Flann 5 wrote:Some years ago I saw in a Christian bookstore a book all about how Mikhail Gorbachev was the antichrist!

Think I've got you beat: several decades ago, I read a book claiming Anwar Sadat was the antichrist. (Obviously prior to his assassination.) Remember "He shall be known as a peace maker." I don't recall details, but suspect the reason to focus on Sadat was the peace agreement, which could delay genocide at Armageddon. Delaying Jesus' return is an extraordinarily bad thing!

I shudder to think of literalism and inerrancy applied to Revelations as prophecies of the future, but American culture is infested with that.

The dodge that the moderate religionists use to avoid repudiating inerrancy is that the extremists are hijacking the scriptures

geo wrote:If one was actually interested in an objective look at the Book of Daniel, you could just as well start with Wikipedia entry, and read that "modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC)."

So there goes your prophecy belief right out the window, Flann! But I know you will continue to deny these secular "liberal" sources and continue to rely on religious propaganda. Turn to Conservapedia for your answers.

Hi Geo. Your wikipedia article on the book of Daniel prompted me to do some research into these things. Here's the article which largely follows Yale biblical scholar John J Collin's ideas, which are pretty standard views on Daniel from the historical critical school of thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_D ... ollins1984

This school's hypothesis goes something like this.The book of Daniel was written in Israel by one or more unknown educated Jews at the time of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes c167 B.C.
This revolt was in response to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus and his army and their desecrating the temple and attempts to enforce idol worship on them in various ways.
This was besides banning their religious practices and customs.

The story goes that the author(s) wrote this book to encourage the faithful Jews by accounts of the exploits of Daniel and others in Babylon and Persia and by adding purported visions and prophecies by Daniel which showed that they would triumph and Antiochus would be destroyed by God.
Not only that but this book stated that this divine intervention would be followed at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes on their theory,by the general resurrection and the immediate appearance of the eternal kingdom of God in Israel.

One might now ask these scholars just how this book suddenly appearing and purporting to be from the 6th century B.C. would immediately be accepted by the pious Jews, from the hand of this contemporary as being a genuine prophetic book from the time of Daniel in Babylon and Persia? Wouldn't anyone ask where he got from it from, and how come they don't already have it themselves?

If it was genuine shouldn't they already have this book with it's detailed prophecies such as of the wars between the Seleucid kings and Ptolemy's?

If not why should they believe this person turning up with a book of prophecies no one ever had ever heard of,(Daniel's visions) and accept it as genuine and from the 6th century B.C. Daniel?
The story goes that the alleged contemporary learned author simply framed history as prophecy then ran out of real historical road, and just tacked on an improvised attempted prophetic ending, with Antiochus' demise in Israel,the general resurrection etc.

Unfortunately though,the prophecy went pear shaped from this point on as Antiochus was still alive at the time of writing they say, and real history turned out much differently.
However there's another possibility. The author wasn't writing about Antiochus at the end of chapter 11 but Antiochus is a type of antichrist and it passes from type to antitype at this point.

http://biblehub.com/nasb/daniel/11.htm

There's a significant change from verse 36 on.We are told that this king "will exalt and magnify himself above every god ....."
And in verse 37 " .... nor will he show regard for any god for he shall magnify himself above every god."
This is rather strange as the learned writer only a few lines back is telling us about Antiochus' army setting up the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary.
And according to 1 Macabees he did this with an image of his god Zeus and enforced the setting up of idol shrines in Israel.
Has the learned author forgotten that he just wrote this and is now saying that Antiochus will show no regard for any god?


He is said to only regard the "god of fortresses." Some commentators think this is a synonym for war which is his god, and his means of success. Be that as it may there's another strange thing.

The learned writer says that Antiochus (supposing the liberal hypothesis), "will come in to the land of Delight,and many will stumble,and these shall escape from his hand, Edom,and Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon. vs 41

Now Moab had long since ceased to be a people or nation by the time of the Maccabees. Why then would this learned Jewish writer have Antiochus have a non existent nation and people escape from his hand?

