Bible Prophecy - Page 28

**debdodd** · 07-21-2008, 05:32 PM

oh for pity's sake ... Brian has milked this just a wee bit to much ...

nah, we weren't that bad on him .... he came in like he was something special ... calling fellows names and such ... he's a legend in his own mind ... thinks he's punishing us, doing the Scarlet O'Hara drama king stuff ... he's still lurking around ... seeing if he can extend his 15 minutes of fame .... he'll whine for a while then come back under another name ... little sissy, can't hang ... too bad for him ... he needs to toughen up a little anyway ...

I thought a kipper was a fish of some sort? BTW "face" means a whole lot of different things .... some not so nice

... well for some nice ... but never mind ....

Ice_Monkey · 07-21-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Quote:

Do you have a link to that?

Yes. This thread, page 24, post 232. I provided the link you cut and pasted from, and the reason you were unable to answer why you contradicted yourself.

And I've already demonstrated why you were mistaken.

Quote:

Where did this come from? To the best of my remberance, we never discussed the prophecies concerning Jesus' birth. You are attempting to side step the issue. When the missle is locked on, you begin to throw out chaffe.

Here's a peanut for you monkey, go play elsewhere.

Not a chance. Though you're not the only one wishing I'd play somewhere else, I'm stayin' right here with you.

Oh, and monkeys prefer bananas. You're thinking of elephants.

Tell ya what - pick your top 3 farourite "prophesies" and we'll debate them head to head.

Abel · 07-22-2008, 10:57 AM

Ok Monkey. Let's try one to begin with. Answer this prophecy as taken from www.allaboutthejourney.org

The Decree of Cyrus

In about 700 BC, Isaiah (44:28 & 45:1) names Cyrus as the king who will allow the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its Temple. At the time of this prophecy, there was no king named Cyrus and the Temple in Jerusalem was totally built and in full operation.

In 586 BC, more than 100 years later, the Babylonian King "Nebuchadnezzar" sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. The Jews living in Jerusalem were either killed or taken captive to Babylon. In about 539 BC, the Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Persians. Shortly thereafter, a Persian king named Cyrus issued a formal decree that the Jews could return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. This decree is confirmed by secular archaeology in the form of a stone cylinder that details many events of Cyrus' reign, including the decree to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

Remarkably, Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, who would not be born for about a hundred years, would give a decree to rebuild a city and a temple, which were still standing and fully active at the time!

Ice_Monkey · 07-22-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Ok Monkey. Let's try one to begin with. Answer this prophecy as taken from www.allaboutthejourney.org

The Decree of Cyrus

In about 700 BC, Isaiah (44:28 & 45:1) names Cyrus as the king who will allow the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its Temple. At the time of this prophecy, there was no king named Cyrus and the Temple in Jerusalem was totally built and in full operation.

In 586 BC, more than 100 years later, the Babylonian King "Nebuchadnezzar" sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. The Jews living in Jerusalem were either killed or taken captive to Babylon. In about 539 BC, the Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Persians. Shortly thereafter, a Persian king named Cyrus issued a formal decree that the Jews could return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. This decree is confirmed by secular archaeology in the form of a stone cylinder that details many events of Cyrus' reign, including the decree to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

Remarkably, Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, who would not be born for about a hundred years, would give a decree to rebuild a city and a temple, which were still standing and fully active at the time!

Because of pervasive differences of style in various parts of the Book of Isaiah, most biblical scholars agree that there are at least two, and possibly three prophets by that name, whose works were conflated and collected together by later redactors into one book.

Chapters 1 through 39 were the work of Isaiah ben Amoz, who lived during the time of the Assyrian Empire and was a contemporary of Kings Ahaz and Hezekiah of Judah. These two consecutive rulers of Judah reigned between ca. 735 and 687 BCE, a period of about 48 years.

The second Isaiah author of chapters 40 - 55 is believed to have written shortly after the fall of Babylon to the Persians late in 539 BCE. A third author, also named Isaiah is believed to have written chapters 56 - 66 between 530 and 510 BCE.

The difference in style and tone is evident, even in English translations. Chapters 1 - 39 are full of dire predictions and condemnation. However, Is. 40:1 begins "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God."

