301. Comment #13824 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 2:27 pm

A quick thankyou toeveryone (even shaun) who helped with the "loosing posts" dilemma

Other Comments by down_under

302. Comment #13832 by Mark Taunton on December 19, 2006 at 3:34 pm

(Brian: thanks for the info on formatting.)

Joadist:

A real prophecy would have read: It would be nice if Isreal had a homeland. Perhaps, someday, a powerful leader will like that idea, and he will use his power to implement it.

Can you please explain why you say a real prophecy would be something so vague and generalised? That sort of prophecy is much easier to fulfil (or claim to be fulfilled). From my viewpoint, a real prophecy must be genuinely hard: of something hard to predict and hard to fulfil. Only then does it have power to prove the giver of the prophecy as having authority, someone worth paying attention to. The point of Bible prophecy is clear, as declared through Isaiah:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man who executes my counsel from a far country: yes, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. Hearken to me, you stouthearted, that are far from righteousness"
(Isaiah 46: 9-12)

According to the Bible, its God – Yahweh, the only true God – declares "from ancient times" (e.g. from the time of Moses, and indeed even before that) those "things that are not yet done". And it's more than mere prediction: it says he causes them to happen. According to the above passage, he deliberately lays out for human scrutiny his counsel – his plan, his purpose – in advance. He says he will perform it, in at least some aspects using human agents.

The context of this passage concerns the folly of those who worship idols, false gods – deaf, dumb, blind lumps of wood or stone, with no consciousness, no mind, no power to accomplish anything. By contrast, the God of the Bible asserts his "real God" status exactly by means of this: that he can tell people in advance what will happen in the future (both short-term and long-term), and indeed he claims instrumentality for it. In this way, if indeed the Bible is true, its prophecies must correctly describe, in advance, hard-to-predict future events – events that happen after the time the prophecies were given.

And they do. As I laid out in my previous post (404), there is direct evidence that God has done exactly what the Bible claims he can. My particular example was in respect of Bible prophecies concerning the people of Israel. To avoid any question of the text being written "after the fact", I deliberately chose prophecies that were undeniably fulfilled (from the late 1st C through the 20th C) well after the Bible text containing them provably already existed.

(( Billy: the specific prophecies I referred to have been fulfilled only once: from when the Romans evicted the Jews, circa AD67-135, until 1948 and the Israeli declaration of independence, there was no time when a self-governing Jewish nation controlled that land – at least, none that I've ever heard of. Tiny numbers of Jews have lived there on and off over the centuries, as political circumstances allowed, but never a nation, or anything faintly like it. Please tell if you know otherwise – I'll be truly fascinated! ))

Concerning the Biblical God's dealings with the children of Israel, we also read:

"You are my witnesses, says the LORD [=Yahweh], and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have showed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, says Yahweh, that I am God." (Isaiah 43:10-12)

The facts of the clear prophecies in the Bible, concerned primarily with the Jewish people though its long history, coupled with their direct and verifiable progressive fulfilment much later in time, provide direct evidence to mankind that Yahweh exists, and that the Bible therefore has authority – that it is a reliable source. Whatever others say about the reasons for their beliefs, my faith is founded on solid evidence. I don't believe the Bible just because it tells me to. I believe it because it proves, by these external, visible means, that it is indeed true, and therefore that the God it describes is real.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

303. Comment #13837 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:15 pm

Brian, now that you have eplained how to do bold (not that I can DOH!) I now ralise that you are not god, but brian of the gaps :-)

Mark, I don't see hoe you can possibly link deut 28 to rome. You no doubt believe that was written before the alledged conquest of canan, I know the bible mentions many of these things happening elswhere, so, what has it got to do with rome? Also after the alledged taking of jericho, the israelites disobeyed god and were defeated at Ai, but god did none of these things to the people. He told them to stome Achans' family and helped them defeat Ai (josh 6-7). This seems a little inconsistant.
I also have to disagree with Isaiah 43:10-12. The bible actually mentions that there are other gods eg pslm 97:7 "oh worship him all ye gods" Psalm 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods." and "22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" to name a few. Also, the genesis narrative where god says let us? etc eg 1:26;11:7. The hebrew word here is actually plural (elohiym http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm).