Prof E.J.Young comments: "These three nations were ancient enemies of God's people the Israelites. They are mentioned here as symbolical representatives of nations which are enemies of God's people and who will escape the wrath of the king of the North."

To elaborate here,most of chapter 11 is clearly identifiable history of the Seleucid versus Ptolemy wars with real geography whether Egypt or Israel for example. Supposing the writer and especially a Maccabean period Jew, is identifying Antiochus as the king it makes no sense to predict his allowing a nonexistent national place or people such as Moab to escape from his hand.
He must know this can not happen in any literal sense.

The liberals have to conflate the little horn in Daniel 7 with the litttle horn in chapter 8 or their scheme falls apart. Both must be Antiochus Epiphanes, but as we have seen this is bad exegesis.
The fact that it is demonstrably true that these two little horns are similar yet different kings, lends considerable weight to the thesis that there is a typological purpose in view here. And that's apart from the N.T. citations by Jesus of "the prophet Daniel" and "the abomination of desolation" in the gospels which further strengthen this view.

It makes no sense for the Maccabean thesis to have another later Roman empire be predicted to arise, or their supposed purpose and background to the book of Daniel's 'construction' is redundant. Their entire psychological explanation for the time of Antiochus being the supposed Maccabean writer's motive for writing, is completely undermined if this is presented as just one phase of empires, and not it's culminating focus.

Important yes, but more to come.

It's clear that there is another empire to arise after the Greek one and that's why they desperately try to get around this problem, but it's completely unconvincing.

Furthermore it's emphasized at this point in Daniel that this relates to the time of the end. CH.12 Verses 4 and 13.

Let's suppose the liberal hypothesis is correct. The book of Daniel in the second century B.C. suddenly appears, and it's all about Antiochus. Within just a few years it transpires that Antiochus never had that last war with Egypt and didn't come back to Israel and die there in divine judgement.

Not only that but the general resurrection never happened either, but the pious Jews have no problem accepting this as a genuine prophecy and holy book from the 6th century B.C. from the prophet Daniel! How credible is that?

Doesn't their holy book tell them that any prophet who speaks in the name of the Lord and whose words do not come to pass has spoken presumptuously and should be put to death? But these religious Jews are going to overlook the failure of the general resurrection occurring right there at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and recognize it anyway!

The liberals try to downplay the book's acceptance as a holy book by the Jews, but their arguments are specious and of no avail.
http://www.biblicalreader.com/Wilson/Da ... 2013.3.pdf

In fact it makes far more sense that the book of Daniel was already recognized by them and however they may have made sense of it's prophecies they would know that many had been fulfilled remarkably.

This was Josephus' insight and he could see that the destruction of the temple by the Romans in A.D. 70 was a further confirmation of it's veracity and prophetic authenticity.

Here's a response to the standard arguments. http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php J.P.Holding here draws his responses from the work of conservative scholars well versed in their fields.

Flann 5 wrote:One might now ask these scholars just how this book suddenly appearing and purporting to be from the 6th century B.C. would immediately be accepted by the pious Jews, from the hand of this contemporary as being a genuine prophetic book from the time of Daniel in Babylon and Persia? Wouldn't anyone ask where he got from it from, and how come they don't already have it themselves?

I don't know the timeline. But it could be only a select few were aware of these prophetic texts when they first appeared and that the narrative about prophecy came into full acceptance much later when memories of the origins had become hazy. Or it could be that those pious Jews you mention wanted to believe that the book was from 6th century B.C. Indeed, they may have manufactured the narrative because it fit in well with the religious beliefs at the time. Why do scientologists believe humans are immortal, spiritual beings (thetans) that reside in a physical body based on the writings of science fiction writer L. Ron. Hubbard? It boggles the mind what people do come to believe and how steadfastly and irrationally they hold on to their beliefs.

