In fact, one of the first "reprint articles" I remember receiving, as a gawky, naive teenager, was something by Herman Hoeh (if memory serves) on the 2300 days of Daniel. I knew it had to be right because it made no sense at all - Dr. Hoeh's genius was so much more powerful than my poor ability to understand things too wonderful for me.
You can still find clone articles - complete with lurid illustrations - courtesy of the splinter groups. Prophecy marches on!
But, bear in mind the following data:
* Daniel says that Cyrus succeeded Darius
* That Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar
* That Darius the Mede conquered Babylon
So what? Well...
* Darius actually succeeded the son of Cyrus
* Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus
* Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon (there was no such person as Darius the Mede)
It's gaffes like those that have led scholars to date the composition of the book to long after Daniel's alleged lifetime in the 500s BCE. Internal evidence suggests that the real author cooked the book in the 160s BCE.
In 9:2 Daniel is puzzled by a reference in the book of Jeremiah stating that Jerusalem would lie in ruins for seventy years (Jer. 25:11). The angel Gabriel fortuitously drops by to explain that it really means seventy weeks of years. Here beginneth the proud tradition among apocalyptic types of textual "nip 'n tuck" to retread failed prophecies.
In living memory we've had to deal with all kinds of off-the-wall speculation about the time of the End. 1972 anybody? The assumption is that the Bible holds the answer in some form of secret code not to be revealed till the End Time. The reality is that the author of Daniel, living in the age of the Maccabean revolt, simply made it up, leaving later generations (including the author of Revelation) to try and explain away the inconvenient fact that he got it all terribly wrong.
Notice what the introductory notes to Daniel in the The HarperCollins Study Bible
say:The book appearing under the name of Daniel is actually by an unknown author... The name of such a wise and legendary figure was probably chosen to enhance the text. The stories about Daniel in chs. 1-6 have a legendary character and are clearly fictitious.
And again:
The portrayal of Daniel as a Jewish exile in Babylon creates a literary setting in the sixth century BCE... The literary setting is not, however, the setting in which the book was actually written. The fact that ch. 11 obviously refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler from Syria, makes it clear that the book took its final form during Antiochus's persecution of the Jews... The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus's reign and of his death indicates that the book was finished before these events of 164 BCE.
The Jewish Study Bible
concurs:The book of Daniel, probably written in its final version in 164 BCE, is probably the latest composition of the Hebrew Bible... The anonymous author thus uses the period of the exile as a setting to address the challenging issues of Jews living under foreign kings.
Daniel could be described as a colorful inspirational novel, but it's got zero predictive value.
85 comments:
The reality is there are shamans, and prophets, and "holy" men and women who do have a connection to the divine and some of them write about their experiences.
And then there are those who pretend to have a connection to the divine...
The image of the giant Triceradragon rising out of a dark and stormy sea never left me; in fact, I saw it whenever I thought about the end of the world. As an adult, it was that imgage that prompted me to ask for literature from my mother because I remembered that my mother's church had The Truth.
Why did the Triceradragon have metal plated horns? Bulletproofing?
Paul
Paul
Even if Daniel was written circa 160 BCE, you have Jesus arriving right on schedule to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy. The Day per year concept is legitimate Bible rendering and is not just an exclusive COG understanding.
Lussenheide
The very best prophets always accurately predict the past.
Lesson for budding young prophets:
It never pays a prophet to be too specific....
The Bible has taken quite a beating of late. So not very smart of Tkach to shift the cult to Orthodox Christianity - now he's TWICE a LOSER as he experiences the accelerating collapse of the whole fabulous system !
Atheists. and others of the same mold, should better read Eric Snow's article about related topics that can be found in www.thejournal.org titled:"Does the Sins of Christians Refute the Bible?"
It could a telling refute for the skeptics.
Gavin>>But, bear in mind the following data:
* Daniel says that Cyrus succeeded Darius
* That Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar
* That Darius the Mede conquered Babylon
So what? Well...
>>*Darius actually succeeded the son of Cyrus<<
You haven't posted any evidence to show that Darius succeeded the son of Cyrus.
>>>* Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus.<<<
Again, where is the evidence?
>>>*Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon (there was no such person as Darius the Mede)<<<
Yet again, no posted evidence. If you want to persuade people that your, or those you admire, revision of history is correct, then publish the evidence.
The first time I saw a critical treatise on the Book of Daniel it scared the Armstrongological crap out of me! So, I did what most loyal Armstrongites would do back then. I returned the book to the Pasadena City Library and tried to forget all about this topic.
But this topic would NOT go away. I kept running into other writings that questioned the validity of the Book of Daniel. And they made for a good case. But I simply could not come to believe that "God's Word" could ever have such a fictitious book in its midst!
Well, to make a long, long story short, now we know why Chapter 11 is the most detailed "prophecy" of all. It's pretty easy to get the future right (well, mostly here) when it's already past. :-)
Lussenheide said...
Even if Daniel was written circa 160 BCE, you have Jesus arriving right on schedule to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy.
It all depends on what year you figure the prophecy from. If you figure correctly, from the decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE, 490 years comes to 48 BCE.
Even the prophecy that the Babylonian captivity would last 70 years is wrong, it was 48 years from the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE to the decree of Cyrus in 538 BCE.
Of course, the prophecies are so ambiguous that the HWAs of the world can twist them to say anything.
King Belshazzar referenced in the Book of Daniel, was dismissed by scholars as a "mythical persona" at one time.
However, evidence found on Babylonian clay cylinders confirmed his existence, much to the chagrin of Bible skeptics.
The issues that Gavin brought up, calling them "gaffes" in his original post about succesions etc. are still very much debated amongst historians and can nowhere be considered as "settled".
Large portions of Daniel are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The book is largely intact as we know it today. Some of the scrolls found at Qumran have been carbon dated to 300 BCE.
The burden of proof lies on the skeptic.
Lussenheide
Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, "The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him! Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel; He is the God who is in Jerusalem. Every survivor, at whatever place he may live, let the men of that place support him with silver and gold, with goods and cattle, together with a freewill offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem." (Ezra 1:2-4).
When we first read this, we are inclined to think that they are the words of a believer. Cyrus is attributing his victories over the Babylonian Empire to Yahweh and describes himself as an agent of the Lord is decreeing that the Temple of God be rebuilt in Jerusalem. From archaeological records, we learn that this was the policy of Cyrus toward all religions and people groups. The Cyrus Prism was discovered in 1879 and describes this policy of Cyrus.
I am Cyrus, King of the World, Great King, Legitimate King, King of Babylon, King of Kiengir and Akkad, King of the four rims of the earth, Son of Cambyses, Great King, King of Achamaenes, Grandson of Cyrus, Great king, King of Achamaenes, descendant of Chishpish, Great king, King of Achamaenes, of a family which always exercised kingship; whose rule Bel and Nebo love, whom they want as king to please their hearts. When I entered Babylon as a friend and when I established the seat of the government in the palace of the ruler under jubilation and rejoicing, Marduk, the great lord, induced the magnanimous inhabitants of Babylon to love me, and I was daily endeavoring to worship him.... As to the region from as far as Ashur and Susa, Akkad, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to these sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their former inhabitants and returned them to their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Kiengir and Akkad whom Nabonidus had brought into Babylon to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their former temples, the places which make them happy.