Other Comments by BillySands

304. Comment #13844 by Mark Taunton on December 19, 2006 at 5:37 pm

Billy, thanks for your questions.

I'm sorry I can't deal with the Deuteronomy 28 Rome thing in detail now, but I hope to do so in a future contribution (BTW, my specific reference is from v49 onwards).

(down_under: please look away now – Bible stuff coming up – but Billy raised it!)

Briefly in regard to the Biblical usage of the word "god" demonstrating a wider scope for that term than the commonly assumed one, you are quite right. In John 10:34 (but see vv27-38 for full scope), Jesus quotes Ps82 against those who accused him of "making himself god". His point there is explicit - the word "god" can be and is used of individual human beings to whom (the absolute) God's word came, who therefore had a responsibility to obey and fulfil that word on his behalf (in the way Jesus did, as the son of God he claimed to be). Psalm 82 points out that some of those "gods" in that situation were failing to uphold their role as representatives of "God" (the absolute one), and so would be judged and brought to the grave by him. (Note: Jesus' argument here runs quite counter to the common Trinitarian interpretation - and indeed, the Jewish one - of "I and my father are one". Although you seem to think otherwise, the Bible does not promote the concept of the Trinity - it opposes it.)

Your quote from Exodus 22:28, when seen in context, demonstrates an equivalent point. By parallelism (a common linguistic form in the Hebrew scriptures), the "gods" just are the (human) rulers of the people, who should have faithfully manifested the God who appointed them, and been honoured by the people for so doing. And Psalm 97:7 is quoted by Hebrews 1:6-7 in a way that explains that God's angels, that is his spirit messengers (Psa 104:4) and not only the human messengers of his word like Malachi the prophet (Hebrew "malak" = angel/messenger), can also be referred to as "gods". This is illustrated in Exodus 3, where the one who spoke to Moses from the bush is variously described as "the angel[=malak] "of the LORD[=Yahweh]", as "Yahweh", and as "God" [elohim]. As in other instances, and as characterised in Exodus 23:21, the angel at the bush bore God's name, Yahweh, and spoke in manifestation of him, though being of lesser status than the absolute God by whom he was sent.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

305. Comment #13847 by Mark Taunton on December 19, 2006 at 5:55 pm

By the way, has anyone else had problems trying to edit comments after submission? Just tried to fix a small error in a quotation in my post (455), but when I do, all the layout just gets lost (as seen in the preview) and everything ends up as one huge paragraph. :-(

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

306. Comment #13865 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 8:51 pm

Only fools and (self-proclaimed) prophets assert that the universe began from "nothing."

Within the constraints imposed by humanity's limited knowledge at the present time the best that science can proffer is that science does not know what if anything existed before the theoretical Big Bang. For theists and scientific illiterates to erroneously purport or misstate scientific claims such as the universe evolved from "nothing" is naive speculation at best and extraordinarily ignorant at worst.

Other Comments by Tremayne

307. Comment #13873 by Joadist on December 19, 2006 at 10:43 pm

Tremayne,

Either the Universe always existed, or it came from nothing, or there is some other explanation.

Other Comments by Joadist

308. Comment #13876 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 11:19 pm

Joadist,

Your first two assertions are thoroughly speculative. There is no scientific consensus on what may or may not have existed before the Big Bang. The most truthful answer science can offer at this point in time is that 'science does not know.' Hence the latter part of your statement more accurately reflects our lack of understanding at the present time.

Other Comments by Tremayne

309. Comment #13877 by Paul Knowles on December 19, 2006 at 11:33 pm

Yeah right, The bible provides us with morals and a good way of life. Tell that to the victims of 9/11. All the people murdered by the Christians through the years. This Christolopolithan thingy lot are a bunch of loony's who dont have an argument at all.