Note also that Is. 44:28 speaks of Cyrus in the present tense: "He is my shepherd" Also, Is. 45:1 opens with: "Thus says the LORD to his anointed, Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped. . ." In other word, Cyrus is spoken to and of in the present and past tenses. In other words, this isn't even worded as a prophecy.

Now, fundamentalist apologists might counter that tense was not that precise in Hebrew, and that is quite true. Hebrew has essentially two tenses: perfect and imperfect. The perfect is used for present and past, while the imperfect is present and future. Often context is the main determiner of how a tense is to be used. This, plus the fact that Bible is a transmitted, as opposed to a preserved, ancient document (i.e. it was copied and recopied), enables them to play a bit fast and loose with those verses concerning Cyrus, claiming them as prophecies when they were actually statements about a contemporary king. Suffice it to say that translators who were devout believers translated the verses referring to Cyrus using the present and past tenses.

Cyrus did issue a decree, upon conquering Babylon, stating that the captive peoples of the Babylonian Empire were free to return to their homes. This made him immensely popular with the Jews, who hailed him as the anointed of God.

Next.

Abel · 07-22-2008, 09:34 PM

Biblical experts agree that the book of Isaiah is in two sections: Ch.1-39, and Ch.40-66, but not written by different men. This has given Isaiah the nickname of "The Bible within the Bible".

The Old Testament contains 39 books and deals with the history and sin of Israel. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah also follows this pattern. The New Testament has 27 books and describes the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. The last 27 chapters of Isaiah deal with the same message, prophetically of course.

For example, the N.T. begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. Isaiah ch.40 predicts this ministry (particularly verse 3 which John referrs to himself: John 1:23).

The three part division you suggested is not held by Biblical experts. Remember also the book of Isaiah covers a period of roughly 60 years. My writing style is much different now than it was 20 years ago. I would suggest that your style may even be different than it was in the past.

Now as far as different men named Isaiah writing the different sections, this is refuted by scripture itself. John 12:38-41 quote from the book of Isaiah in 6:10 and 53:1. One qoute from each section, but both attrituted to the same Isaiah.

I'm tired and I'm going to bed now. I'll address any rebuttals tomorrow.

Ice_Monkey · 07-22-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Biblical experts agree that the book of Isaiah is in two sections: Ch.1-39, and Ch.40-66, but not written by different men. This has given Isaiah the nickname of "The Bible within the Bible".

The Old Testament contains 39 books and deals with the history and sin of Israel. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah also follows this pattern. The New Testament has 27 books and describes the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. The last 27 chapters of Isaiah deal with the same message, prophetically of course.

For example, the N.T. begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. Isaiah ch.40 predicts this ministry (particularly verse 3 which John referrs to himself: John 1:23).

The three part division you suggested is not held by Biblical experts. Remember also the book of Isaiah covers a period of roughly 60 years. My writing style is much different now than it was 20 years ago. I would suggest that your style may even be different than it was in the past.

Now as far as different men named Isaiah writing the different sections, this is refuted by scripture itself. John 12:38-41 quote from the book of Isaiah in 6:10 and 53:1. One qoute from each section, but both attrituted to the same Isaiah.

I'm tired and I'm going to bed now. I'll address any rebuttals tomorrow.

It was not written as a prophesy. The wording stands on its own (and yes, most biblical scholars, some of them Jews and Christians, accept that it was written by at least two different people). And your mentioning of what the author of John quoted is irrelevent. It doesn't support your explanation. It supports the reasonable assumption that he had access to older scriptures and nothing more.

I'm not expecting you to accept my explanation. I'm writing for the sake of others who may be playing along at home. They must ask themselves which explanation is the more reasonable one. Since mine doesn't require any magic or limited supernatural element, and doesn't beg more questions than it answers, mine is the more acceptable one. That there even is a possible reasonable alternative explanation to what you're suggesting should be enough for people to dismiss your claim of a fulfilled prophesy.

Have you another I can take a look at?