Cyrus realized that tribute-paying nations would be more profitable than devastated countries. Thus, he looked forward to turning the desolations into a profitable source of revenue.
This is also when Judaism was first invented and made into a new religion in Palestine. Well, according to some critics and scholars anyway.
"The burden of proof lies on the skeptic."
I agree. And that is why I am unveiling the will of Zeus as revealed to me:
The Will of the Father of All.
Zeus came to me in a vision and I transcribed all that he said. I hope to publish it soon. I just want it clear that I do not need to offer any conclusive evidence to support my claim, or even the things written in the revelation. The burden of proof lies with the skeptic.
Paul (Son of Zeus)
Lussenheide said...
King Belshazzar referenced in the Book of Daniel, was dismissed by scholars as a "mythical persona" at one time.
However, evidence found on Babylonian clay cylinders confirmed his existence, much to the chagrin of Bible skeptics.
This has nothing to do with the fact that the Book of Daniel may well be a fake. If the person (or people) who put this book together
knew about this King Belshazzar, but modern scholars did not, this proves nothing.
About all this proves is that the author of the Book of Daniel knew about the existence of this king, and it took modern archaeologists about 1,600 years to confirm this fact of history.
But this in no way demonstrates the fact that the Book of Daniel was written at the time that the book says it was. Hey, they didn't exactly copyright and date stamp publications back then!
Sorry Lussenheide, but this is very poor logic on your part, and I would have expected better from you.
That's all.
Tom,
The points which Gavin made, and which you quoted, might be new to you. However, they have been part and parcel of many critical discussions of the book of Daniel for years, and many of us have seen one or all of them documented with extensive footnotes referencing acclaimed historians.
The internet is a wonderful tool, and though I don't have time currently to go back and find the links to support Gavin's excerpted points, I do know that they are readily available on the internet. If you have an open mind, I would encourage you to Google "Daniel", and look for the information yourself. You might be quite surprised.
BTW, you don't have to be a Biblical inerrantist to be a Christian. Those two terms are totally independent of one another.
BB
Byker Bob wrote: you don't have to be a Biblical inerrantist to be a Christian. Those two terms are totally independent of one another.
My point exactly. The editors of the HarperCollins Study Bible are Christians - just not naive ones. The editors of the Jewish Study Bible are practicing Jews who honor the Tanakh with honest scholarship. The target of the posting is not to make fun of Christianity, but to point out just how out of touch our apocalyptic fantasies are when we treat the Bible as something other than what it really is.
If the Bible is in error on one point, such as Daniel, how do you know it is not in error on another point, such as the literal death and ressurection of Christ? The reality of God as a supernatural entity? Doesn't this reduce Christianity to non-supernatural faith, such as Buddhism?
Paul
Stingerski and all:
My point about Belshazzar was not intended to be shown as proof of Daniel.
It was meant to show how apologist "scholars" who are against the Bible are many times in error, and are often farting in the wind with their "research". They are just as sloppy with history and the facts as those who speculate with prophecy or with dubious ideas like US & BC.
Piltdown man skull fossil goes down in history as hoax put on as "scholarly". Global warming today is used as a political agenda, with ulterior motive by "dubious scientists" with agenda. Evolution, a speculation at best, has huge gaps, massive assumptions and holes, yet gets bandied about as fact.
One must really analyze the politcal and ego motives of anyone claiming research. This goes for both the religious and scientific realm.
There is great truth in the wisdom "trust no man".
Lussenheide
Lussenheide said...
There is great truth in the wisdom "trust no man".
And yet you continue to put your trust in a collection of books put together by men. The Book of Daniel being the topic of discussion here.
Interesting.
The Art department rarely did the images created for the book of Daniel. They actually paid an outside artist for that work.
From Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by John Collins, a past president of the Society of Biblical Literature (Fortress Press, 2004):
Chapter 5 presents a king of Babylon named Belshazzar. There was in fact a historical Belshazzar, who was son of the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus, and who governed Babylon in the absence of his father. He was never king, however. Daniel goes on to say that after the death of Belshazzar, "Darius the Mede" received the kingdom. No such figure is known to history...
In fact, it is unlikely that Daniel ever existed. The name Daniel (Danel) was attached to a legendary figure from antiquity, who is known from the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat, and who is mentioned in Ezek 14:14,20 in conjunction with Noah and Job... (554-555)
"One must really analyze the politcal and ego motives of anyone claiming research. This goes for both the religious and scientific realm."
Really? I am researcher and am surrounded by researchers. I can assure you, my interest in DNA transcription is motivated by one thing alone- the truth, reality. How things work. Nothing else. That is how science works, and I tend to be wary of anyone who implies otherwise, especially people whose entire view of reality is based upon the worldview of an imaginary being taken from a ancient religious text.
Paul
"Evolution, a speculation at best, has huge gaps, massive assumptions and holes, yet gets bandied about as fact."
As opposed to the idea that a supernatural being created everything via divine fiat? That idea is the biggest speculative assumption of them all, being totally devoid of supporting evidence, yet it is bandied about as "fact."
Paul
Yeah but you see, Paul, the eye is too complicated to have evolved but not too complicated for an even more complicated entity to have created it.
It's like, something has to be proven to not exist that does exist because it can't exist without creation. Make sense?
No, it doesn't, and neither does anything else creationists say.
Not confused yet?
Keep on!
Bob
>>>The points which Gavin made, and which you quoted, might be new to you. However, they have been part and parcel of many critical discussions of the book of Daniel for years,<<<
This may be true, but it is poor scholarship to make bland assertions without posting supporting evidence, as people who are not familiar with the debate would be ignorant of what you are saying.
>>>BTW, you don't have to be a Biblical inerrantist to be a Christian. Those two terms are totally independent of one another.<<<
By making a bland assertion, you are making the same error as Gavin. Would you like to illustrate how one can be a Christian when the tenets of their Christianity is fundamentally flawed?
Tom
Gavin>>>The editors of the HarperCollins Study Bible are Christians - just not naive ones.<<<
Anyone may label him/herself a Christian, but labels don't make people Christians. Christians are people who are led by the spirit of God into sanctity of life and obedience to the teachings of Christ.
>>>The editors of the Jewish Study Bible are practicing Jews who honor the Tanakh with honest scholarship.<<<
Honest scholarship? Don't make me laugh. All references in the OT to Jesus are either ignored or denied by Jewish scholars. You call that "honest scholarship?"
>>>The target of the posting is not to make fun of Christianity, but to point out just how out of touch our apocalyptic fantasies are when we treat the Bible as something other than what it really is.<<<
It may not be your intention to make fun of Christianity, but that is exactly what you have done by supporting authors that deny the infallible authority of the Scriptures.
In am not sure what you mean by the phrase, "apocalyptic fantasies," or what is meant by, "when we treat the Bible as something other than what it really is." If you want to clarify what you mean, I might comment on what you have to say.
Tom
Tom said:
"This may be true, but it is poor scholarship to make bland assertions without posting supporting evidence..."