Other Comments by Paul Knowles

310. Comment #13881 by Joadist on December 20, 2006 at 12:12 am

Tremayne,

The most difficult thing to explain is that which is most obvious.

Other Comments by Joadist

311. Comment #13886 by Mark Taunton on December 20, 2006 at 12:40 am

Sorry if this seems "loony", but the impression I've received is that the perpetrators of 9/11 claimed Allah as their God and the Quran as their holy book, rather than Yahweh and the Bible...?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

312. Comment #13890 by JonG on December 20, 2006 at 1:38 am

438. Comment #13767 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 10:50 am

D_U

I'm confused... (but you knew that right? :-) )

But read back your post and you'll see the following:

'My' scientists are wrong - 'yours' are right?
Yours are qualified, mine are not? (does that mean that all non-atheist scientists are not qualified to debate this argument?)

On the same tack, it's already been stated by someone on this thread that 'we' Christadelphians are 'loons' because we don't agree with established (un-Biblical I hasten to ad) Christian doctrines (Trinity, Hell, etc.) and yet you state that Scientists disagreeing is in the interests of progress! (well why do you think we reject 4th century Roman Council meetings..?) We also require the 'truth'.

And then you mis-represent me by partially quoting me and then following it with:
'The classic "it cant be dis-prooven so it must be real" argument,'

If you go back to the original point (post 422) I followed that statement with, ' it's not a reason for faith, but it is interesting...'

To my mind the Bible has been proven - and it didn't take any scientists or archeologists to do that. In fact, I think you'll find that the majority, if not all of the Christadelphians posting here would be quite happy with the statement that 'the Bible supports itself' - all this other stuff is interesting, but not essential to our faith. (i'll go into this aspect more thoroughly in another post)

The point is that we can all lift so-called historical evidence to build our arguments but it's not unusual to for that same evidence, years later, to be discredited in some way. Either it was dated incorrectly or it was just plain fake... Like Billy said, you'd have to be mad to believe that Babylon didn't exist now), but that wasn't the case until it was dug up relatively recently.

- but apparently 'we' are not even allowed to quote from the Bible now so what kind of debate is that..?

Well, if we're not debating anymore i'll state what seems obvious to me...
Scientists - Archaeologists - 'mankind' in general, changes it's mind...
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

I believe that in time this will be 'proven' to be true. That's what I believe, i'm not asking you to believe it on the strength of this post alone, or at all - but there it is.

Anyway, I have a question for you which, sincerely, interests me - lets not worry so much about 'how' we got here for a while, instead can you tell me 'why' you think we're here?

(don't concern yourself that i'm lying in wait with an ambush of Bible quotes, i'm just genuinely interested...)

cheers,

Jon

Other Comments by JonG

313. Comment #13898 by shauntheboy on December 20, 2006 at 2:27 am

Brian,
You say that I beg the question and make a case that I cannot provide evidence to support. You are absolutely correct. I believe the plan laid out in the Bible is true and is on schedule. The events of history and current events in the middle east, Europe and Russia all provide evidence that this is the case. However, my evidence is entirely Biblical and you neither accept the authority of the Bible or the God it reveals, so my case is completely unsupported in your opinion. I accept that.

D_U,
I am trying to work my way through the points raised in opposition to the case I present (maybe you could you provide me with specific examples of any really important points I haven't addressed yet). I do like to think carefully before I commit my thoughts to text – but please bear in mind that I do have a wife, 4 kids and a job to attend to as well – give me break! :-)

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

314. Comment #13900 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 2:32 am

Hi Mark, the bible does both support and deny the trinity, and I guess it boils down to which onw you want to believe. I would agree more with your point though, simply because the main trinitarian verse in the bible is a late addittion (which doesn't bode well for general reliability of it) my point was Isaiah says thee is only one god. The word elohiym is plural. There is a whole sumerian mythology behind this and I think the jews just happened to pick this one. Anyway, the prophecy is more important.
On a different note, there have been some discussions about how disease etc only came into the world after the man sinned. I pointed out that this is not so, because there is evidence of predation, pathology, volcanic disasters, unhatched eggs and fossil parasites. I found this interesting article today, of a two headed (abnormal) reptile that predates man. Unfortunately the link does not show the fossil. It is in the paper version though, if anyone can get hold of it. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=30060&in_page_id=2

