historians of the early church who put it together were all liars. some may have been, but it's likely many if not most were simply people who genuinely believed mythology based on false assumptions.secular data lol? you're implying all of modern science is one giant anti-religious conspiracy, which is quite insane. after all most of the world and 40% of scientists believe in god. subversion of genuine data is not remotely possible. on the contrary if anyone actually had data refuting evolution they would win the nobel prize.

You know, I could probably accept someone that was blanketly ignorant or using religon as a means to make money to discount evolution but it boggles the mind that BG discounts it as smart as he is.Maybe we should discuss, "Is it better to teach evolution to our children or ban it from schools." I mean, if it's false because christianity says so, what if they decided mathematics is evil, or astronomy (again), etc. Or maybe lets discuss, "How believing in evolution other than christianity makes my life better on a daily basis."