Abel · 07-23-2008, 07:33 AM

Monkey
One quick question before I present another prophecy. Twice you have made reference to Biblical scholars holding that more than one person wrote the book of Isaiah. For the sake of those playing along at home, who would these Biblical scholars be? It's easy to throw out impressive phrases such as "Biblical scholars", or "Biblical experts". These are hollow terms unless one can actually produce these scholars and experts.

I'll be glad to reveal the experts I rely on most. They would be Dr. C.I. Scofield, Dr. Frank Thompson, Dr. Finis Dake, Dr. Jerry Falwell. The work of these men can be seen in the notes and references of the Bibles they published. Actually, any good study Bible will show how Isaiah is divided into the two parts.

Then there are Bible commentators and exposititors Matthew Henry; Matthew Poole; Jamison, Fausset, and Brown; Dr. J.Vernon Mcgee; Dr. Warren Weirsbe; and Keil and Delitzsch. All these agree on the division of Isaiah into two sections and written by only author, as I presented. There are probably more, but these are the ones in my personal library that I was able to refer to.

Also remember, that those of us who hold the Bible as infallible, the reference in John is evidence enough that only one man penned the book of Isaiah.

I will allow you the last word concerning this prophecy before I present the next one.

Ice_Monkey · 07-23-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Monkey
One quick question before I present another prophecy. Twice you have made reference to Biblical scholars holding that more than one person wrote the book of Isaiah. For the sake of those playing along at home, who would these Biblical scholars be? It's easy to throw out impressive phrases such as "Biblical scholars", or "Biblical experts". These are hollow terms unless one can actually produce these scholars and experts.

I'll be glad to reveal the experts I rely on most. They would be Dr. C.I. Scofield, Dr. Frank Thompson, Dr. Finis Dake, Dr. Jerry Falwell. The work of these men can be seen in the notes and references of the Bibles they published. Actually, any good study Bible will show how Isaiah is divided into the two parts.

Then there are Bible commentators and exposititors Matthew Henry; Matthew Poole; Jamison, Fausset, and Brown; Dr. J.Vernon Mcgee; Dr. Warren Weirsbe; and Keil and Delitzsch. All these agree on the division of Isaiah into two sections and written by only author, as I presented. There are probably more, but these are the ones in my personal library that I was able to refer to.

Also remember, that those of us who hold the Bible as infallible, the reference in John is evidence enough that only one man penned the book of Isaiah.

I will allow you the last word concerning this prophecy before I present the next one.

I use textual critics such as Bart Ehrman and Richard E. Friedman, and I'm fortunate to have personal communications with Tim Callahan. I also rely on modern archaeological finds as presented by guys like Drs. Silberman and Finkelstein (no, those aren't Italian names). Granted, they're not scholars of the calibre of a Jerry Falwell.... I assure you, they are not.

Next.

Abel · 07-23-2008, 10:58 AM

Daniel 8:1-9. The Ram and the He-goat.
Daniel received a vision of a ram having two horns, one larger than the other. This ram is seen as a conquering kingdom moving west, north, and south. This kingdom is that of Media-Persian with the Persians being the stronger force represented by the larger horn. This is explained in detail in Dan.8:20.

Daniel then saw a he-goat coming out of the west moving at such a rapid speed it was as if it ran without touching the ground. This he-goat had one notable horn. This he-goat defeated the ram. The he-goat is the kingdom of Greece. This is also explained in Dan.8:21.

The notable horn from Greece can be none other than Alexander the Great. Notice also this horn was broken while he was very strong. Alexander died at a very young age. After his death, his kingdom was divided among his four generals. Gassander took Greece, Lysimachus took Asia Minor, Selecius took Syria, Ptolemy took Egypt. This is the fulfillment of Dan.8:8.

This prophecy was written at the time when the Babylonian Empire was flourishing. Neither the Media-Persian, nor Grecian kingdoms were prominent at this time. This accuracy of this prophecy, written about two hundred years prior to the actual events, has caused many critics to claim it's origin to be at a much later date. A claim that is unproven.

One peice of advice, Monkey. Bart Ehrman would not be a very good authority. He is a professor of religion at UNC, but he is also a self proclaimed agnostic. It's kinda hard to take someone serious who doesn't believe what he teaches.