This is the same Tom who in the last thread stated:
"The gnome project is based on supposition, conjecture and a heavy dose of speculation. Whereas, I am absolutely certain that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve because God say so."
LOL!!!
Paul
>>Would you like to illustrate how one can be a Christian when the tenets of their Christianity is fundamentally flawed?<<
Well, Tom, the deeper you study, and the more you read, you realize that most Christians (especially Armstrongites!) indulge in what we have come to know as "proof-texting". This means that when considering a topic, such people will throw away or explain away any scriptures which do not agree with their chosen set of doctrines.
Since there are so many conflicting scriptures on any given major topic, this is something which every religious group is forced to do, or they would simply throw their hands in the air and run screaming from their Bibles, thoroughly confused.
I've witnessed countless forum debates on such topics as the immortality of the soul, the unitarian, binitarian, or trinitarian nature of God, New Covenant vs Old Covenant, faith vs works (salvation through legalism), whether the ten commandments were part of the Old Covenant, and done away, British Israelism (an extrabiblical theory), tithing, and countless other topics. It seems that the strong proponents of any particular point of view can put together a compelling "eisegesis"
"proving" their point. The scriptures which were left out are always pointed out by others of opposing views, but, each side still holds to their own cherished belief system, while casual observers usually conclude that "you can prove just about anything from the Bible".
I believe in the transformation of the heart. I've come to realize from certain experiences in my own life, and the lives of some who are close to me that God works with people independently of and aside from churches and the Bible. It's what you might call a "direct connection". About the only absolutes which one can distill from the Bible are the new commandments which Jesus brought, which involve love for God, and love for man. Virtually everything else is in dispute, and perhaps God intended it to be that way, so there couldn't be elitism as is all too common in groups that feel as if they are the chosen ones, above everyone else, because only they know the proper legalism.
BTW, just about everyone admits that the Bible contains mistranslations, scientific error, conflicting doublets in the Old Testament, certain passages intended to be considered as allegory, and books "ghost written" by others under the names of some of the more famous biblical figures. Those are the easy ones. There's lots more! When you read your Bible, you need to be aware of such things, and to read with a certain amount of discernment. Most religious people throw away their critical thinking skills in favor of the "group think" espoused by their particular church organization. No wonder atheists and agnostics consider such folks to be religious fools or extremely naieve!
BB
❝Anonymous said...
If the Bible is in error on one point, such as Daniel, how do you know it is not in error on another point, such as the literal death and ressurection of Christ? ❞
You don't. Except, if Jesus was a real man, you can be assured that he did die. You do have to rethink your entire concept of the next life, and if there is "bodily" resurrection.
❝The reality of God as a supernatural entity? ❞
I think the very definition of God is such, so that's something you have to answer from your own experiences.
❝ Doesn't this reduce Christianity✞ to non-supernatural faith, such as Buddhism? ☯
Paul❞
First of all, Buddhism is hardly a monolith of belief anymore than Christianity is. Some forms of Buddhists believe in deities, some don't. The original Buddhism didn't other than believing one returned to the source at death and came from that source at birth. Beyond that Buddhism doesn't address the issue of God.
It also depends on what you mean non-supernatural. It also depends on your definition of Christian, one who "accepts Jesus in their heart as Savior" or "one who lives his life as Jesus said to live it".
There's lots of people who don't think Jesus was divinely born in a virgin birth who find great value in how he said to live life.
And in the end, which do you think matters more to God? Christology? That we understand the exact nature of Jesus, or that we live like he said we should live and treat our neighbor has he said we should treat them? If you were God, would it be the preacher or the doer who got rewarded?
❝Anonymous said...
If the Bible is in error on one point, such as Daniel, how do you know it is not in error on another point, such as the literal death and ressurection of Christ? ❞
You don't. Except, if Jesus was a real man, you can be assured that he did die. You do have to rethink your entire concept of the next life, and if there is "bodily" resurrection.
❝The reality of God as a supernatural entity? ❞
I think the very definition of God is such, so that's something you have to answer from your own experiences.
❝ Doesn't this reduce Christianity✞ to non-supernatural faith, such as Buddhism? ☯
Paul❞
First of all, Buddhism is hardly a monolith of belief anymore than Christianity is. Some forms of Buddhists believe in deities, some don't. The original Buddhism didn't other than believing one returned to the source at death and came from that source at birth. Beyond that Buddhism doesn't address the issue of God.
It also depends on what you mean non-supernatural. It also depends on your definition of Christian, one who "accepts Jesus in their heart as Savior" or "one who lives his life as Jesus said to live it".
There's lots of people who don't think Jesus was divinely born in a virgin birth who find great value in how he said to live life.
And in the end, which do you think matters more to God? Christology? That we understand the exact nature of Jesus, or that we live like he said we should live and treat our neighbor has he said we should treat them? If you were God, would it be the preacher or the doer who got rewarded?
Where so many get things wrong is that they don't recognize that the term 'Darius' is not a proper name but is an appellative similar to Pharaoh, Czar or Sultan. It means "The Restrainer" or "The Maintainer". Xerxes in his inscription at Persepolis actually calls himself "Darius".
More information can be found from E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible.
Regarding the whole Belshazzar thing, the only reference that people use to show that the bible states the Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar is Dan 5:2. The verse says "...his father Nebuchadnezzar..." But there was no Chaldean or Hebrew word for grandfather. The Hebrew word used is used of a father as much as it is used of an ancestor. For Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.
Regarding the conquering of Babylon the bible never claims that Darius the Mede conquered Babylon, just that he took rule. It also can't be said that Cyrus the Mede conquered Babylon, for history teaches us it was his general Gobryas who conquered Babylon in the name of Cyrus. Cyrus arrived much later.
"There's lots of people who ..find great value in how [Jesus] said to live life."
For someone touted as no less than God, he didn't have much of substance to say. It seems his anonymous 'biographers' were hard pressed to come up with fresh, original material.
THE BIBLE AS BUNK - A DEBUNKING:
I remember reading in a commentary about Daniel, pretty sure it was the Oxford Commentary, where they took a first swipe at the Book of Daniel. They did so siting verses one and two of chapter one where the vessels of the house of God were taken by Nebuchadnezzar.
They said that it was untrue, siting II Kings 12:13, that the vessels had been given to the Syrian king. Ignoring specifically that vessels were created by the kings and the priesthood at a variety of times throughout the history of the temple.
These people are definately of the mindset of Westcott and Hort who with the scholars of their day Platonized scripture and started the debunking of the Bible. These individuals would have us believe that four ancient texts that disagree with each other over 20,000 times apiece could be molded into one text from which we get the most recent translations.
Issue here is that these scholars hated God and the scriptures as much as those who were Occultists, mainly because they were caught up in the occult themselves.
If you wish to throw out Daniel simply because a scholar says it is bunk, please do so. Keep in mind images of a beast with horns in water was from the times of the Greeks discussing the myth of the rape of Europa, where a Europa was taken captive by a bull under the sea and ravished. This was a Greek story to ignite the desire of the peoples of what would become Europe to unite due to the massive size of the armies of Asia at the time, amongst them the armies of Persia.