There are two ways to approach the Bible. 1) as a sacred and holy (and God-inspired) religious text or 2) as a historical document written by humans. Obviously you still think scholars should use the “prove the Bible” approach, but this is simply not how modern scholars approach any subject. To be objective, you must discard all a priori beliefs (especially religious beliefs) and formulate the most likely explanations based on how the world actually works. We can compare religious beliefs and motifs across many cultures and see patterns of beliefs that show that Jesus is merely one variation of hundreds or even thousands of the dying and reviving god. I certainly don’t expect you to agree with me, but it’s pretty clear to me that John J. Collins and other “liberal” scholars are far more objective than Christian traditionalists who are merely trying to “prove the Bible.”

Daniel is not a reliable source of factual information about either the past of the future. … This is apparent from the historical inaccuracies of the tales … as well as from the unhistorical claim that the book recounts the visions of a Jew in the Exile. … Its witness, however, is largely in the language of legend and myth, which appeals to the imagination rather than to the intellect. - John J. Collins

geo wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
One might now ask these scholars just how this book suddenly appearing and purporting to be from the 6th century B.C. would immediately be accepted by the pious Jews, from the hand of this contemporary as being a genuine prophetic book from the time of Daniel in Babylon and Persia? Wouldn't anyone ask where he got from it from, and how come they don't already have it themselves?



I don't know the timeline. But it could be only a select few were aware of these prophetic texts when they first appeared and that the narrative about prophecy came into full acceptance much later when memories of the origins had become hazy. Or it could be that those pious Jews you mention wanted to believe that the book was from 6th century B.C

Hi Geo. The whole point on the Maccabean time theory is that the book has amazingly fulfilled prophecies of the Seleucids versus Ptolemies wars. In other words it's prophetic accuracy would be central to the Maccabean theory and not have to be reluctantly accepted much later when memories were hazy.

For them it must be written at least circa 167 B.C. if it's purpose is to encourage resistance to Antiochus' oppression. How could the Jews forget the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes, and if the book of Daniel was central to all that as the theory asserts,and emerged at that time ,why would they have to become hazy later to accept it? The Qumran scrolls of Daniel show it was already recognized by the Essenes who come not long after the Maccabees.
That's a problem for the Maccabean theory. The Jews festival of lights to this day, annually commemorates the Maccabbees recovery of control of the temple from Antiochus.

Historically the leaders of the religious Jews didn't just blithely accept every claim of prophetic scripture that was offered.

In Wilson's article linked earlier you can see there was considerable discussion and debate and some books like Ecclesiastes and even Ezekiel were disputed at times.

It's just not credible that they would accept a book that was claimed to come from the 6th century B.C being presented four centuries later as a work by Daniel completed in Persia when they had no knowledge or copy of this book of Daniel. In fact they rejected any number of pseudepigraphical writings purporting to be by prophets etc.

The rabbinical Jews did not accept the accounts such as Bel and the Dragon,Susanna and another whose title I forget as canonical, precisely because they clearly were later compositions in Greek from the Hellenistic period.

These books are cited as evidence for the Babylonian court legends line.

The Aramaic in Daniel is from an earlier period analagous to Shakespearean and modern English. You have to posit some unknown person deliberately attempting to con everyone by using an older form of Aramaic.
And that still wouldn't explain why this book only appeared centuries later, and if it was genuine they would already have copies of it anyway.
So while people do often accept crazy claims, that just wasn't how the Jewish religious leaders operated historically in this matter.
See Wilson's lengthy article I linked on the subject of Daniel and the canon.

geo wrote:There are two ways to approach the Bible. 1) as a sacred and holy (and God-inspired) religious text or 2) as a historical document written by humans. Obviously you still think scholars should use the “prove the Bible” approach, but this is simply not how modern scholars approach any subject. To be objective, you must discard all a priori beliefs (especially religious beliefs) and formulate the most likely explanations based on how the world actually works.