Other Comments by BillySands

315. Comment #13923 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 5:58 am

Tremayne

Just because we are not 100% sure exactly how the universe came to be, that does not mean an almighty being created it
to say "oh we dont know how this works so it must be god" is very medieval

An if God created the universe, what created God, surly a being so mighty and complex couldnt come from nothing......

Other Comments by down_under

316. Comment #13927 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 6:15 am

Jon G

'My' scientists are wrong - 'yours' are right?
Yours are qualified, mine are not? (does that mean that all non-atheist scientists are not qualified to debate this argument?)

I admit it does seem like thats what isaid, however you still have yet to back up many ofyour claims
And Atheist scientists tend to use the best of their scientific knowledge, (Many)Christian scientists use the best of their scientific knowledge as long as it doesnt go against God, that is the point I was making
If you dont want to agree with me thats fine I see little point in arguing it and im sure thats something we can both agree on.

you said

"If you go back to the original point (post 422) I followed that statement with, ' it's not a reason for faith, but it is interesting...'"

True.....but if it is not a reason for faith then why would you mention it here?


"- but apparently 'we' are not even allowed to quote from the Bible now so what kind of debate is that..?" My answer - A Scientific debate!

I will also note it is only myself who is fed up with Christians quoting the bible, most oter atheists will respond to your quotes (usually with other bible quotes interestingly) to completle blow your argument out of the water

I personally dont wate tme arguing with an irrelavant book
If i so chose to im sure i could find reasons to belive in Allah, Ganesh, Buddah or even Ra and Zeus that follow with the exact same reasons you belive in God and the Bile
in fact if you would like me to (and if i get the time) i will research this further

"Scientists - Archaeologists - 'mankind' in general, changes it's mind"
- YES EXACTLY!!!! that is the point i was making!!! Science etc changes as ew evidence and facts etc come to light! its how we progress, advance, evolve!! thats why in 1650 travelling faster than 40mph would scientifically kill you yet now we travel several times the speed of sound!
that is why 1000 years ago the world was flat but we now sail around it etc etc
The fact that "God" does not change his mind, from a book written over 1000 years ago, is proof enough of its inaccuracy, as i said before

Science changes to suit the facts
Religion changes the facts to suit themselves


you say "the bible supports itself"? when infact the opposite is true
Ifyou belive the bible s truebecause God says so an that God is real because the Bible says so then im afraid your stuck in a ridculous loop

As for "Why" are we here, why must there be a reason, we are here because we are here, "why" are elephants here?
"why" are bees here?
"why" is SARS here?
"why" is the planetoid Pluto there?

Unlike thiests i do not need a reason to be here to be happy
im very happy that i am here and enjoy and live my life to the full, but i dont need a specific reason to be here, anyone who does just needs to feel important, thats just a little bit sad, in my opinion.

Other Comments by down_under

317. Comment #13929 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 6:21 am

Shaun

No worries, i too know what its like to be ridiculously busy

I will sroll through all the posts and try to copy and paste arugments that i feel you have not yet answered yet,
sadley there are ALOT of posts to read through before i can find the relevant posts :-S (popular forum! he he)

please be patient and i will also be more patient myself in the future :-)

Other Comments by down_under

318. Comment #13931 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 20, 2006 at 6:21 am

Furthermore, Down_under, I can't believe people will defend the FILTH that is the Bible.

READ THE LOT; it's not just full of nice parts. It has rape, murder, death, child-rape, beating of slaves, intolerance for women and gays, other tribes, cutting off of foreskins and on and on.

The Old Testament is great read, if you like killing. Particularly funny, is the way Christ-followers state that the New Testament replaces the old. Again, this is a myth and a lie. The New Testament has passages that state the old laws still stand. So the justified murders and rapes can continue on in the new era.