That Daniel has such imagery is not an accident. Daniel if written when he was supposed to have existed could also be considered to be addressing that myth and story directly.
If you choose to believe that stone cut out of the mountain without hands will not create a kingdom that will fill the earth, so be it.
That Kingdom is coming, and Jesus will return as King of kings and Lord of lords. These same scholars debunk Revelation as well.
So, take away hope of a better time to come. If that is your wish, go ahead. In the long run, you will be like Belshazzar, astonied, because the handwriting is on the wall.
And speaking of the handwriting on the wall, the fate of Armstrongism is certainly clear: It is already splintered into a thousand pieces and the wondrous prophecies based on Daniel have been destroyed by that great stone built without hands -- time.
It is interesting that the Armstrongists here have the same boring approach: "Some day, some day, you'll see!". It's like little children saying my dad can beat your dad. Meanwhile, we've gotten admissions from them that they do not attend with any church of God, that they think the churches of God are full of hirelings [at least they have that right], that they don't have to obey Scripture and feel to break the Commandments any which way they want when they want, but believe that just by believing in British Israelism, they will be saved and those who do not believe in BI will be destroyed, even if they keep the Sabbath and Holydays: Just by being different, those who actually abide by Biblical strictures just because they don't believe in a dead false prophet's teaching.
One wonders how this works? Don't obey what is ostensibly of God? Don't attend with churches of God? Believe they will be mystically whisked to a place of safety? Believe they will become God but their behavior is abominable? That there is a disconnection between belief and practice?
Would someone with just a little logical consistency explain how this works? I'd like to get in on this scam of being a scoundrel but collect all the blessings too.
Well, maybe not. My conscience would bother me, which is something that just doesn't happen with the Armstrongists in their lying, deceit and manipulation.
Oh, yes. Some day we will see. We will see just how wrong the Armstrongists are with their nutty ideas of distorted perception. We'll see that the real danger is Islam with hate filled Arabs with an ancient vendetta that dates back to Abraham. We'll see that the mythical punishment of the Assyrians pale before what the children of Ishmael and Esau do to Israel. Yes, we will see what happens to the sin laden Armstrongists all puffed up with the leaven of their false prophecies from their dead false prophet which they not only do not obey, but who would have disfellowshipped them during his lifetime if they acted with him the way they act now -- the scoundrel putting out the scoundrel.
Well, OK. We won't see it. It will be left for generations yet to come thousands of years hence. But then again, Armstrongism will be forgotten by then and some new cult religion will dominate the scene. Probably Islam.
The main mistake made with Daniel's prophecies is calling the fourth beast, Rome.
It is clear that the fourth beast comes from the division of Alexander's Grecian empire and should be identified as Antiochus Epiphanes.
It is Alexander's partly weak and partly strong (the feet and toes of the image) divided kingdoms that the "stone" from heaven strikes.
It didn't happen. The prophecy failed. Because it says that it happens in the days of "these kings", while the whole image was still standing on it's feet.
Rome did, more or less, destroy the image, however, Rome is not identified as the stone from heaven, is it?
Jesus said that there was one sign of his disciples: That they would love one another.
The Armstrongists, particularly here, have shown that contrary for having even love for one another, they are vicious competitive predators vying for ascendancy. They are not at all cohesive and have lapsed into splinters.
It is my understanding that Scripturally speaking, the fires of Gehenna will be lit early on in the valley of Hinnom at the beginning of the Millennium for the disposal of waste, much of it human for the purpose of cleansing the planet of evil. Those who do not obey God, apparently, will suffer the fate to be thrown in there, also early on.
When and if Jesus returns, it is clear that he would tell the Armstrongists, setting such a poor example, particularly here on this forum, "I never knew you". Frankly, many of the atheists, agnostics and deists here show more warmth and humanity than the Armstrongists. They would certainly have a place in the Kingdom based solely on the idea that those who love one another would have a place with our generous Creator, while the nitpicky Armstrongists all filled with wrath and hypocrisy would not.
The final irony would be for the wicked Armstrongists to be ashes under the feet of the righteous former atheists, agnostics and deists who showed kindness toward others, unwittingly emulating God the Father in their ignorance.
I counsel the Armstrongists to buy righteousness of repentance and faith early in the refining fires lest they make an ash of themselves in the fires to come.
It is clear that the fourth beast comes from the division of Alexander's Grecian empire and should be identified as Antiochus Epiphanes.
Yes, and the Maccabees and their cohorts brought down Antiochus Epiphanes through their courageous war, which leads many to believe that the prophecies of Daniel certainly stopped and were fulfilled -- if that's what you can call it -- prior to the time of the birth of Jesus.
It would be inspiring if the Armstrongists with their suspicious point of view, demanding proof at every turn, but providing none themselves and hoping we won't notice, had the same level of courage as the Maccabees. Unfortunately, they don't. When it comes to actually standing up to persecution and withstanding true adversity for the sake of righteousness, they fold up like a wet paper napkin.
Armstrongists are cowards at heart. It is likely that they will be the first to convert to save their own skins when Islam comes.
And why not? They serve the same "death to infidels" Allah as the Moslems.
"Darius actually succeeded the son of Cyrus ...(there was no such person as Darius the Mede)"
It is difficult to make categorical statements like this given the paucity of historical materials we have to work with. In fact, there is no mention of Darius the Mede in secular historical sources. This is not the same as Darius the Mede being mythological. It just means that we have no corroborative history from secular sources. No doubt this is true of many people and events in the Bible. But there is some fairly strong evidence that Darius was a man named Gubaru and the name Gubaru may be a translation of Darius.
The point is, it is not an "open and shut" case.
-- Neo
"The final irony would be for the wicked Armstrongists to be ashes under the feet of the righteous former atheists, agnostics and deists who showed kindness toward others, unwittingly emulating God the Father in their ignorance."
While in a way that may seem like poetic justice, the Armstrongites, atheists, agnostics and deists would all be classed as non-believers and would share a common fate. My guess.
-- Neo
"While in a way that may seem like poetic justice, the Armstrongites, atheists, agnostics and deists would all be classed as non-believers and would share a common fate."
If God existed, then I would have to agree with the above statment. The Armstrongites are literally no different than the Pharisees, and much of Paul's contention with those who advocated the Law in the early church is the same situation in modern Christianity. Armstrongists reject the New Covenent in favor of the Old. They reject the worldview of Love as described in the NT in favor of the worldview of Law as dscribed in the OT. They reject the Christian identity in favor of the ancient Israelite. I think some of them would be more comfortable with a sword and the Torah on their lips than serving soup and giving alms to the poor.
