Bible Prophecy - Page 5

Astreja · 04-24-2008, 05:05 PM

I took a look at the site, Buzz2.

First of all, the whole place just assumes the existence of the god of the Bible but offers no credible evidence for its existence. As always, the burden of proof rests on the party making the affirmative claim. Got any non-Biblical, scientifically verifiable proof that your god actually exists? Until that shows up, there's no good reason to bother with any section of the website that falls back on "God says..."

Secondly, the article on Buddhism was frightfully simplistic, hinging most of its argument on "works bad, faith good" rock-banging nonsense rather than taking a serious look at the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, and such critical concepts as dependent origination. And Zen was simply dismissed with the drive-by phrase "Zen means meditation." In other words, the whole article is an apologist hack job that skims over the vast spectrum of Buddhist thought without showing any signs of understanding it.

The "Can the Bible Be Trusted" section is heavily weighted in favour of "yes", with articles from only three individuals.

The "Evolution" section is largely dependent on debunked and discredited sources such as Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute, with no links to great sites like Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, or TalkOrigins. Again, a disreputable article without merit.

And the articles on homosexuality are vile. Suggesting that gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation is setting them up for major disappointment when the pseudo-therapy fails. Suggesting that they should do it, calling it an 'abomination', and generally making life difficult for the GLBT community is a human rights violation.

Not only am I not convinced, but my opinion of Christianity has declined even further.

And that's saying something.

dameedna · Yesterday, 07:09 AM

The later part of the bible was written in accordance with the prophecies, not because they actually came true.

The people who experienced the life of Jesus, felt they had met divinity in him. The Jew's believed a Messiah would come and save them.

Tie the two together, and you have gospel writers, who described Jesus life in accordance with former phrophesizes as a way of convincing people as to who he was, not because that was actually his life. In other words, they made up details of his life, so it appeared he was the messiah predicted by the Jews.

Obviously, Jesus meant a great deal to them but divine, and a fullfillment of prophecies he was not. There is no respected theologian that does not realize this, and all of the "full-filled" prophecies in the old and new testemant follow this pattern.

What I find amazing, is that it never crosses people's mind that a book written thousands of years ago, may have be written "after" the fact, or changed to accomodate a situation, rather than the more dubious claim that some-one prophesized.

Some of us, just aren't that gulliable I guess.

The only way, in which you can see a phrophesy as being correct, is if some-one TODAY gives it to you, and it happens in YOUR future.

A prophesy in a book that say's "3000 years ago, someone said xxx..and 2000 years ago, it happened" is meaningless.

Abel · Yesterday, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dameedna

The later part of the bible was written in accordance with the prophecies, not because they actually came true.

The people who experienced the life of Jesus, felt they had met divinity in him. The Jew's believed a Messiah would come and save them.

Tie the two together, and you have gospel writers, who described Jesus life in accordance with former phrophesizes as a way of convincing people as to who he was, not because that was actually his life. In other words, they made up details of his life, so it appeared he was the messiah predicted by the Jews.

Obviously, Jesus meant a great deal to them but divine, and a fullfillment of prophecies he was not. There is no respected theologian that does not realize this, and all of the "full-filled" prophecies in the old and new testemant follow this pattern.

What I find amazing, is that it never crosses people's mind that a book written thousands of years ago, may have be written "after" the fact, or changed to accomodate a situation, rather than the more dubious claim that some-one prophesized.

Some of us, just aren't that gulliable I guess.

The only way, in which you can see a phrophesy as being correct, is if some-one TODAY gives it to you, and it happens in YOUR future.

A prophesy in a book that say's "3000 years ago, someone said xxx..and 2000 years ago, it happened" is meaningless.

If the prophecies of Jesus were inaccurate, then why do we not have witnesses to testify against them? The Gospels were written while there were still folks alive who would have known the truth. We have no one that says the Gospels were false.

How do you explain the other three prophecies I cited from the O.T. that are verified by secular history?

jimmy77611 · Yesterday, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Quote:

Originally Posted by dameedna

The later part of the bible was written in accordance with the prophecies, not because they actually came true.

