I have been very busy recently and I know I owe you a post on the Cambrian Explosion. I am continuing to work on it. The holdup has been that there is a very interesting debate going on in the scientific arena between paleontologists and geneticists. The paleontology suggests that certain body forms arose over a relatively short period of time. Geneticists, however, looking at genes in existing organisms and inferring divergent times from the differences in the genome suggest that the original progenitors arose over a much longer period of times. I have had to go back to the original literature to determine the merits of each argument. To me it is fascinating and I am taking my time trying to understand the nuances of each position. Once I feel like I have a good handle on it I will finish my post and get it to you. I can tell you that from the standpoint of modern evolutionary theory versus Intelligent Design, it doesn't matter which way it goes. Either way will support evolutionary theory over ID.
Another problem I am having is that of being distracted by other postings. As I have already indicated I am an atheist and atheism is an interest of mine. There are several posters on here who seem to be fundamentalist Christians. They have made several comments that I could not find it in myself to ignore. Most of these comments concern the supposed reliability of the bible. Even though I am a strong evolutionist and creationists would have you believe that it is evolution that leads one to atheism, that was not the case for me. Ironically, I find the bible itself as the strongest evidence for my atheism.
There is quite a bit of good scholarly work done on the bible but almost none of it is known to the general public. As best as I can tell the reason seems to be that the scholarly work that actually takes a critical look at the bible doesn't support what hardcore fundamentalists firmly believe and no one seems to wants to upset them. I am going to try to do a series of posts that looks at the bible skeptically and outline some of the evidence that it is indeed severely flawed in a number of ways. My contention will be that the bible is a work of man, not God. There is no evidence of supernatural influence by a God-like being and a WHOLE LOT of evidence that it was written by falible men without nearly as good an understanding of the universe as we have today. If I do not have time to do a post on the Cambrian Explosion, I certainly do not have time to do new posts on this. However, a few years back after being challenged to investigate the prophecies in the book of Daniel (by a fundamentalist) I wrote up what I found out. I think the evidence is clear that the book of Daniel is a forgery. Instead of being written by a 6th Century BCE Jew in the court of Nebuchadrezzar, it was written in 167 BCE by a pious Jew undergoing severe persecution for practicing his faith. No prophecy in Daniel concerns Jesus. Every prophecy pertains to the situation that the author was facing under Antiochus IV.
I document extensive evidence for this by analyzing the entire book of Daniel. The write-up took 38 pages on Microsoft Word as I recall. I will lightly edit it and present it as a series of posts covering the subject. Hopefully before this series of posts concludes I'll be able to catch up on other things. I still hope to present the post on the Cambrian Explosion and then continue with new posts critically examining the bible.
Here is the first part of the post:
To me the important question is “does God exist?” How does one go about answering it? Gods by definition, if they do exist, exist in a supernatural realm that is inaccessible to mere mortals. Thus, their possible existence can never be ruled out. However, there are claims that are made about certain gods that are open to investigation. The putative god most affecting my life and the lives of people I love is Yahweh, the god of Christians and Jews as portrayed in the bible. There are many claims about this particular god interacting with the natural world and, thus, these claims are open to investigation
Fortunately the bible is a book commonly available (and in multiple translations) so there is a general consensus on the supernatural claims concerning Yahweh’s existence. Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on the reliability of these claims. There are opinions that range from one extreme – the bible is the inerrant word of God and everything in it down to the punctuation marks is perfectly correct when understood in proper context – to the opposite extreme – nothing in the bible shows any signs of real supernatural influence.
I have had a hard time coming up with convenient labels for these positions without being pejorative while still making the label descriptive of the position. I have finally settled on bible-believer for a person who holds the position that a particular supernatural claim in the bible is true and bible-doubter for a person who holds the position that the claim is false.
Then at one extreme is the person who is a bible-believer concerning all biblical claims of the supernatural and the other extreme is the person who is a bible-doubter concerning these claims. Since most people in this country are theists, but not to the extreme suggested above, I suspect most fall somewhere in the middle. That is, they believe some supernatural claims in the bible may be false, but others are likely to be true. I, on the other hand, am an extreme bible-doubter. I do not believe any claims concerning the supernatural are true. That is not the same as believing nothing in the bible is true, it is just a belief concerning supernatural claims of the bible.
