by uncle_onion 39 Replies latest jw friends
aahhh yes Rex,
Dismiss all criticism and literature other than the biased authors you mention who use history only in order to place events of the past into biblical context that attempt to verify beliefs. Ignore open and objective research. As Daniel Boorstin said of such 'scholarship''History becomes a footnote to 'christian' orthodoxy. Orthodoxy=conservatism.
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Tina, are you a college professor or something? because you seem to really know your stuff. Just wondering. . .
PeacePipe
Lift me up, I've had enough. . .Tom Petty
peacepipe,
whats the point?
I don't mean what's the point like who cares because I find it very interesting reading; however, I will never understand why if there is a God he had to make everything so damn confusing!
Right. It would be trivial for an all-powerful God to write a book (or have one written) so obviously beyond human power that its supernatural origin would be undeniable. Not only is the Bible not such a book, it is probably the most emberrassing book that could ever be proposed as "God's Word." It is a good argument against God's existence that he hasn't struck dead those who try to blame him for the Bible.
Why I care? If you understand religion, you understand the human mind. I don't claim I understand it, but I know a bit about religion from my studies (finalized an MA last year in history of religions). The biggest mystery of religion is why people believe in it. It shows that at a deep level, human beeings are totally irrational.
PS! Difference between me and Rex: I post from my knowledge. Rex do copy & paste from his favorite fundie websites. Also notice the difference between arguments of facts and the ad hominem style "arguments" of fundies like Rex
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
Ah, my list of arguments against an early date excluded one of the important ones: In the Jewish Bible, Daniel is not among the prophets, but among the writings. Its canonicity is also one of the first to ever be questioned, for obvious reasons!
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
what i find significant in the argument about daniels prophecy is the point of view of the prophet. that is, does it appear to be more like someone looking into the future and describing what he sees or more like someone looking into the past and describing it as tho it were a prophecy. you can see how your point of view would affect the appearance of the writing.
of course, since theres no actual verifiable prophets today, its hard to say what prophecy 'should' look like, but i believe humans will be human and that we will always preceive things with ourselves at the centre. if you could look into the future you would notice things of immediate importance to YOU, wouldnt you? just like physical vision, you would describe the nearest things with more detail than distant things. and your particular perspective would alter your description.
in the three main timeline prophecies (image, beasts, north & south) we can try and see what perpective the author had.
IMAGE
the first one is interesting because, the narrative has daniel interpreting the dream of nebuchadnezzer, the ruler of babylon. now, if you were the ruler of the world, say the president of america, and you have a vision that shows a progression of power shifts, which would you be most interested in? the next one of course! what happens to knock you off of the top of the hill? nebuchadnezzer mustve been dying to know. listen to the way daniel describes this all-important piece of the dream:
And after you there will rise another kingdom inferior to you; and another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.
wow! he can barely get past that 2nd kingdom fast enough! and then a whole other kingdom passed by in the same sentence, altho we at least have a little info about this third one. and then he goes on to describe the fourth one in great detail. if i were nebuchadnezzer, id be saying, 'whoa whoa. who the hell cares about that?! whos this second guy??' even if we say that the focus was on the events that led to armageddon, keep in mind that this 4th kingdom by WT interpretation is ROME! (greece by the conventional interpretation) how important is rome or greece to our day?
BEASTS
a similar progression of beasts is given in Ch 7. the detail is very small for the first 2 beasts and then greater for the 3rd and 4th, eventually spending more time on an offshoot horn of the forth beast than any of the other beasts. Ch 8 then enlarges the description of the change in power from persia to greece, again going into great detail about greece and its offshoot horns. (by truly bizarre reasoning that i will not go into, WT interpretation has anglo-america as the small offshoot from greece.) this is still very consistent with a hellenistic viewpoint.