Paul
"When and if Jesus returns, it is clear that he would tell the Armstrongists, setting such a poor example, particularly here on this forum,"
When and if Jesus returns it would be nice if he would aplogize for letting humans have anything to do with his story, God, truth, meanings, love, compassion and so on and promise to simple show up in person in any form undeniable with his dad and a mom too might help and be nice to us all for screwing it all up..in him. amen
As I've pointed out before, the original Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Ben-Sirach) was written from 200 to 180 B.C., and two quotes from Dan. 9 and Dan. 11 have been found in that text. That kind of knocks of the Maccabean theory on its head -- if the Book of Daniel (or at least those parts of Daniel that allegedly are so obviously written after 164 B.C.) already existed before the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Macceabean uprising, as Ben-Sirach's quotes indicate, then we've either got some genuine prophecy here or some mighty lucky guesses. Granted, the Sirach quotes from Daniel don't prove it was written in the 500s B.C., but they do suggest that by 200-180 B.C. the Book of Daniel had already acquired a scriptural or quasi-scriptural status among many Jews.
As for the claim that Darius the Mede was a garbling of Darius, son of Hystaspes, that's one possible explanation. Another explanation is that Darius the Mede really existed, just as it's now known that Belshazzar really existed even though Bible critics used to be confident that Belshazzar was fictitious.
BTW, it's erroneous to say that Belshazzar, Bel-sar-usur, was never a king just because his father Nabonidus was still alive at the time. Archaeology not only confirms the existence of Belshazzar, but quotes him offering prayers that the King of Babylon would offer. There's every reason to believe that Belshazzar was a co-regent or prorex with his father, especially since we know from Mesopotamian archaeology and from the Dead Sea Scrolls that Nabonidus spent several years of his reign at Teima (yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls mention Nabonidus -- during the time that Daniel allegedly was written, the existence of both Nabonidus and Belshazzar was known among the Jews, though some believe without adequate evidence that the author of Daniel didn't know the difference between Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar).
Lyle said: Regarding the whole Belshazzar thing, the only reference that people use to show that the bible states the Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar is Dan 5:2.
Belshazzzar also appears as the son of Nebuchadnezzar is Baruch chapter 1. Granted, some Christians don't believe Baruch is canonical scripture, but even so it is a reference to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's son, and it even represents Belshazzar as alive during Nebuchadnezzar's reign at the time of the Fall of Jerusalem. The Baruch reference, however, is probably dependent on the reference in Dan. 5:2, and is almost certainly erroneous (unless it turns out that Nebuchadnezzar really did have a son named Belshazzar -- strictly speaking that's not impossible, but there's no trace of any such son in the archaeological texts and inscriptions that have been discovered).
The verse says "...his father Nebuchadnezzar..." But there was no Chaldean or Hebrew word for grandfather. The Hebrew word used is used of a father as much as it is used of an ancestor. For Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.
That's one possible explanation. Another one is that "father" was intended to mean "predecessor on the throne" rather than a literal ancestor.
Corky said: Yeah but you see, Paul, the eye is too complicated to have evolved but not too complicated for an even more complicated entity to have created it.
Whether or not the eye is too complicated to have evolved, the Judaeo-Christian God is not "complicated" at all -- He is "simple" and apoios. Any entity that is complicated cannot be God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC
Jared Olar said...
Whether or not the eye is too complicated to have evolved, the Judaeo-Christian God is not "complicated" at all -- He is "simple" and apoios. Any entity that is complicated cannot be God.
What?!?
Any creator of anything is greater in complexity than it's creation. Therefore, God would have to be way more complicated than even the universe itself - if there is a creator, that is.
Any creator of anything is greater in complexity than its creation. Therefore, God would have to be way more complicated than even the universe itself - if there is a creator, that is.
Greater than its creation, obviously, but it's not at all clear why that greatness must include "greater in complexity than its creation." In fact simplicity is superior to complexity, not the other way around, so the creator of the universe, if there is a creator, must be simpler than his creation, which exhibits great complexity and compositeness down to the subatomic level.
You ought to give some of the classical philosopher and theologians a read -- they hashed all this out long ago . . . but there's such a strong temptation to reinvent the wheel.
Bob
You originally said, "BTW, you don't have to be a Biblical inerrantist to be a Christian. Those two terms are totally independent of one another." I replied by saying, "Would you like to illustrate how one can be a Christian when the tenets of their Christianity is fundamentally flawed?"
You replied with four paragraphs of incoherent, random jottings on unrelated topics. Then you made the following observation: "Well, Tom, the deeper you study, and the more you read, you realize that most Christians (especially Armstrongites!) indulge in what we have come to know as "proof-texting". This means that when considering a topic, such people will throw away or explain away any scriptures which do not agree with their chosen set of doctrines."
For the record, I don't know who is an Armstrongite, or how honest or dishonest they are when interpreting the scriptures.
If could provide a clear illustration that my simple mind can understand, that would be helpful.
Jared wrote: "In fact simplicity is superior to complexity.."
I have read Aquinas on this topic and it is difficult going. His view, with which I agree, is that God is a simple being and possesses no potency. That is, he does not have the potential to be, for instance, at another location or another time. Which means he is at all locations and all times. Humans are composite beings who have potency. If I am here, I have the potential to be somewhere else.
I hit a wall with the idea of impassibility -- that God has no emotions, that emotions are a human property.
-- Neo
I hit a wall with the idea of impassibility -- that God has no emotions, that emotions are a human property.
Strictly speaking, impassibility refers to an inability to suffer. It's not that God doesn't have what to us would appear to be “emotions,” but rather that He has them perfectly --- they do not fluctuate, waxing and waning based on external influences. It is a corollary of God’s limitlessness and perfection that He cannot suffer, for that would imply that He does not at all times possess the fullness of the divine attributes.
"It's not that God doesn't have what to us would appear to be “emotions,” but rather that He has them perfectly...they do not fluctuate, waxing and waning based on external influences."
What you're saying here is that God has great spirichemistry because if dopamine in humans is altered, then one may be out of touch with reality; if GABA is altered, one may be anxious; if Acetylcholine is altered, then one may have memory problems; if norepinephrine is altered, one may be manic high; and if serotonin is altered, one may be depressed, worried, more irritable, and have insomnia. Indeed, in depression for example, serotonin is often low (as may be norepinephrine and/or dopamine).
In other words, God's molecules of emotion, neuropeptides and such are just way cool he shouldn't get too upset with us if ours are a bit more flowy and subject to depletion or bad uptake due to stresses that God does not experience and thus, probably knows little about in reality.
Let's face it, God has the perfect
Amygdala in midbrain (vital to anger control issues) but alas, ours sucks....:)
Hey Jared, can you drop me an email (ambassadorwatch@gmail.com) with details of those two quotes from Daniel you refer to in Ecclesiasticus? The accepted wisdom is that ben Sirach quotes every book in the Hebrew Bible except Daniel!
"It is a corollary of God’s limitlessness and perfection that He cannot suffer, for that would imply that He does not at all times possess the fullness of the divine attributes."
Ah! Nothing like discussing the nature of imaginary beings!
Paul
Well, Tom, there you go again. When you don't feel like addressing ideas which are presented by others, you describe them as being disjointed, convoluted, and illogical. Basically what you are saying by this "elitist" posturing is that you just don't feel like communicating as equals with much of anyone here on Gavin's blog. Reality appears to be that an honest dialogue with you is impossible.
But, that's OK. I've met a number of others of your arrogant mindset on the different Armstrong recovery websites over the years.
Be what you feel like you need to be.