TRULY appalling; that anybody can believe the Bible is true. It's an outdated, man-hating book. It does not provide an individual with the proper tools for living one's life.

Indeed, a believer I am very close to me, recently referred to a homosexual I know as:

"One of them bloody queers".

TRULY outstanding in love and tolerance, this statement, from a CHRISTIAN was.

And today, on SKY NEWS, a former priest has been gaoled for MOLESTING KIDS over many years. Some believer, eh?

>>Comment #13886 by Mark Taunton on December 20, 2006 at 12:40 am

Sorry if this seems "loony", but the impression I've received is that the perpetrators of 9/11 claimed Allah as their God and the Quran as their holy book, rather than Yahweh and the Bible...?<<

A GREAT statement this was. Above the heads of the believers though, who will go to any lengths to make us believe that there is this fairy-tale wonderland, awaiting those who believe in God and follow the Bible. You CHRISTADELPHIANS in here, should take a quick net-visit to www.godhatesfags.com becaue you will see what happens when idiots follow the Bible TO THE LETTERS WRITTEN DOWN.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

319. Comment #13932 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 6:27 am

Mark

"Sorry if this seems "loony", but the impression I've received is that the perpetrators of 9/11 claimed Allah as their God and the Quran as their holy book, rather than Yahweh and the Bible...?"

Yesthat is ofcourse true, however it is interesting to note that Christians,Jews and Muslims all worship the SAME God!

The only difference is in the interpretations and messages and meanings etc etc (perhaps because they're so innacurate??? perhaps because they were ritten by people not an almighty being??)

Other Comments by down_under

320. Comment #13933 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 6:33 am

To NLHB

totally agree, people who take the bible word for word are VERy dangerous!
Not just godhatesfags.com but also

www.godhatesamerica.com
www.godhatessweden.com
www.godhatescanada.com

truly appalling!! all from people who take the bible literally

also has anyone ever read the punishments for the 10 commandments?!?!? extreamly harsh!!! usually involving death, stoning, burning! terrible!
which is a bit contradictory as one of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill"

Other Comments by down_under

321. Comment #13937 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 7:14 am

Jon G

Also in adition to my "why" argument

If i was so insecure and felt so irrelavant that I did need a reason to feel important, ie A reason we are here
Just because i do not know what it is, does not mean god put me here!

Christian "Why are we here?"
Atheist "I dont know"
Christian "ah see! so there is a God!!"
Atheist ".....eh?!......"

Tell me exactywhatdo christians belive? Why do you think we are here?
If your aswer is "to love and serve God" then that would mean that God put us here, just so we could worship him?
A little bit of bigotry perhaps on gods part?

If God was so desperate for worship and love that he created us just for that purpose then i do not feel he is worthy of worship

Christian "Why are we here"
Atheist "Why not?!"
Christian "What is our reason for existance"
Atheist "there isnt one"
Christian "But what if there is"
Atheist "Well if i ever find out, i'l let you know!"

Other Comments by down_under

322. Comment #13943 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 20, 2006 at 7:50 am

Right with you Down_Under.

Theists seem to think that Atheists are cynical, for rejecting supernatural belief.

Infact, I'd argue that Atheists view life with more wonder because we see this existence as the only one .

I'm certain, that if we can survive this century, as a species, there may well come a time when we are almost God-Like ourselves.

We'll be able to cure or eradicate disease. We'll be able to extend our lives vastly. We'll be able to transfer our minds into new bodies or complete replica bodies, we have on standby. We'll become almost if not completely immortal.

Science fiction at present. Though this is entirely possible. And if we become immortal through our science, where will God be then?