I came by this belief after testing the bible. I had developed an hypothesis concerning the bible and read the bible as a test of that hypothesis. The hypothesis was that if the bible was the inspired word of a creator capable of producing the universe and the life in it and thus having decidedly superior knowledge of the universe and the life in it than we do now, then it should have undeniable evidence of that. The alternative hypothesis was that if the bible were not the inspired word of God, then it is the work of a primitive people with decidedly inferior knowledge of the universe and the life in it than we have now and nothing in the bible should suggest otherwise. After reading the bible twice, I found that the alternative hypothesis (nothing in the bible suggests any superior knowledge of the universe or the life in it) was strongly supported and the hypothesis that the bible should contain undeniable evidence of superior knowledge was not.
I had felt that the strength of these observations alone were sufficiently strong to rule out Yahweh’s existence (and I still do). But, I had not checked out the supernatural claims inside the bible as to whether or not they contradicted the above finding. Perhaps, even without any signs of superior knowledge, the bible may contain irrefutable evidence of supernatural involvement in the activities of the universe to warrant a belief in God. Certainly, some of the extreme bible-believers believe this to be the case.
One oft touted piece of evidence is biblical prophecy fulfillment. Again, opinions on the accuracy of prophecy fulfillment differ. For instance, concerning Messianic prophecies (prophecies about the coming of a Messiah), popular Christian apologist and extreme bible-believer, Josh McDowell says the Old Testament “contains several hundred references to the Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Christ and they establish a solid confirmation of his credentials as the Messiah.” But Thomas Paine, one of our founding fathers and a deist, said, “I have examined all the passages in the New Testament quoted from the Old, and so-called prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, and I find no such thing as a prophecy of any person, and I deny there are any.”
Obviously, at least one person above fooled himself. To lessen the likelihood of such an event, one must establish objective guidelines in assessing the accuracy of prophecy fulfillment. The minimum criteria I have come up with are:
1. A real prophecy must be made.
2. The prophecy needs to be made well in advance of the date of fulfillment.
3. The prophecy must contain SPECIFIC information.
4. The prophecy must be so unlikely to happen that the only reasonable explanation for its fulfillment is the intervention of a supernatural entity (as opposed to a lucky guess.
5. The prophecy must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
A corollary is that since the fulfillment of prophecy must be an event that is very unlikely to occur, there can be only one putative event that qualifies as fulfillment.
One criticism that may be made is that the above criteria are stringent. I do not believe this to be the case. If one recognizes that the supernatural demands a suspension of the well-tested laws of physics we have been living by, then one must admit that any claims for the existence of the supernatural fall in the realm of extraordinary claims. Any such claim then will require an extraordinary support. The reasoning behind this is that the laws of physics are so well established that the level of likelihood that they are correct approaches certainty. Thus, if data contradicts them then either the laws are wrong (we already know that is unlikely) or the data is wrong. The only way to overturn established principles is to make the stringency on the data such that its likelihood of being wrong is less than that of what it disproves. Besides, Yahweh is claimed to be omniscient. A prophecy inspired from an omniscient being SHOULD be able to meet those criteria easily.
To date, I have examined several putative cases of prophecy fulfillment; prophecies concerning the city of Tyre found in Amos and Ezekiel, Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14), Jeremiah’s 70 year of servitude, etc. I have found that none of them come even close to meeting the criteria.
This series of posts deals with prophecies found in the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel is used by bible-believers as proof for the existence of God. They claim that it was written by a prophet who was a young man when King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem (605 BCE) and served in the court until at least the third year of the reign of the Persian king Cyrus (ca. 536 BCE). They claim that Daniel made miraculous prophecies, such as the coming of Christ, the Roman Empire, and God’s everlasting kingdom which is yet to come.
If their dating of Daniel is correct, then at least some of the prophecies he made were indeed miraculous (although others were clearly wrong). For instance, there are numerous and unmistakable prophecies concerning the conquests of Alexander the Great, events that did not happen until 332 BCE, over 200 years after the supposed time of Daniel.
Since there is no natural phenomenon that can explain this, if it is true then Daniel would be evidence for the existence of the supernatural. However, the only evidence to believe the dating of Daniel is from the book of Daniel. If we are going to question its reliability, we cannot assume before looking at it that it is indeed reliable. We must look for other evidence.