BB
Let's face it, God and Jesus as God of the OT and Son in the New, go figure, both have the emotional stability to order and cause the slaughter of thousands, men, women, pregnant women, babes in the womb and children in the worst of ways and never bat an eyelash.
God as presented in the Bible is a war criminal. Neither God nor Jesus are pro-life as some insist today if you read the Bible as written. No apologetic can fix these deities. It is so easy to quote the awful deeds of God and Jesus in Revelation, but if one were to see how that kind of slaughter really looks and works, well....you'd lose your faith.
The Jesus of the Revelation can oversee the slaughter of millions if not billions without so much as a "suffer the little children to come unto me..." How Christians can sing, "Jesus loves the little Children, red and yellow, black and white" with a straight face is beyond me. It ain't so if you read the book.
And in all God's balanced emotions of wrath, anger and slaughter, be it in Daniel or Revelation, he/they can be perfectily angry and sin not. What a guy!
There is nothing in Daniel that is prophecy. It is history in hindsite. Daniel 11 has the detail of ongoing or past events made to sound prophetic and then in chapter 12 one can't decide on the number of days, but it all gets rather generic and it all works out. This of course is where "Daniel" can't really see the future so the 12th chapter is rather ambiguous compared to the 11th and all that preceeded it.
The Plain Truth about Daniel's prophecies is that they aren't prophecies at all, but like Revelation cause more problems than they are worth.
Jared Olar said...
Greater than its creation, obviously, but it's not at all clear why that greatness must include "greater in complexity than its creation." In fact simplicity is superior to complexity, not the other way around, so the creator of the universe, if there is a creator, must be simpler than his creation, which exhibits great complexity and compositeness down to the subatomic level.
So, on the one hand God is so complicated and full of secrecy that it is impossible to understand him unless we have the magic decoder ring of the holy spirit but on the other hand he is so simple that Jared Olar understands perfectly. Yeah, I gotcha.
So, on the one hand God is so complicated and full of secrecy that it is impossible to understand him unless we have the magic decoder ring of the holy spirit but on the other hand he is so simple that Jared Olar understands perfectly. Yeah, I gotcha.
How silly. Who says Jared Olar understands perfectly? And how does a being's ontological simplicity equate to "easy to understand"?
Daniel 11 has the detail of ongoing or past events made to sound prophetic
It can certainly look like that from our perspective, long after the fact. What a prophecy would look like prior to fulfillment, well, that's something else again. From our perspective we (mostly) know what Dan. 11 refers to, but what if it really were written before the events took place. Read it from that perspective, and you see this long and messy discourse about two persons, the King of the North and the King of the South, engaged in wars and intrigues against each other. Would it be easy to differentiate among the various Seleucid and Ptolemid kings prior to the fulfillment of a prophecy about the King of the North and the King of the South? Would one even be able to tell when one king had died and had been succeeded by the next one? Sometimes you can see such transitions, but other times there's no transition or succession indicated at all.
It's distressing to watch people frothing at the mouth when Biblical texts don't rise to high and impeccable expectations. Isn't it quite possible that the expectations could be the culprit?
Is the Bible the "Word of God, and if so, which one? The Samaritan Bible is the shortest, with only the Pentateuch in its canon. Next comes the Jewish Bible, followed by the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible and finally the Ethiopian extended Bible. Latter Day Saints include a whole extra book, much too large to fit between the covers of most Bibles. Each of these Bible resources contains a different number of books. Most of them are carefully spun in the direction of their several belief systems, or even in favor of an earthly throne, whether under the highness of a Brit or a Roman.
What about errors in the Book of Daniel? Was the book ever thought to be precise history? Were the Rabbis who included the book in the Jewish canon unaware of its problems? Why did Christian organizers later include the book, knowing the problems it presented? Does Bullinger's Companion Bible give trustworthy solutions to all of Daniel’s vagaries?
Why is an erotic poem, so steamy that translators still don't dare to translate it up to its full-steam potential, doing in the "Word of God"? Who is aware of the Rabbinical disputes that preceded Solomon’s inclusion in the Hebrew canon? Did God, working through priests, prophets, Rabbis, apostles, physicians, a Persian emperor, conspirators, Crusaders, book-burners, inquisitors – and many, many others, if one dares to look carefully – create a perfect Bible and then neatly wrap it up between leather covers for Christians and Jews of all stripes to read in translation, knowing that each of the various Bibles reflects only the pure, pristine, unadulterated and perfect expression of God's mind?
Of course not. The Bible, in all or any of its varied forms, cannot stand up to that level of scrutiny, nor will it until the ravages of time and surreptitious agendas can be undone.
There is only one certain benchmark, and that is the Torah of Moses. David said it is perfect, converting the soul. Jesus said it would be easier for the universe to dissolve than for even one of its tiniest letters to be lost -- but he said this only of the Torah (the Law), and of no other part of the Jewish canon, although he did refer to the Prophets and Psalms as authoritative. Today even the Torah most probably exists in its perfection only within the ancient Ark of the Covenant, considering the many rabid efforts made over the centuries, to rid the world of Jewish literature.
Daniel’s many flaws are well known to Jewry and discussed at some length in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901 - 1906). Yet the Rabbis included it, with all its real and imagined warts, because it has important value for the generations that followed the Babylonian captivity. The point is that certain writings were considered indispensable to the well being of Israel, and were therefore included in the sacred canon. Perfection was not the criterion.
There is no easy road to understanding Holy Writ. Nor is there any possibility of sounding the depths of the Torah, although it is always open to the willing student. Torah contains the primary depths from which everything else derives. No other Book rises quite to that transcendent level. Although Jesus spoke often of the Law and the Prophets – and is quoted at least once referring to the Law, Prophets and Psalms, he reserved his unmitigated praise for the Torah – the writings of Moses – alone. Only the Torah is perfect, converting the soul.
For information on the Hebrew canon, and on the Book of Daniel, search the best commentaries and dictionaries. Look also at the Jewish Encyclopedia (www.Jewishencyclopedia.com.) Jews know much of how the Hebrew canon was determined; they determined it. "Daniel, Book of," and "Bible Canon" are two important titles for research in this encyclopedia. Understand the heated controversies that preceded the inclusion or exclusion of Biblical writings in the collections we so blithely call “the Word of God.” This Bible, no matter what stripe of beliefs it is used to support, or what various books it includes, has never been without its internal problems.
Nothing will be accomplished by forcing “The Bible” to conform to naive criteria. The books of the Bible did not just fall out of heaven to be neatly stitched between fine leather covers. Noble men, fully aware of the problems in Biblical texts, often died vicious, humiliating deaths, at the hands of the church, no less, in their efforts to make the Bible available to the multitudes. It did not just pop out of God’s mouth and land on fine paper. Look into it! Reality will always be there, like it or not, and in the long run truth will certainly out, ostriches notwithstanding.
Too bad about that fire at the library at Alexandria or we may have easily solved all these many mysteries of the bible.
What we are left with are the many forgeries of old books and left to either believe fantastic stories or not.
Most fairy tales have a good ending but this one, Stephen King style, has a very bad ending. All the honest and sincere seekers of truth and humanitarian folks are tossed into the lake of fire while the most gullible believers in myths and utterly naive folks are saved.