Just pure conjecture this, but healthy in optimism! Atheists are optimists. Theists are pessimists. They want the end of the world to come, so they can shout off about how right they were, all along.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

323. Comment #13945 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 8:17 am

I stil don't get this line of thinking that if we cant explain something, then god must have did it. All that does is show the limitations of human intellect.
Theists. I have been trying in vain to get david robertson to tell me the evidence that god exists outside of space and time. Does anyone here want to provide their evidence for this. There is no rush, some of you have other people to answer first. That is a credit to you. If only DR were the same:-(

Other Comments by BillySands

324. Comment #13946 by JonG on December 20, 2006 at 8:21 am

474. Comment #13937 by down_under on December 20, 2006 at 7:14 am

D_U
If I wanted to feel as important as you suggest I imagine I wouldn't be a Christian, i'd be Bono or something...
hmm, another "Christian", probably not the best example...
But seriously, the road to self importance isn't made easy by taking the Christian route - what with selflessness, humility, personal sacrifice - i don't recomend it...

As for why, as I said, it wasn't a loaded question, I just wondered if you had an opinion or feeling on the matter. I actually gave you an opportunity to get away from the Bible.

Scientists - I can't verify all of the Non-atheist scientists so i'll have to take your word for it - they probably got one of those dodgy on line diplomas ;)

I'll not wish you a Happy Christmas - 1. Your an atheist and 2. (as far as i'm concerned) it's not a Biblical festival ;)

Have a good holiday,

cheers,

Jon

Other Comments by JonG

325. Comment #13949 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 20, 2006 at 8:28 am

And you will wait for eternity Billy.

Because, everytime science makes a new discovery, the God-botherers will say " God Did that! "

In this manner, the likes of the deluded David Robertson can stall us forever, without actually providing any proof to their lavish and grandiose claims.

I too, in many of my arguments with the deluded Mr.Robertson, have asked for proof of any of his claims. He's never done this.

The best he could come up with was the order of the universe and mathematics. Mathematics, as I have correctly stated, is a product of abstraction within men's minds. The universe, is not as ordered as David would have us believe.

At one point, he tried to pull the wool-over-my-eyes, by suggesting that Stephen Hawking thought that the universe had been 'fine-tuned'. Indeed, I've read Professor Hawkings works and he does not mean that the universe has been fine tuned by the hand of the Supernatural. If I understand correctly, he is discussing the natural processes' of the universe and its intricate, delicately-balanced workings.

No. You won't get a straight answer from Robertson. He is an atypical believer, incapable of even thinking that there may be no God. He won't even consider the possibility that there is no such being. So our arguments are a waste of time and falling upon deaf ears. He is actually here with a different agenda: To upset as many Atheists as possible. In this manner he can confirm what he knows not to be true (i.e. That God exists) and then bring this evidence back to his flock. He wants us upset. How typically arrogant and pious. How typically intolerant of a believer. Why doesn't he just turn his cheek and forgive us for our ignorance instead of parading these forums with his lousy sarcasm?

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

326. Comment #13971 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 10:56 am

Hi NLHB,
You are right. I am tempted to go on his site and cause carnage, and let them see how nasty he is, although he seems to tone it down a bit there. I like the guys on this thread though, and have found them to put a lot of thought into their responses, which I disagree with :-), but that's cool.

Other Comments by BillySands

327. Comment #13978 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 11:55 am

Hi Mark,
I obviously have too much time on my hands. Apologies to those who are allergic to the bible, but this is Marks evidence that he wishes to present. It would be unfair and closed minded not to discuss the evidence. Here are some comments on how Deut 28 is not specific to Rome
"+ invasion of Israel by a powerful army from a distant country, speaking an alien (non-Semitic) language,
who would besiege their cities until they fell;"

Assyrians? Babylonians? Medes? Seleucids? Ptolemies?

"+ in those sieges they would be driven to cannibalism;"

Jeremiah 19:9 talks of sieges and cannibalism. This is not about rome

"+ the survivors would be removed from their own land;"

Assyria and Babylon exiled the jews

"+ they would be sold as slaves;"

"Nehemiah 5 talks of selling family members as slaves and talks of hunger again (this is post Babylon."