That's not what I'm saying but rather that the remarkable fulfillment of prophecies are themselves evidence of it's divine origin.
It's funny because it's precisely these philosophical naturalists aversion to prophecy that makes them perform all these contortions to get around the problem in the texts themselves. Pot black here.

geo wrote:Quote:
Daniel is not a reliable source of factual information about either the past of the future. … This is apparent from the historical inaccuracies of the tales … as well as from the unhistorical claim that the book recounts the visions of a Jew in the Exile. … Its witness, however, is largely in the language of legend and myth, which appeals to the imagination rather than to the intellect. - John J. Collins

I've already provided responses to these claimed "historical inaccuracies". They are simply wrong here. The only one worth considering is in relation to the name of Darius the Mede. There are possible explanations given for this and it wasn't that long ago they were indicting Daniel on it's "unhistorical" claim for Belshazzar. He never existed or ruled they asserted, but it was refuted archaeologically later. In fact Daniel proved to have been far better informed historically than recognized historians like Herodotus and everyone else during the Maccabean period it's alleged to be written in.

Collins also asserts that it's an unhistorical claim that the book recounts the vision of a Jew in the Exile. Here he is merely asserting his own unhistorical claim, that it was written by an unknown Jew in Israel in the Maccabean period, built on false premises by them.

Collins claims "legend and myth". He's out on a bit of a limb here from other liberal scholars with his own theory in relation to the early chapters of Daniel. The liberals do agree with him on the legends idea with their own different but fairly common understanding.

This is a problem for them in reality. Since these alleged legends include chapter two with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the image of the giant statue, which Daniel interprets as four empires they have to explain what empires these are.

They concede this predates the Maccabean era so how then does this legend predict these empires including the much later Roman empire.
Well they say it isn't the Roman empire but the Greek empire. Collins and his pals need to get their scholarly exegetical act together here, but they can't or their whole Maccabean period author theory disintegrates, along with Nebuchadnezzar's statue.

The problem is that in Daniel ch.2 God's kingdom is set up during the period of the Roman kings, much later than the Maccabean era on which their theory depends for when this kingdom must commence.

If as they claim the "legends" come from late third or early second century B.C.they still must explain how the Greek empire is followed by the Roman empire in these "legends" and the startling truth that God's kingdom as prophesied would be set up in this time which is as it turns out when Christianity begins and flourishes.

Daniel did not prophesy that Antiochus would destroy the temple but defile it, and later refers to the anointed one being cut off to atone for sins and bring in everlasting righteousness etc, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

They just don't get that there are parallels with Antiochus, but there's a typology in the book of Daniel between the two little horns
and the defilement by him,and later Roman defilement and destruction of the temple.

And even yet there is a further fulfillment of this type to come though most likely less literal.


The wiki article claims that there is a clear distinction between the first six chapters which it says are the " court tales" and the later part which is said in contrast to be "apocalyptic vision".

But Nebchadnezzar's dream in chapter 2 is as much apocalyptic vision as anything in the later chapters. There is a difference ok but not so neat and tidy as the wiki guy thinks.

They have a nice but wrong literary theory and are as blind as Mr Magoo to the obviously glaring problems with their whole Maccabean period theory.Why would a Maccabean author introduce a non-existent nation and people into his prophetic history if he knew they had long disappeared etc?

The later Roman empire prophesied,is a wrecking ball to their entire thesis. Now if they claim to approach the bible objectively why is it that they keep getting so much wrong?

Answer,because there can't be real predictive prophecy in their heads,so they must devise theories that don't hold water,in order to create an artificial and patently wrong later date.

Look again. http://www.markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.html

P.s. I can't believe you brought up that dying and rising gods argument, Geo. There's no comparison with these pagan vegetation cycle 'gods' and Christianity. No specialist scholars accept this thesis. It's only believed by hardcore mythicists, and the non historicity of Jesus is not exactly a widely held scholarly view either.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/christ/wa ... gan-myths/

Flann 5 wrote:They are simply wrong here.