Jack Sprat said The Samaritan Bible is the shortest, with only the Pentateuch in its canon. Next comes the Jewish Bible, followed by the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible and finally the Ethiopian extended Bible.
Don't forget the Eastern Orthodox Bible . . .
Latter Day Saints include a whole extra book, much too large to fit between the covers of most Bibles.
Throwing the Book of Mormon into the mix is silly. In all of the competing Jewish and Christian canons, the books antedate 100 A.D. (except for the Ethiopian Kebra Nagast, a medieval production), but the Book of Mormon didn't exist until the 1800s. Placing the Book of Mormon alongside the ancient biblical books is like suggesting that one of Piers Anthony's cheesy paperbacks might belong to the canon of medieval Icelandic saga.
What about errors in the Book of Daniel? Was the book ever thought to be precise history?
Yes. For most of the book's existence, it was thought of as historical reliable.
Were the Rabbis who included the book in the Jewish canon unaware of its problems?
Probably -- but they perhaps thought the book's problems were not insuperable.
Why did Christian organizers later include the book, knowing the problems it presented?
Because the book foretells the history of the Seleucidae and Ptolemidae, the coming of the Messiah, and the fall of Jerusalem, which the Christians believed had been fulfilled as prophesied.
Why is an erotic poem, so steamy that translators still don't dare to translate it up to its full-steam potential, doing in the "Word of God"?
Perhaps because God thinks sex is a rather nice thing (see as He invented it).
Who is aware of the Rabbinical disputes that preceded Solomon’s inclusion in the Hebrew canon?
Quite a lot of people.
Did God, working through priests, prophets, Rabbis, apostles, physicians, a Persian emperor, conspirators, Crusaders, book-burners, inquisitors – and many, many others, if one dares to look carefully – create a perfect Bible and then neatly wrap it up between leather covers for Christians and Jews of all stripes to read in translation, knowing that each of the various Bibles reflects only the pure, pristine, unadulterated and perfect expression of God's mind?
A "perfect" Bible? No. But otherwise, yes, Christians believe that is how God brought us the Bible.
There is only one certain benchmark, and that is the Torah of Moses.
Why is the Torah the one certain benchmark? Are you sure you're not forcing the Torah to conform to naive criteria, the way many Christians and Jews and Mormons force the Bible to conform to naive criteria? (I see that you at least concede that the Torah as we have it may not, in fact, be the real, "perfect" Torah, but only a close approximation.)
David said it is perfect, converting the soul.
He referred to the Torah, yes. Whether or not he was talking about the Torah in the form that we're familiar with, that's not at all clear. David's reference to the "torah" need not even be to a written text (though I think at the least it takes in a written text).
Daniel’s many flaws are well known to Jewry and discussed at some length in the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901 - 1906).
Of course it must be kept in mind that that source expresses the views of those who compiled it -- there is no Jewish Pope who issues infallible encyclopedia articles.
The point is that certain writings were considered indispensable to the well being of Israel, and were therefore included in the sacred canon. Perfection was not the criterion.
On the other hand, it was (and still is) believed that Jewish canonical books enjoyed a special divine oversight or protection, "inspiration." As soon as you bring in God as the ultimate author of a writing, you unavoidably confront the question of inerrancy.
There is no easy road to understanding Holy Writ.
There's an understatement for you.
Nothing will be accomplished by forcing “The Bible” to conform to naive criteria. The books of the Bible did not just fall out of heaven to be neatly stitched between fine leather covers.
Very true. The Bible is not the Koran or the Book of Elchasaeus or the Book of Mormon.
Noble men, fully aware of the problems in Biblical texts, often died vicious, humiliating deaths, at the hands of the church, no less, in their efforts to make the Bible available to the multitudes.
Well, at any rate they were put to death for trying to make "a" Bible or "their" Bible (not necessarily the Church's Bible) available to the multitudes.
"Perhaps because God thinks sex is a rather nice thing (see as He invented it)."
You certainly wouldn't think so.
Paul
Corky said: All the honest and sincere seekers of truth and humanitarian folks are tossed into the lake of fire while the most gullible believers in myths and utterly naive folks are saved.
Hey, it's not just the sincere truth seekers and humanitarians who need salvation -- the gullible and the naive need salvation too. In any case, you need to read more carefully -- the Scriptures classify various classes of offenders as in danger of hell fire, but they never list sincere truth seekers and humanitarians among the damned. It's the opposite, in fact: those who seek the truth with a sincere heart, and who love neighbor as self, are praised.
Hopefully you don't mean to say or imply that sincere truth seekers and humanitarians are only to be found among the atheists, agnostics, and skeptics, or that all such persons are sincerely seeking truth and striving to love their neighbor. I've met my share of gullible and naive atheists as well as Christians.
You certainly wouldn't think so.
Why wouldn't one think so? As I said, He invented it and encouraged us to do it. Pretty strange thing for Him to do if He didn't like it and didn't want us to do it.
Or, leaving aside the question of God's existence and the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, it shouldn't be surprising that the same Scriptures that say "Be fruitful and multiply" would also include a series of erotic poems. The Scriptures condemn various forms of sexual misconduct and deviance, but there is no condemnation of sex -- quite the contrary.
HI, SKEPTICS.
IF GOD IS TRUE AND ALL THE THINGS SAID IN THE BIBLE ARE TRUE WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?
WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF YOU ARE LISTED TO BE BURNED IN HELL FIRE?
WOULD YOU SAY, SORRY, I DID NOT MEANT IT. I HAVE READ MANY WRITERS WITH CONCLUDING PROOFS THAT YOU ARE A MYTH, THE BIBLE'S A MYTH, JESUS' A MYTH, PAUL'S A MYTH, MATTHEW'S A MYTH...SO FORTH AND SO ON.
THIS WAS WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE GREAT DELUGE. SKEPTICS WOULD NOT BELIEVE NOAH. WHEN THEY FOUND OUT HE WAS TRUE, IT WAS TOO LATE.
OH, SO SORRY FOR THE SKEPTICS. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY HOPE. THEY ARE MEANT FOR THE FLOOD, FOR THE LAKE OF FIRE.
CHRISTIANS HAVE HOPE. AT LEAST WE ARE HOPING. THE SKEPTICS ARE JUST SIMPLY DOOMED. NO CHANCE WHAT SOEVER.
BE A SKEPTICS AND BE A FOOL. GOD SAID IT. THE FOOLS SAID THERE IS NO GOD.
THERE WOULD BE MANY WHO WOULD BE FOOL-WHO WOULD BE SKEPTICS. THEY DO NOT WANT TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THEY ARE AFRAID. THEY JUST WANT TO LIVE FREELY. THEY WANT FREEDOM AND DO NOT WANT TO ANSWER TO ANYBODY.
THIS IS ALL WHAT SKEPTICS WANT. DEEP INSIDE THEIR HEADS THEY WANT THESE THINGS.
THEY ARE MESIRABLE. NO HOPE. AND THEY ARE MANY.
Did your Caps Lock get jammed, Anonymous?