"+ they would be dispersed into many countries;"

Assyria? 2 kin 17:23, Samaria (by the Assyrians) 2 kin 17:26 Media (by the Assyrians ) 2 kin 18:11, Babylon 2 kin: 24:15 etc

"+ they would be persecuted and attacked wherever they went;"

Assyria, Babylon

"+ they would find no stability anywhere, but would have to move from one country to another;"

I don't see this in deut 28

"+ they would be diminished, yet would continue to survive as a people and retain their identity;"

Again, it doesn't say that. Deut 28:64 actually says they will worship foreign gods (in other words, lose their identity)

"+ attempts would be made to draw them back to the land of Israel, as if fishing for them;"

Again, where does it say that?

"+ but only after being hunted down would they eventually be caused to regather there;"

No mention of a return. Infact, it says they will be going back to Egypt (verse 68) infact, god says he is breaking a promise here. I could however imagine the Babylonians sending them to Egypt, who they defeated

"+ they would not go back as a reformed people, believing and honouring their God, but as still secular;"

Where does it say this? Whey will still be religious though. See above

"+ they would at last form a nation again in their land;"

Where does it say this? They returned home from Assyria and babylonia

"+ they would have Jerusalem as its capital, following its liberation from Gentile control;"

Where?

"+ as dwellers in that land they would experience fierce opposition from their near relatives the Arab peoples;"

Babylonians? Assyrians? Egyptians?

"+ the Arabs would claim the same territory;"

Where?

+ the Arabs would lay claim to Jerusalem, seeking control of it for themselves;

Where/ Babylonians?

"+ Jerusalem would be a fundamental bone of contention, causing ongoing international stresses."

Where?


"And so it has come about. All these things have indeed happened, detail by detail, just as the Bible predicted. "

Prediction or history pretending to be prophecy? Some of these claims are not backed up in deut 28. Those that are apply to Assyria or Babylon, not Rome.
I don't know if this is so, but did the Romans send the jews to Egypt in ships? And were they bought? All this fits better with the theory that the Pentateuch was actually written around the5th – 6th century BCE. Are there any extant version of the Pentateuch that have been carbon dated to before that time? That would convince me otherwise. I don't think there are though

Other Comments by BillySands

328. Comment #14008 by Mark Taunton on December 20, 2006 at 4:26 pm

Hi Billy, thanks for taking the time to look at my post (404) and respond (few others have done so, thus far!). It's now very late, so I must be brief.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer at the time (or list all the references, against each element - that would have been better) but if you re-check my post 404, you'll see I said the first 8 points were taken from Moses in Deu.28, and the rest from later prophets. However the 2nd point didn't have a separate + on the line (it was tacked on as a continuation of the first), so even that was a bit ambiguous.

Anyway, why do I say that Deu 28v49 onwards is about Rome, as opposed to:

"Assyrians? Babylonians? Medes? Seleucids? Ptolemies?" ?

Because Moses said: "The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand" (Deu 28:49, KJV)

That description doesn't fit those nations you propose, and does fit the Romans, for the following reasons:

"From far" - The Romans came from much further away than those people, as good as "from the end of the earth", by comparison with previous, much closer invaders of Israel.

"as swift as the eagle flieth" – the symbol on the standards of the Roman legions was the aquilla – the eagle. Also their legions moved very rapidly – because of extremely well organised logistics, which was why the Romans were so successfully militarily.

"a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand" - unlike those closer peoples, their language (Latin) was quite alien - unrecognisable by ear to a speaker of a Semitic language, as Hebrew. Semitic languages include Akkadian, Hebrew, and Aramaic=Syriac, a family of closely-related languages in the middle east, spoken in Assyria, Babylon, Israel and surrounding countries. Latin is also quite different when written: L->R not L<-R, with fundamentally different letter forms.