Most mainstream biblical scholars who have looked at Daniel dispassionately have concluded that the bible-believer’s dating of the book is indeed flawed. They cite overwhelming evidence that Daniel was not written until 167 BCE during the Maccabean Period or about 400 years after the fundamentalist’s claim. Furthermore, once Daniel is put into its proper historical context, the prophecies that seem to predict the events mentioned above, really concern local events of the time. As such, it does not provide any evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Instead, it is shows Daniel to be a crude forgery and is evidence that the bible is a flawed document not likely to emanate from God.
In the upcoming series of posts I will summarize the evidence for the above assertion. I will look at the entire book of Daniel (12 chapters). Since the purpose of these posts is to examine the reliability of the book of Daniel, I will focus on mistakes and attempt an explanation as to how they occurred. From this critical analysis, one can deduce with reasonable certainty that the book of Daniel is a forgery.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
In order to determine the accuracy of literature that's been reprinted, translated, retranslated there needs to be something to compare it to. But, the fact of the matter is, there are no original documents. With this said, it's hard to tell when these texts were written. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others, while liberal scholars usually date later.
The bible book of Daniel contains prophecies and visions that scholars aren't sure of, and debate. Most believers of the bible, have no clues as the the mentioned prophecies (most don't care to know), this shows how little they actual understand what they read. From growing up a JW, it's hard to look at the text as a non-fiction, but rather a mere story of fairytale. As in order to see the prophecies you must decipher the hidden meaning, which varies according to religion.
I am not a Bible thumper but your statement is flawed, terribly. There are several "original" documents. I encourage you to investigate the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are quite a few manuscripts out there. Not as nearly as many as Homunculus would have you believe (see: http://www.progressiveu.org/141706-pre-marital-sex-yes-your-parents-did-it-and-that-is-why-they-are-divorced). While there have been changes made I think there is enough to get the general idea of what the original texts said in most cases.
In the case of Daniel the dating is virtually exact. It was written in the year 167 BCE. I will provide the evidence for that in up-coming posts. But to let the cat out of the bag a little the reason we know the date down to the year is because the author "predicts" very accurately the history up to 167 BCE but then his real predictions fall apart after that.
There are mainstream scholars and there are evangelical scholars. The evangelical scholarship seldom to never critically evaluates the bible. It almost always assumes biblical accuracy and then tries to find things that support it. At the same time they dismiss or gloss over any contradictory information. This is scholarship that could not possibly be better designed to fool oneself into believing exactly what one wants to believe.
Mainstream scholarship is more critical. They do not assume the conclusion beforehand. The bible is evaluated the way anyone would evaluate an ancient manuscript. The result is that there is a consensus among mainstream biblical scholars that Daniel contains no real prophecies of anything. I will present a rather comprehensive overview of that evidence in these upcoming posts.
Interestingly, most mainstream scholars will agree with almost everything I will say. While I look at it and believe the evidence is overwhelming that God doesn't exist, they usually retain their belief in God. I don't see how. But hey, that's me.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
It's easy to be skeptical without facts, looking at things from a modern day 2D perspective. Daniel 4... you say there is no evidence of him going crazy. Do you find ANY evidence of the king from 582 B.C. to 575 B.C.?? Do you not think in that day and time it would have been impossible for Daniel and other folks to hide the fact he was insane?
You offer rebuttles to the bible with little to know insight. You read as a non-believer and pull out things you dont understand. You denounce any scientific findings that prove the bible yet believe that there is no God, that we are just happen chance. That we come and we go. Believers believe, not because they've seen absolute evidence that everything is true. Without doubt there's no need for faith. They believe b/c of faith. And because they have that faith the Lord is able to do things in their lives that reinforce that faith. The only people I've really seen change, really change, are folks that have had faith in grace. There are evidences of this real, lasting change and growth everywhere in the church.
You however seem to be just like the King, oblivious dispite the evidence that there is NO way this earth/world/human soul/conscience/love/etc, was created by happenchance. As for evolution, I didn't read enough to get your full opinions... but have you ever heard of a animal with a half developed eye, heart, leg...??? for long periods of time?? (maybe an oddity here or there)... NOTHING has evolved from one thing to another that we can prove via pictures, etc. but you seem to believe thats possible.... whatever...
dmc==
It's easy to be skeptical without facts, looking at things from a modern day 2D perspective.