Flann 5 wrote:They have a nice but wrong literary theory and are as blind as Mr Magoo to the obviously glaring problems with their whole Maccabean period theory.Why would a Maccabean author introduce a non-existent nation and people into his prophetic history if he knew they had long disappeared etc?

Flann, I appreciate your passion for this issue, but you make several grand assertions that as far as I can tell just don't hold up. The Maccabean date hypothesis remains the most widely held theory of the origin and date of the Book of Daniel among modern scholars today. The exilic theory represents only a minority view. This according to a seminary student who supports the exilic theory.

http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/v ... ntext=auss

You seem to be making a special plea that there’s rampant bias against predictive prophecy, but you might as well say scholars and scientists are also biased against claims of witchcraft too. Reality has a well-known liberal bias as Stephen Colbert has recently said. We know that people can’t really predict the future, or at least we’ve never seen adequate evidence to support it. As I said before, the Book of Daniel is unreliable because of its antiquity and uncertain authorship. If we were using Carrier’s six criteria of certainty, the Book of Daniel would come in sixth, being “inferential generalizations from incomplete facts”. The conclusion depends on several untested and untestable premises being true. We can also go by our observation of the real world. There are no real prophets who can demonstrate the ability to predict the future. The ones who do claim such powers are always shown to be charlatans or deluded.

Personally I can't make a coherent argument for or against the Maccabean theory because I don't know enough about it. I'll assume there is a logical answer and I’ll go with the experts, though not of the Christian apologetic kind. For the Book of Daniel, it's pretty plain to see that there are legitimate questions as to the dates and authorship, as most scholars have asserted going back to 1890 at least.

geo wrote:Flann, I appreciate your passion for this issue, but you make several grand assertions that as far as I can tell just don't hold up. The Maccabean date hypothesis remains the most widely held theory of the origin and date of the Book of Daniel among modern scholars today. The exilic theory represents only a minority view. This according to a seminary student who supports the exilic theory.

I think it's hard to make statistical claims here,Geo. What I find in looking the subject up is that pretty much the same relatively small number of commentators on Daniel are referenced and their views discussed. John Collins seems to be considered the best and last word so far, as expert on the liberal side.
There are specialists on books like Daniel and there's an element of deference and follow the leader from others. Conservative scholars are well represented on Daniel including Gleason Archer, Joyce Baldwin and E.J.Young.

geo wrote:You seem to be making a special plea that there’s rampant bias against predictive prophecy, but you might as well say scholars and scientists are also biased against claims of witchcraft too. Reality has a well-known liberal bias as Stephen Colbert has recently said.

What I'm saying is that the liberal scholars invariably have a naturalistic worldview which immediately precludes supernatural predictive prophecy, which is assumed in the biblical texts and worldview they are studying.

Wherever you have prophecy and fulfillment in the bible they assume it must be written after the fact and devise their theories on dating books,sections of books and authorship accordingly.

Their methods are touted as scientifically based theories for determining these things. They usually end up with a bewildering variety of mutually contradictory alleged sources,authors and theories.

This in itself should call their methods into question in terms of their reliability in determining these things.
On Daniel they start with what seems to be history of the Seleucids v Ptolemies wars and based on the last few verses of chapter 11 conclude that the writer was correct til then, and went wrong after that based on assuming this is all referring to Antiochus Epiphanes.

So the writer must have been there up to that point where in their view it goes wrong about Antiochus. That's fair enough as a starting point. This is supplemented with the rationale that it's written in response to the oppression of Antiochus in order to boost morale by prophesying their deliverance by God the destruction of Antiochus, and the eternal kingdom of God arriving with the general resurrection also. The problem is that they impose this theory on the totality of the book of Daniel.