NORTH AND SOUTH
this is maybe the clearest of the three. first the angel transmitting the story to daniel is himself greatly concerned with the kings of persia and greece, talking about his personal struggles with them. why name 2 nations that dont even exist yet from the babylonian perspective? the struggle between the kings of the north and south starts with a sentence that sums up the persian empire as a succession of 4 kings, greatly truncating the actual history as janh noted earlier. then in ever-increasing detail as we get to greece and its offshoot kingdoms once again. the conventional interpretation places the greatest detail again in the 2nd century BC, spending many entire paragraphs discussing individual rulers. (the WT interpretation is so stretched and awkward as to be not worth mentioning.) why would the author sum up the events of immediate importance to him in a hazy, general, inaccurate way and then describe the individual families and events of minor significance in the broad scheme of things? it all makes perfect sense when we imagine the author's perspective as being 2nd century bc.
mox
Moxy,
Excellent comments, and a good commentary to the text. You explained it better than anyone I've seen.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
Jan H and Moxy,
Your posts are going in the keeper file for me! Thanks.
I enjoy reading these, as does PeacePipe, but I concur with him/her as far as delving into it deeply myself. My bent is evolution right now.
Have a great day!
Pat
Hi Tina,
You really have it wrong. It seems as if you don't want to hear the possibility that the Bible may just well be the word of God. Perhaps you can't admit that the Borg is correct (at rare times) in following conservative scholarship? And please, don't play the 'my scholar is reputable and yours is not' game. People believe for a variety of reasons and yes, some real scholars and scientists also believe. Can it be proven? Of course not. One can only present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.
Why should I take any stock in the theories (called facts) of the liberal elitists who have an agenda every bit as much as any fundie? I've seen what they have to say and it just doesn't jibe.
Rex
Peacepipe,
I am happy that you see the arguments from an open mind. Stick with that and never let anyone dissuade you from exploring the Bible and the evidence for it's authenticity.
Had God left us a book that explained every little nuance and question the skeptics and intellectuals have, where would faith come into the picture?
Even worse, the intellctuals would have an advantage over every other normal human being who is quite caught up with just putting 'food on the table'! The apostle Paul explains fully that none have an advantage due to learning or riches, indeed the well-learned usually consider the gospel to be foolish and even an offense. Paul's writings foretold this as well.
Not only that, those who have no learning at all who recognize the realm of God from observing creation, then show faith through use of their God-given conscience, will then be exposed to the life-saving gospel of Jesus Christ no matter where they reside or who they are! If they are called by God they will without a doubt accept Jesus as their Lord and saviour.
Jan,
Old friend, you're playing the same game as usual.
1) You continually promote yourself as a superior intellect. That does not guarantee that you are correct. Book learning often results in 'educated idiots' who've a lot of education but no common sense.
2) You pretend that researched information gleaned from internet sites, (that I have read and approve of) is not valid, since it's 'cut and paste' (You've actually no idea what research I have done myself. I do not like to waste valuable time typing things over and over).
3) You play at the game of, 'my scholar is reputable and yours is not'.
None of this proves anything of your point. It's all irrelevant since we all 'stand on the shoulders' of those who have gone before us. You are spouting what you have been taught and what you WANT to believe, according to your world-view. The 'intellectual intimidation' is a tactic that the liberal left use consistently to try to intimidate people into NOT disagreeing with them.
I admit fully that I am spouting my world-view. You could at least allow for the possibility that the arguments are inconclusive or that there are two sides to every dispute.
Rex
Hi Rex
Old friend, you're playing the same game as usual.
Indeed, I use facts and logical arguments. I don't see where I used "intimidation" in my posts, neither where I relied on authorities. Can you point it out? I did refer to the NJBC for more information. Do you consider it unfair to point interested readers to an authoritative resource, written by some of the most knowledgable experts in the world? I have to point out that all the authors of that work are Christians and believers. Obviously they are not accepted in your little secterian corner of Christianity, but then again, not many real experts are
But what was notable in your message was a total lack of arguments. You did not even try to meet the list of arguments against the idea that Daniel was written in the 6th century BC. Naturally, you could see that nothing factual could meet those arguments. So you had to use ad hominems instead. Oh well.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