DB=
Here are facts:
http://www.progressiveu.org/115341-daniel-is-a-forgery-chapter-1-daniel-and-friends-in-nebuchadrezzars-court
http://www.progressiveu.org/131001-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-and-nebuchadrezzars-first-vision
http://www.progressiveu.org/114050-skeptical-bible-study-shadrach-meschach-and-abednigo-in-the-fiery-furnace
http://www.progressiveu.org/083011-skeptical-bible-study-chapter-4-daniel-nebuchadrezzars-dream-of-insanity
http://www.progressiveu.org/155209-skeptical-bible-study-daniel-chapter-5-belshazzar-and-the-writing-on-the-wall
if you would care to deal with those I would be obliged.
dmc==
Daniel 4... you say there is no evidence of him going crazy. Do you find ANY evidence of the king from 582 B.C. to 575 B.C.?? Do you not think in that day and time it would have been impossible for Daniel and other folks to hide the fact he was insane?
DB=
Babylonian records are pretty good. I suspect there are numerous ones dating to then. I think it highly unlikely that they would hide the fact that Nebuchadrezzar was insane considering the fact that if Daniel is as it portrays itself, Nebuchadrezzar wanted the world to know that he had indeed been insane.
dmc==
You offer rebuttles to the bible with little to know insight. You read as a non-believer and pull out things you dont understand.
DB=
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. What things have I pulled out that I don't understand?
dmc==
You denounce any scientific findings that prove the bible yet believe that there is no God, ...
DB=
Perhaps you could be a bit more specific. (1) What scientific findings have I denounced? (2) Exactly how do they "prove" the bible?
dmc==
... that we are just happen chance.
DB=
I don't know about you, but I'm here because my parents wanted a second child.
dmc==
That we come and we go.
DB=
You mean, live and die? Yep! Don't you believe it as well?
dmc==
Believers believe, not because they've seen absolute evidence that everything is true.
DB=
Help me out here ... I'm not sure. Is that a statement of your belief are you still trying to characterize my beliefs?
dmc==
Without doubt there's no need for faith. They believe b/c of faith. And because they have that faith the Lord is able to do things in their lives that reinforce that faith. The only people I've really seen change, really change, are folks that have had faith in grace. There are evidences of this real, lasting change and growth everywhere in the church.
DB=
Yes ... there is evidence of that in protestant churches, Catholic churches, Mormon tabernacles, Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, Hindu temples, Buddhist shrines, New Age households, Communist meeting halls, KKK rallies, Pakistani madrassas ... almost any place where dogma is taught. It doesn't much matter what dogma is taught, what matters is that the person buy into it. If they do then they can devote their life to helping the poor. They can also devote their soon-to-be-shortened life to flying planes into buildings.
None of it is evidence for the truth of the belief however.
dmc==
You however seem to be just like the King, oblivious dispite the evidence that there is NO way this earth/world/human soul/conscience/love/etc, was created by happenchance.
DB=
Nobody says happenchance created the world. It was created by natural forces operating by the laws of physics. That wasn't happenchance.
dmc==
As for evolution, I didn't read enough to get your full opinions... but have you ever heard of a animal with a half developed eye,...
DB=
planaria have an eyespot ... These light-sensitive cells allow them to tell when there is light and when there is darkness
starfish have light-sensitive cells in a little invagination ... it helps them out by giving them some idea where the light is coming from
nautilus have light-sensitive cells in an invagination that is moveable ... it allows them to look around and the small hole that is in front of the eye is thought to form a primitive image like that formed by a pinhole camera.
We have camera-like eyes that include light-sensitive cells in an invagination that is moveable AND focusing elements like the cornea and lens.
I don't know where you would put the 50% line in the anatomy of eyes but that progression should give you pause to think. ... but probably not.
dmc==
... heart,
DB=
Crayfish have a contracting tube.
Insects have a specialized mass of muscle cells connected to the contracting tube.
Some fish have a two-chambered heart
Reptiles have a three-chambered heart.
We have a four-chambered heart.
I don't know where you draw the 50% line when it comes to hearts, but that progression should give you pause to think .... but probably not.
dmc==
leg...???
Fish have pectoral and anal fins that develop embryologically very similar to our legs.
Lobe finned fish like the coelocanth and lungfish have pectoral and anal fin anatomies that show striking similarities in bone structure to that of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Fossils such as Tiktaalik, Ichthyostega, Acanthostega et al. show intermediate forms between that of the lobe finned fish/lungfish and amphibians.