Now it's clear when examining Daniel's theme of world empires versus God's kingdom that these must be identified accurately. The ram with two horns in ch.8 is clearly interpreted in the book to be the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians. One animal with two horns one higher than the other with the higher horn appearing last.

Elsewhere Beshazzar is told that his kingdom has been divided and given to the Persians and the Medes. Without labouring the point I've already made there is a symbolic equivalence with the bear raised higher on one side in the vision in ch.7.

Likewise the goat whose horn is shattered followed by four horns has symbolic equivalence with the leopard with four heads in ch 7. which are described as dominions.
This fits symbolically and historically with the Grecian empire which was divided into four major components after the death of Alexander.And the goat with the horn breaking into four is expressly identified in the text as the Greek empire.

However this kingdom is followed symbolically by the beast with ten horns and so the Grecian is not the fourth Empire.
Furthermore on their premise that this was written by a contemporary educated Jew he would obviously know that Babylon was taken by the combined forces of Persia and Media.

After all the Jews were in Babylon when it was taken. The texts themselves with their interpretation are entirely against saying the writer is describing Media and Persia as successive kingdoms.

Scholars like John Collins insist that they are successive empires contrary to the obvious facts in the texts themselves. I'm sure he is a scholar and can expatiate on arcane matters such as the Sybiline Oracles and Persian mythology. But he and his fellow liberal scholars miss what is under their noses in the text itself, and everything else is mere obscurantism on this matter.

The later Roman empire completely undermines their assumptions and makes a mess of how they determine when and what these prophecies are referring to. This should make them question their assumptions. The fact of two similar little horns not belonging to the same empire then changes the interpretive basis of the whole thing.

In other words the riddle of the ending of chapter 11 may have a different typological interpretation not demanding a contemporary author.
I've suggested there is a significant difference in the description of the king at the end Ch11 which could not and did not fit Antiochus in relation to his view of gods and himself, for example.

This is in keeping with the typological similarity of the two little horns in different empires etc.

Besides all that the linguistic and other arguments favour a much earlier dating. Many liberals suggest that the "court tales" go well back beyond the Maccabees to oral traditions which they say took shape during the Persian period.

If that was the case then by their own admission Nebuchadnezzar's dream foresaw the Greek and Roman empires back then with God's kingdom being set up in the Roman, being well in the future at that time.

Of course I don't agree with them that it didn't exist in written form then. In any case Daniel's prophecies are just one example and their theory doesn't hold up even on this.

geo wrote:As I said before, the Book of Daniel is unreliable because of its antiquity and uncertain authorship. If we were using Carrier’s six criteria of certainty, the Book of Daniel would come in sixth, being “inferential generalizations from incomplete facts”. The conclusion depends on several untested and untestable premises being true.

Hi Geo. As I've argued,using the standard criteria historians apply to determine the dating and provenance of any ancient book all the evidence strongly favours a much earlier date for Daniel than the Maccabean period hypothesis.
This being so the remarkable prophetic content requires an explanation.

I'm not impressed with Carrier's reasoning at all. He's a classic case of someone ideologically driven and besotted with what he thinks is an earth shattering iconoclastic new theory,overthrowing centuries and millennia of historically held views. He also has to go out on a limb to get around the historical references by Tacitus and Josephus which specialist scholars and historians in considerable numbers, disagree with him on.

Can you name one reputable historian or specialist on Tacitus or Josephus who actually agrees with Carrier's 'analysis'?

He thinks he can simply ignore the testimony of all those whether Jews or Christians who historically are much closer to these events themselves and from whom the books and Christianity arose.

He maintains he is "proving history" using Bayes Theorem which gives his ideas a veneer of scientific mathematical rigour. Scratch the surface and you find the same old subjective biases at work in determining parameters and assigning numerical values to whatever parameters he stipulates.

His theory,a mishmash of pagan copycat theory, an ahistorical Jesus crucified by demons (not Romans) in sub-lunar land, and an hallucinations epidemic, is a monument to human folly, solemnly presented as the epitome of reason,brilliant historical research and innovative 'scientific' method.