The people who experienced the life of Jesus, felt they had met divinity in him. The Jew's believed a Messiah would come and save them.

Tie the two together, and you have gospel writers, who described Jesus life in accordance with former phrophesizes as a way of convincing people as to who he was, not because that was actually his life. In other words, they made up details of his life, so it appeared he was the messiah predicted by the Jews.

Obviously, Jesus meant a great deal to them but divine, and a fullfillment of prophecies he was not. There is no respected theologian that does not realize this, and all of the "full-filled" prophecies in the old and new testemant follow this pattern.

What I find amazing, is that it never crosses people's mind that a book written thousands of years ago, may have be written "after" the fact, or changed to accomodate a situation, rather than the more dubious claim that some-one prophesized.

Some of us, just aren't that gulliable I guess.

The only way, in which you can see a phrophesy as being correct, is if some-one TODAY gives it to you, and it happens in YOUR future.

A prophesy in a book that say's "3000 years ago, someone said xxx..and 2000 years ago, it happened" is meaningless.

If the prophecies of Jesus were inaccurate, then why do we not have witnesses to testify against them? The Gospels were written while there were still folks alive who would have known the truth. We have no one that says the Gospels were false.

How do you explain the other three prophecies I cited from the O.T. that are verified by secular history?

Have the original texts, that date to a time before the prophecies were "fulfilled", been found and accurately dated? I mean, c'mon, fundies love to believe that scientific dating techniques DO work when they're in their favor. The stories could have been changed after the fact to make the bible seem to have fulfilled prophecy. What evidence do you have to offer that the stories were not written after the events happened?

Abel · Yesterday, 09:35 AM

jimmy
Here is a brief explaination of how Biblical manuscripts were copied and perserved:

The Rules of Copying

"Now, the result of this reverence was the creation of a system of copying which is nothing less than astounding. The Levites had to create a system of making new copies of the Bible as old copies wore out and had to be destroyed. They knew it would be easy to make a mistake in copying a new transcript, so here is what they did. They developed elaborate and meticulous RULES for transcribing.

They decreed that when a person was making a new text, he had to copy the original page with such exactness that the number of words on a page could not be changed. If the original page had 288 words, then the page being copied had to have the same 288 words.

Each line on a new page had to be the exact same as the line on the old page. If the first line on the original page had nine words, the first line on the copy page had to have nine words.

After a page was copied, the number of letters on that page was counted and compared with the original.

After a page was copied, each letter was counted and compared with the original. After a page was copied, someone would check to see what the middle letter was on the copy and the original.

"A synagogue roll [remember that they did not have paper as we do today] must be written on the skins of clean animals, the length of each column must not extend less than 48 or more than 80 lines; the breadth must consist of 30 letters. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory... Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene, between every book three lines. Besides this the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, and wash his whole body" (Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, Davidson).
The scribes were not allowed to copy sentence for sentence or even word for word. They had to copy letter for letter.

After a page was copied and checked by another, still a third person would check to see what the middle word was on the page. Then, when the whole book was finished, another would count the phrases.

These are just a few examples of the great detail that went into ensuring the accuracy of the Scriptures. There were many more steps taken in the process. All of this could be characterized as a

"fence to the Scriptures (Massorah) because it locked all words and letters in their places... It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, etc... All this ...for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word" (Bullinger, The Companion Bible).
These men had no worry whatsoever that there might have been an error. For that reason, they felt no more need to keep their older copies than a data processing manager feels a need to keep his older printouts when he knows his current hard copies are accurate."

The Biblical texts came under such close scrutiny, that any error, including dates, would cause the text to be considered invalid. Dates were not given as they are today i.e. May 15th, 2008. They were given as: Isaiah 36:1 "Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them."

Secular history can confirm the dates of both King Hezekiah, and King Sennacherib of Assyria. Thus proving that the prophecy was given sometimes hundreds of years prior.

xexon · Yesterday, 09:54 AM

And if the books were corrupted early on and not caught, then all you have is the perpetuation of a corrupted document for all these centuries.