Occasionally a boa constrictor will be born with non-functional legs coming off of what looks like hip bones (all boas retain these)
Occasionally whales will be born with non-functional legs coming off of what looks like hip bones (all whales retain these).
I don't know where to draw the 50% line but the above evidence should be enough to give you pause to think ... probably not.
dmc==
for long periods of time??
DB
Yep!
dmc==
(maybe an oddity here or there)
DB=
Those too.
dmc==
... NOTHING has evolved from one thing to another that we can prove via pictures, etc. but you seem to believe thats possible.... whatever...
DB=
see my write up here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-modern-evolutionary-theory-versus-intelligent-design-part-2
Follow the link to the picture of the homonem skulls. The one on the upper left labelled A is a modern chimpanzee skull. The one on the lower right labelled N is a modern human skull. The rest (B thru M) are arranged in chronological order by the radiodating of the fossil's age. Where do ape skulls end and human skulls begin? What criteria did you use to make your choice? If you can not come up with satisfactory answers to those two questions then why is this not a convincing demonstration of transition of from apes to humans?
Read the rest of that post. It has a lot more evidence that humans and the modern apes share a common ancestry. That means we evolved from a common species.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
You claim this is a 'skeptics' analysis, but you are mistaken. You take the approach of a critic and a disbeliever. The proper meaning of the word 'skeptic' is 'one who questions' or 'one who asks questions'. NOT 'one who disbelieves' or 'one who asks loaded questions'. Your title is misleading.
Er... no, my title is not misleading. A skeptic is one who does not take anything on authority. I am presenting EVIDENCE. And what is more I am presenting a overwhelming amount of evidence.
Now if you can demonstrate where anything is "loaded" in this analysis, I would appreciate it, and be happy to address any substantive complaints. But if you are going to close your eyes to the evidence and make unsubstantiated allegations as a way to dismiss it, then I would just as soon you go away.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
You have some very interesting things to comment on here. I will have to say I am very interested at least. You do show that you have at least opened up "The Book" and taken a close look inside. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your statements here; just saying that it is good to see someone who has done some actual research.
I did find it ironic that you should say this:
"DB=
Nobody says happenchance created the world. It was created by natural forces operating by the laws of physics. That wasn't happenchance."
I was surprised to find out that you believe this. Could you expand upon this a bit, please?
> You do show that you have at least opened up "The Book"
> and taken a close look inside.
In my experience, the adult atheist is far more familiar with the actual contents of the bible than the vast majority of christians, including in many cases those who claim to be "teachers" in the faith. I have never personally encountered a christian who has stuied the bible in more depth and detail that I have, and find it to be a rare thing indeed to find one that can even honestly say that they have sat down and read the bible from cover to cover, and even fewer that have read more than one version of it (the catholic and protestant cannons are significantly different, for example), and almost none that can on an intellectual discussion about the history and original language of these texts.
It is my personal experience and opinion that one of the best ways to "make an atheist" is to get a christion to sit down and read the bible completely, and ask them to judge it the face value of its contents. There has never been a more violent, blood and capricious narrative written in human history...genocide, babies being ripped up and dashed to death on rocks, the mass murder of firstborn children, human sacrifice, territorial conquest, rape, and virtually every other sort of foul inhumanity is the meat and drink of this "god" fellow, and very few people (mostly sociopaths) can honestly look at all of that and conclude that the being described in these texts is actually worthy of anything more than disgust and contempt.
percivale
-------------------------
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
One of the things that really horrified me in the Bible is when the Jews were being sieged and starving to death. They ate their own babies and fought over dead corpses to eat so they wouldn't die of starvation. I remember reading that and being more than disgusted and just plain mad. How could God just sit by and do nothing about that? I had never in my life ever heard a sermon on this; I just found it while reading through the Bible. (I have read through it entirely about three times straight through. Normally I just pick and choose a book at a time.)
I was angry that God had a bet with the devil concerning Job also. It enraged me that humans could be pawns in a real-life game in which unwilling and unknowing participants were being murdered(his children, for example).
There are things I still don't like, but I think I have a better understanding of why than I used to. I believe God will not force His will on anyone and lets them make mistakes and pay the consequences. He gave people free will to chose and He allows them to make wrong choices and suffer for them. Sometimes it seems its all His fault that bad things happen; but I don't believe that is true---otherwise, there is no way I would want anything to do with Him. He gave humans dominion over this planet and humans handed it over to Satan in the garden when they rebelled against God. God will not do anything to make any of us do what He wants us to; we make our own choices and reap the results be it good or bad.