None of the three components are sustainable never mind the grand absurdity of the combination.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opin ... rd-Carrier

geo wrote: We can also go by our observation of the real world. There are no real prophets who can demonstrate the ability to predict the future. The ones who do claim such powers are always shown to be charlatans or deluded.

From a Christian perspective it's not expected that there would be authoritative inspired writings beyond the apostolic era. Christ is presented as the son of God who is the final and ultimate manifestation of prophetic history. It can be shown that he fulfilled the words of the O.T. prophets in his life, death and resurrection.

He did himself prophesy the destruction and desolation of the temple and Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, which would not though be indefinitely. He also prophesied that the gospel would be proclaimed to all nations and that his words would not pass away, even though heaven and earth would pass away.
It's fair to say his words have endured for a long time now.

As far as inerrancy goes it's true that particularly with apocalyptic prophecy it's not always easy to determine the meanings given the symbolism and imagery employed.
It does take a bit of effort to understand these writings though many common errors can be often be traced to abandoning fairly basic principles we would apply to understanding any writing.

His theory,a mishmash of pagan copycat theory, an ahistorical Jesus crucified by demons (not Romans) in sub-lunar land, and an hallucinations epidemic, is a monument to human folly, solemnly presented as the epitome of reason,brilliant historical research and innovative 'scientific' method.

None of the three components are sustainable never mind the grand absurdity of the combination.

It's less absurd than what you believe. Magic and virgin births and noah's ark, etc. actually happening, as opposed to being human fabrications.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
His theory,a mishmash of pagan copycat theory, an ahistorical Jesus crucified by demons (not Romans) in sub-lunar land, and an hallucinations epidemic, is a monument to human folly, solemnly presented as the epitome of reason,brilliant historical research and innovative 'scientific' method.

None of the three components are sustainable never mind the grand absurdity of the combination.




It's less absurd than what you believe. Magic and virgin births and noah's ark, etc. actually happening, as opposed to being human fabrications.

Your use of the word magic here seems like an attempt to associate Christianity with Harry Potter or Merlin the wizard. If God can create a universe there's no difficulty, or comparison with the idea of magicians.
Apparently a recent survey showed that 50% of Americans polled believe in Noah's ark. Considering that neo-Darwinism is officially taught in public schools this may seem strange.

More likely it's because they find the testimony of Jesus more trustworthy than what skeptics may say, since if he was God incarnate he would know about these things.
As you know a recent project at an English university demonstrated that the design was good and seaworthy, and it was extremely capacious.
My beliefs have good foundations. The many detailed biblical prophecies fulfilled over centuries are one, but there are others.

The skeptics have their beliefs too. A universe from nothing,abiogenesis, and land mammals changing into whales among others.

Increasing knowledge of the layers of complexity in the simplest living things is turning Mount Improbable into more like an Everest with sheer cliffs on all sides. Adding time won't do the trick.

I've heard no good explanation from philosophical naturalists for why a purely material universe should have abstract universal laws of logic,or laws of physics or information in living things that is neither matter or energy,or conscious living beings.

Just saying the magic word science, or waving the magic wand of neo- Darwinism is unconvincing on scientific grounds. It may be current majority orthodoxy, but it has highly qualified critics too, who see massive problems with the theory.

You just say we don't know some things, but rationally speaking how can the universe, on naturalism, justify it's own existence?

You seem to believe that inanimate,insensible matter can assemble itself into a living thing and go from bacterium to intelligent,thinking moral beings.

From my perspective that's a belief in the magical properties of matter which supposedly can create what transcends it's own dumb nature to create beings with faculties and abilties, it does not itself possess.

Fine if you want to believe all that,but don't then talk to me about believing in absurdities and magic. Your beliefs are absurd and magical, without a magician, from my perspective on reality.