Ice_Monkey · 07-23-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Daniel 8:1-9. The Ram and the He-goat.
Daniel received a vision of a ram having two horns, one larger than the other. This ram is seen as a conquering kingdom moving west, north, and south. This kingdom is that of Media-Persian with the Persians being the stronger force represented by the larger horn. This is explained in detail in Dan.8:20.

Daniel then saw a he-goat coming out of the west moving at such a rapid speed it was as if it ran without touching the ground. This he-goat had one notable horn. This he-goat defeated the ram. The he-goat is the kingdom of Greece. This is also explained in Dan.8:21.

The notable horn from Greece can be none other than Alexander the Great. Notice also this horn was broken while he was very strong. Alexander died at a very young age. After his death, his kingdom was divided among his four generals. Gassander took Greece, Lysimachus took Asia Minor, Selecius took Syria, Ptolemy took Egypt. This is the fulfillment of Dan.8:8.

This prophecy was written at the time when the Babylonian Empire was flourishing. Neither the Media-Persian, nor Grecian kingdoms were prominent at this time. This accuracy of this prophecy, written about two hundred years prior to the actual events, has caused many critics to claim it's origin to be at a much later date. A claim that is unproven.

One peice of advice, Monkey. Bart Ehrman would not be a very good authority. He is a professor of religion at UNC, but he is also a self proclaimed agnostic. It's kinda hard to take someone serious who doesn't believe what he teaches.

Probably the best and most elegant proof of the late date of Daniel is to be found in "Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel Helms. Helms points out hat Daniel 11 gives an excellent account of the life of the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV, also called Antiochus epiphanes. This must either be a prophecy written before the fact or history written after. As Helms points out, we know it was the latter because of the final verse of Daniel 11 (Dan. 11:45):

"And he shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea
and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to
his end, with none to help him."

Whenever you come across the phrase "the sea" in the Old Testament it means the Mediterranean Sea. The glorious holy mountain was Mt. Zion, i.e. the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. So Dan. 11:45 says that Antiochus Epiphanes will die between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea or somewhere west of Jerusalem.

In point of fact Antiochus Epiphanes died well to the east of Jerusalem, fighting against the Parthians in Mesopotamia. in 164 BCE. His desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, which is mentioned in Daniel 11, took place in 167 BCE. The author of the Book of Daniel got that right, but got his death all wrong. Therefore, Daniel was not a divinely inspired prophecy (unless, of course, God occasionally blows it).

Helms points out that the incorrect data on the death of Antiochus indicates that Daniel was written before 164 BCE and that the correct history of the desecration of the temple shows it was written after 167 BCE. So we can pinpoint the time Daniel was written to sometime in the three years between 167 and 164 BCE.

The original Daniel or Dan-el was a legendary sage from the Bronze Age, who is mentioned in cunieform tablets from the city of Ugarit, dating from ca. 1400 BCE. He was revered for his wisdom and piety. The character created in the biblical Book of Daniel is based on the ancient Canaanite sage. The Book of Daniel is an example of a common form of apocalyptic writing collectively referred to as the Pseudepigrapha ("falsely inscribed") These were so-called prophetic works attributed to earlier patriarchs as a way to give them legitimacy. Among the works of the Pseudepigrapha are: The Testament of Abraham, The Book of Jubilees, The Testament of the Twelve [tribal] Patriarchs and, most important, the Book of Enoch. While the books of the Pseudepigrapha were influential in their day (Enoch was even part of the Christian canon until at least CE 330), the only one to make it into the Hebrew Scriptures was the Book of Daniel.

Of course, it takes a bit of academic sleuthing to find out the true date of the book of Daniel (as you can probably tell from the capsule history given above), and if one uncritically accepts that Daniel was a real person who was the contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus the Great of Persia, then I'm sure its "prophecies" are convincing as hell. Of course, such a person really has no business in debating this stuff in the first place.

Oh, and while you might think that not having a personal agenda would interfere with Ehrman's instructions on textual criticism, I would strongly disagree. He doesn't teach people what to think - he teaches them how. You should look into what classes he actually instructs in before you make such comments. Suffice it to say that it is my strong opinion that you're not someone anyone should be taking advice on in regards to learning how to read the bible in a scholarly manner in the first place.