I really believe that a person has to dig beyond the surface of what appears to be going on at first glance in the Bible. Meditation and understanding must be applied.
But you are right for sure when you say that the majority of Christians haven't read the Bible and even the teachers. I grew up in a cult and my parents never read the Bible much; they believed everything the so-called preacher said and never questioned it.
I, on the other hand, didn't like the "church" or the preacher or their God. I hated not being able to go to Christmas parties, birthday parties, etc. I even started doing some very wicked things and rebelling and got thrown out of the church in a very shameful way! My parents were horrified and embarrassed and treated me very cruel. So I sat out on a mission to disprove everything including the idea that God existed. I found scriptures that seemed to prove my point bc they "conflicted" or at least appeared to conflict. Later on, I concluded that I was wrong about that part. But to make a long story short, I did end up convinced of the credibility of the Bible and ended up believing in God. It was a long journey. I even had an experience where God actually did communicate with me. I realize that there is not concrete evidence that proves he exists yet(to my knowledge), but there is enough to make people really suspect that he could. Especially now with DNA structure being revealed and the other recent scientific discoveries out there.
I think that a lot of christians confuse the historical relevance of the various biblical accounts with "evidence" that would in fact indicate that a supernatural being known as "god" exists. Proving that there was a story about supernatural events is not the same as proving that supernatural events acutally happened.
percivale
-------------------------
"...the swindle of life and the treachery of a God that can create disease and misery and crime--create things that men would be condemned for creating--that men would be ashamed to create." ~ Mark Twain
STAB==
Could you expand upon [happenchance not creating the world] a bit.
DB=
Sure, Here is a link to a post I did about different scenarios for the origin of the universe:
http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-univ...
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
"Fortunately the bible is a book commonly available (and in multiple translations) so there is a general consensus on the supernatural claims concerning Yahweh’s existence. Unfortunately, there is no general consensus on the reliability of these claims."
This is not clear to me. What are you saying here?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-sen-suhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sus·es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
[Origin: 1850–55; < L, equiv. to consent(īre) to be in agreement, harmony (con- con- + sentīre to feel; cf. sense) + -tus suffix of v. action]
—Usage note Many say that the phrase consensus of opinion is redundant and hence should be avoided: The committee's statement represented a consensus of opinion. The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense “majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” Criticism of consensus of opinion has been so persistent and widespread that the phrase, even though in common use, occurs only infrequently in edited formal writing. The phrase general consensus is objected to for similar reasons. Consensus is now widely used attributively, esp. in the phrase consensus politics.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
STAB==
This is not clear to me. What are you saying [with regard to a lack of consensus concerning the reliability of the bible]?
DB=
Er ... that people disagree over how reliable the bible is.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Okay. That is more clear. Thanks, I appreciate it.
"There are opinions that range from one extreme – the bible is the inerrant word of God and everything in it down to the punctuation marks is perfectly correct when understood in proper context"
Where did you get this information---that the punctuation marks are perfectly correct... or considered to be perfectly correct? I would like to know this.
The original text never contained punctuation marks according to all sources that I have found. Can you name your source for your information please?
You are correct that the original text did not have punctuation marks. I never said it did. The remark I was referring to was actually from a Christian's website (whose URL I have long since lost) who believed that the King's James Version was an inspired translation and was inerrant down to and including the punctuation. His was the most extreme opinion so that is why I included it in my statement of the RANGE of opinions.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
"I came by this belief after testing the bible. I had developed an hypothesis concerning the bible and read the bible as a test of that hypothesis. The hypothesis was that if the bible was the inspired word of a creator capable of producing the universe and the life in it and thus having decidedly superior knowledge of the universe and the life in it than we do now, then it should have undeniable evidence of that. The alternative hypothesis was that if the bible were not the inspired word of God, then it is the work of a primitive people with decidedly inferior knowledge of the universe and the life in it than we have now and nothing in the bible should suggest otherwise. After reading the bible twice, I found that the alternative hypothesis (nothing in the bible suggests any superior knowledge of the universe or the life in it) was strongly supported and the hypothesis that the bible should contain undeniable evidence of superior knowledge was not."