People have followed this book for 3000 years in an attempt to get into heaven. Why haven't they? After 30 centuries of practice, you folks should be lined up outside the pearly gates en masse. You're not.

You've become proud of learning and memorization of scripture. Little else has been accomplished.

Your ability to enter the kingdom does not hinge on such skills.

It never did.

A child can enter the kingdom without any religious training at all.

So can you.

x

jimmy77611 · Yesterday, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

jimmy
Here is a brief explaination of how Biblical manuscripts were copied and perserved:

The Rules of Copying

"Now, the result of this reverence was the creation of a system of copying which is nothing less than astounding. The Levites had to create a system of making new copies of the Bible as old copies wore out and had to be destroyed. They knew it would be easy to make a mistake in copying a new transcript, so here is what they did. They developed elaborate and meticulous RULES for transcribing.

They decreed that when a person was making a new text, he had to copy the original page with such exactness that the number of words on a page could not be changed. If the original page had 288 words, then the page being copied had to have the same 288 words.

Each line on a new page had to be the exact same as the line on the old page. If the first line on the original page had nine words, the first line on the copy page had to have nine words.

After a page was copied, the number of letters on that page was counted and compared with the original.

After a page was copied, each letter was counted and compared with the original. After a page was copied, someone would check to see what the middle letter was on the copy and the original.

"A synagogue roll [remember that they did not have paper as we do today] must be written on the skins of clean animals, the length of each column must not extend less than 48 or more than 80 lines; the breadth must consist of 30 letters. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory... Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene, between every book three lines. Besides this the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, and wash his whole body" (Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, Davidson).
The scribes were not allowed to copy sentence for sentence or even word for word. They had to copy letter for letter.

After a page was copied and checked by another, still a third person would check to see what the middle word was on the page. Then, when the whole book was finished, another would count the phrases.

These are just a few examples of the great detail that went into ensuring the accuracy of the Scriptures. There were many more steps taken in the process. All of this could be characterized as a

"fence to the Scriptures (Massorah) because it locked all words and letters in their places... It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, etc... All this ...for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word" (Bullinger, The Companion Bible).
These men had no worry whatsoever that there might have been an error. For that reason, they felt no more need to keep their older copies than a data processing manager feels a need to keep his older printouts when he knows his current hard copies are accurate."

The Biblical texts came under such close scrutiny, that any error, including dates, would cause the text to be considered invalid. Dates were not given as they are today i.e. May 15th, 2008. They were given as: Isaiah 36:1 "Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them."

Secular history can confirm the dates of both King Hezekiah, and King Sennacherib of Assyria. Thus proving that the prophecy was given sometimes hundreds of years prior.

No No No, you're missing my question. Have original manuscripts pertaining to the specific bible prophesies you presented been found that have been dated by science to before the time when the prophecies were "fulfilled"? I understand how the ancient Jews kept up with their own paperwork, but to say that the prophecies were definitely fulfilled, we would need to see the original texts, or a copy of them made by the Jews, that date to before the time the prophecies were "fulfilled", otherwise, they could have been written after the fact.

Abel · Yesterday, 11:17 AM

No, there are no originals manuscripts now for obvious reasons. However, considering the meticulous method of transcribing, as the above article stated, we have confidence that there were no errors passed on. Remember also, these scribes truly believed they were transcribing the very words of God. They had a fear and respect of God so as not to intentially change even punctuation marks.

buzz2 · Yesterday, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

No, there are no originals manuscripts now for obvious reasons. However, considering the meticulous method of transcribing, as the above article stated, we have confidence that there were no errors passed on. Remember also, these scribes truly believed they were transcribing the very words of God. They had a fear and respect of God so as not to intentionally change even punctuation marks.

Would the "Dead Sea Scrolls" be considered an original manuscript? I don't know if there are any prophesies in it though. Just wondering.

Og · Yesterday, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

we have confidence that there were no errors passed on. Remember also, these scribes truly believed they were transcribing the very words of God. They had a fear and respect of God so as not to intentially change even punctuation marks.

This is false.