THEY ARE AFRAID. THEY JUST WANT TO LIVE FREELY.
Sounds to me like you are the one who is afraid of freedom. Sad.
To Jared Olar: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I was not aware of the Eastern Orthodox Bible's uniqueness and will now look into it. At any rate, all the best to you.
At your service, Jack. The Eastern Orthodox canon is somewhat longer than the Catholic canon, and includes all of the books that the Catholics classify as "deuterocanonical" (what Protestants call "Apocrypha") as well as Greek Ezra, the Prayer of Manasses, Psalm 151, and III Maccabees. In addition, IV Maccabees (an extended philosophical and moral meditation on II Maccabees 7) appears in an appendix to the Greek Bible.
In comparison, the Catholic Bible classifies those books as "apocrypha" (but the Old Latin Vulgate did include Greek Ezra, the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151 in an appendix). The Ethiopian canon is the longest, including all of the Catholic deuterocanonical scripture, all of the Greek deuterocanon and apocrypha, and adds books such as Jubilees, I Enoch, and the Kebra Nagast.
"THEY ARE MESIRABLE."
Sir, I assure you that I am in no way mesirable. I wouldn't even call myself handsome, though I can be witty when the need arises.
Paul
Oh, Paul, Paul, if you are near I will pick your ears. You are a stubborn son of God. The double helix discovery of human DNA genome(consisting of carefully assembled instructions 3 billion genetics long ) by the racist James D.Watson, Francis Crick and their friends Wilkins and Franklin shows their is a superior mind behind this labyrin- thine structure.
Former atheist Patrick Glynn, Ph.D. Harvard, in his book,The God, The Evidence, 1997,pp,55-56,admits:" a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today, the concrete data point strongly in the direction of God hypothesis."
But why scientist would not admit even to the preponderance of evidence discovered and admitted today by other imminent scientists like bio chemist Denton,Glynn, Stephen Jay Gould, Moore and Desmond to name a few? Why?
Atheist Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin said:"we take the side of science inspite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs," he candidly admitted,"inspite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories,because we have just prior commitment...to materialism... We can not allow a Devine foot in the door"("Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books,Jan.9,2007,page 31).
Paul, are you like Lewontin, having a prior commitment to your beliefs that you will not believe despite the enormity of evidence now at hand favoring Devine over the crazy evolution?
To sum it up, Biographers Desmond and Moore, concluded, as Darwin is solemnly laid in Westminster Abbey:"It marked the accession to powers of the traders in nature's market place, the scientists and their minions in politics and religion. Such men, on the up and up, were paying their dues, for Darwin had naturalized Creation and delevered human nature and human destiny into their hands. Society would never be the same. The Devil's chaplain had done his work."
Where do you belong hard-headed kid...Paul?
"But why scientist would not admit even to the preponderance of evidence discovered and admitted today by other imminent scientists..."
What evidence?
Paul
There's no empirical evidence that God exists, or that He doesn't. One may know of His existence, but that knowing is intuitive, and real only, and personally, to the one who knows. Personal knowing cannot be shared against another's will, so there is frustration when one is determined to make or help another believe.
The Bible doesn't waste a nanosecond trying to convince anyone of God's existence, but begins simply, "In beginning God created the heavens...". A nice story for some, and life itself for others -- with the reader having complete freedom to accept or reject.
"Everyone to his fancy, said the old woman as she kissed the cow."
"The Bible doesn't waste a nanosecond trying to convince anyone of God's existence, but begins simply, "In beginning God created the heavens...". A nice story for some, and life itself for others -- with the reader having complete freedom to accept or reject."
With the penalty of being burnt to a crisp if they don't accept his existence, and with no evidence or proof to help them make a rational decision. Nice.
Paul
Paul, if you're reading that the Creator will burn unbelievers to a crisp for their innocent unbelief, know that the line is either bogus or misunderstood. Too many texts that lie between book covers labeled, "Holy Bible," have no place there -- as I'm sure you know, and others ought to. Even among texts that belong, many hands have sullied their original conditions with interpolations, alterations and all sorts of changes deliberately intended to serve surreptitious agendas. There is more than enough hard evidence in the best libraries to support these statements.
The Compassionate One did not place mankind here to fail. There's more to the story, and at present our lives are writing it. Ultimately it's very encouraging.
Believe me, there's a happy ending to this grand play for which the whole world is a stage. Not that the Creator is incapable of severity, but whatever is not founded first upon compassion and lovingkindness is false. If you're hearing or reading something else, dump it; it's drivel, unworthy of time or attention, fit only for fearmongers and related lowlife. In the real story everyone gets a fair shot at the best of everything. In due time you'll see. We all will.
"If you're hearing or reading something else, dump it; it's drivel, unworthy of time or attention, fit only for fearmongers and related lowlife."
What will happen to me if I do not accept the existence of your god, and what do you base your answer on?
Paul
"What will happen to me if I do not accept the existence of your god, and what do you base your answer on?"........Paul
Paul, to answer a question like yours I remember the good advice Polonius gives his son in Shakespeare's Hamlet. "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."
If one cannot honestly accept the existence of God, then so be it. We don't all share the same experiences and perceptions. Honesty is much more important than willy-nilly acceptance of group-think.
If God exists, and suddenly deems it critical that you should believe in Him, then He should have no problem convincing you, even happily, of His existence.
If, on the other hand, you decide some day that you would prefer to believe in God, then talk to God about it. If He's there, no doubt He'll find a way to make Himself known to you, in a unique way that you can accept, and the experience should be heartwarming.
Your integrity is far more important than caving in to anyone else's opinion. As I see it, any God worth His salt will honor your honesty. So long as you are true to yourself, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
You did not answer my question.
Paul
"What will happen to me if I do not accept the existence of your god, and what do you base your answer on?"........Paul
Paul, you say I didn't answer your question. I did, but perhaps a little too obliquely.
I used common sense as my source, but common sense as expressed by Shakespeare, who said "Be true to yourself." If you cannot believe, then don't pretend. There is honor in honest disbelief -- just as there is good sense in keeping an open, if wary, mind.
Don't worry about Bible thumpers. They have their select Scriptures to prove their pushy points, and the truth is they don't know front from rear.
Stay true to yourself. Americans have the right to believe or disbelieve as they see fit. People have paid dearly, often with their lives, to ensure that right. All your dreams can still come true, and my guess is that they most probably will. Life tends to work that way.
Beyond that I can't predict your future. Ball's in your court.
And you still have not answered my question. I take it you won't. Why so slippery? Why do you avoid an honest, direct reply?
Paul
1. "What will happen to me if I do not accept the existence of your god, and 2. what do you base your answer on?"........Paul
1. "All your dreams can still come true, and my guess is that they most probably will. Life tends to work that way.
Beyond that I can't predict your future. Ball's in your court."
2. "I used common sense as my source, but common sense as expressed by Shakespeare, who said 'Be true to yourself.'"
I have taken the hint. I am not going to get an answer. Why not just say so in the first place?
Paul
Obviously you can read, or you couldn't write. You're intelligent, or you couldn't write as well as you do. So you can understand, but you will not.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Post a Comment