Here is where I would have to disagree. I have found statements in the Bible that suggest superior knowledge far above what ordinary primitive people had. Some of this involves the health and sanitary laws, the shape of the earth being a circle(man had no knowledge of this when the Bible was written), and other scriptures. It is possible to read the Bible multiple times and miss these verses; I have done it myself.
... on the claim that the bible says the Earth is sphere. Enjoy.
As for the "sanitary laws" of the bible, while better than nothing, they are nowhere near as good as we have now, even though the technology (cleaning with soaps) was available to them. So ... no, I am not impressed with that.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
"I had felt that the strength of these observations alone were sufficiently strong to rule out Yahweh’s existence (and I still do)."
Really? Then is the reverse of this also true; that is, that the strength of these observations alone are sufficiently strong to rule FOR Yahweh's existence??
Er ... that makes no sense. It is as if I say that empirical evidence is sufficiently strong to rule out the proposition that 2 + 2 = 5, and you tell me "Really? Then the reverse of this is also true; that is, empirical evidence is sufficiently strong to to rule FOR 2 + 2 = 5"
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
"To date, I have examined several putative cases of prophecy fulfillment; prophecies concerning the city of Tyre found in Amos and Ezekiel, Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14), Jeremiah’s 70 year of servitude, etc. I have found that none of them come even close to meeting the criteria."
Can you please give a reason why you say none of them come even close to meeting the criteria?
Here are the criteria again:
1. . A real prophecy must be made.
2. The prophecy needs to be made well in advance of the date of fulfillment.
3. The prophecy must contain SPECIFIC information.
4. The prophecy must be so unlikely to happen that the only reasonable explanation for its fulfillment is the intervention of a supernatural entity (as opposed to a lucky guess.
5. The prophecy must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
In every case of putative prophecy fulfillment either (1) no prophecy was made (examples include virtually all putative prophecies in Psalm); (2) the actual "prophecy" was made well after the fulfillment (example King of the North/King of the South prophecies in Daniel); (3) no real specific information is given (examples include restoration of Israel prophecies in that most often no date, no method for fulfillment, only a vague prophecy that someday somehow Israel would be restored [it should also be noted that in almost every case of these prophecies the "Israel" that is being referred to is the 10 northern tribes which have been lost to history]); (4) there are multiple potential fulfillments of the prophecy (see the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel and Isaiah 7:14); or (5) claims of fulfillment ignore large areas where the prophecy wasn't fulfilled at all (see Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others).
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
"Furthermore, once Daniel is put into its proper historical context, the prophecies that seem to predict the events mentioned above, really concern local events of the time."
What local events of the time?
Er ... that is what I have done in the next 10 blogs of this series.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
What if the dating of Daniel could be reliably placed in the 6th century BC? Say, for example, tomorrow they discovered a complete manuscript of Daniel that is carbon-dated to 502 BC. How would your personal beliefs change? Just Curious...
That would mean that many of the prophecies in Daniel were actually valid prophecies ... more than would be likely by chance. BUT ... there would still be all the errors and the still significant number of unfulfilled prophecies.
How would we harmonize that? I don't know. Fortunately, I don't have to go through the mental gymnastics of trying to do so since this all hypothetical. It is sort of asking what would you do if you found out that Paul Bunyan really existed and did make the Great Lakes while playing with Babe, the Blue Ox.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
That leads to my next question. Say that, after examining your evidence and the evidence of the "extreme bible-believers", I come to the conclusion that Daniel was, indeed, most likely written in the 6th century BC. While I understand that you did not reach this conclusion, surely you'd want me to make the decision, based on all the evidence, for myself, and come to my own conclusion, your conclusions notwidthstanding. What would be the intellectually honest next-step? Given that there are, as you see, obvious errors in the prophecy, a view of Daniel as completely divinely inspired would be untenable, but would a view that Daniel was at least partially inspired (or fully inspired in its original form, but its current form is not) be valid?
Thanks,
Mithun
The answer depends upon how you assess the evidence. You would need to ask yourself at a minimum:
(1) What evidence did I find that convinced me that it was genuine and not a forgery?
(2) Why is this evidence more compelling than the counter evidence?
(3) What are other potential explanations for the evidence suggesting Daniel is genuine?
(4) What are other potential explanations for the counter evidence?
(5) What is the evidence pro and con for these other potential explanations?
Then you have considered both sides and should have a basis to harmonize the data.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France