That's all I've time for at the moment. I will get back with more details when I can, and will try to answer some of your other queries also.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

329. Comment #14053 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 2:16 am

Hi Mark,
If the verse had said their symbol was the eagle, not that they were like an eagle, I would think you had a point. The greeks under Alexander (also totally alien) moved faster than the Romans ever did. And Deut 28 finishes by mentioning slavery in egypt. Therefore, I am far from convinced.
Best wishes
Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

330. Comment #14057 by eggplantbren on December 21, 2006 at 2:27 am

>>Ah yes, so you all believe that everything came from nothing....by accident! Now that's faith I admire.<<

Well, no, we don't. I believe that I came from my parents, that my computer came from a shop, and was previously in a factory. The origins of other things are different again.


>>By the way, exactly what is the evolutionary mechanism that brought the cell, or the eye, or the brain to it's present state?<<

I'm not sure of the details, and don't know the references, because I'm not a biologist. Perhaps one will be able to supply the papers you ask for.

>>I ask because from the way you guys are speaking you would think that neo-Darwinist evolution was a law instead of a theory.<<

A law is just another word for a formula. Natural selection isn't an equation and it will never turn into one.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

331. Comment #14082 by niccodeamus on December 21, 2006 at 4:20 am

the issue of "junk" DNA was raised earlier in the thread, and personally I find it very (if not totally) compelling evidence for evolution. How does a creationist explain "junk" DNA? The issue of whether it is junk or not is hardly relevant. Great stretches of this DNA is virally inserted and can be traced back through our "family tree" for 10s if not 100s of millions of years. It is clear how and why viral RNA can be appropriated into our own genome, we understand the method and even the probability of such an event. The fact is this is an unlikely event, but given the eons available, DNA has been inserted with or without effect (mutation) and passed down the generations.
What is unclear to me is that if we didnt have a common ancestor with (say) a dog then why on earth would we have the same stretch of virally acquired DNA in the same position on the same gene.
Now GodDidIt does allow for this in the same way he might have scattered fossils about in the right order. But what sort of malicious hoaxer would bother?
I look forward to one of the deists supplying answers.

Other Comments by niccodeamus

332. Comment #14099 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 5:22 am

Hi Eggplantbren,
Dawkins talks about the eye in the blindwatchmaker. There is a you tube clip of it (it is in several parts and I cant remember which one it is in) The first clip is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDshYyv9Nfc

Other Comments by BillySands

333. Comment #14247 by down_under on December 21, 2006 at 4:10 pm

Jon G

You stated...

"D_U
If I wanted to feel as important as you suggest I imagine I wouldn't be a Christian, i'd be Bono or something...
hmm, another "Christian", probably not the best example...
But seriously, the road to self importance isn't made easy by taking the Christian route - what with selflessness, humility, personal sacrifice - i don't recomend it..."


You missed my point completly!
people who need to feel they hve a reason for being here want to feel important so they CHOOSE to belive God put them here for whatever reason

You cant CHOOSE to be Bono now can you? (if you can id like to know how!)
However you can CHOOSE to belive that God put yo here for a reason......see where im going with this?
and dont go with the whole free will thing
god saying "you have free will to belive in me but you will go to hell if you dont" is almost like a robber putting a gun to your head and saying "you have free will to give me your wallet but if you dont il shoot you" not really free will is it

i, on the other hand as i said, dont have a big enough ego to feel like theres a purpose for me by some almighty being.

Also, why must you belive in a God to be selfless?
I myslef alays do my best to help my fellow man, my atheist friend even recently put his own life on the line to help victims of a car accident, he has no faith in a God but is a very nice, selfless generous man

Perhaps Athiests just have more faith in Humanity than people who need a fear of eternal punshment or wanting for an eternal reward just to behave morally.

And as i enjoy traditional holidays despite disagreeing with their origins i do celebrate xmas, i just enjoy the good feel and spirit of giving, recieving and family, i belive the story of xmas is nothing more than a fairytale recycled from the story ofthe ancient Egyptian man-god horus (who predates jesus by several thousand years, u may want to look him up!) but i still celebrate xmas, i obviously just dont go with the nativity side of things or step foot in a church

Note: Is it a co-incidence that Christians consider themselves gods "Sheep"?

But as you are obviously Christian so this time of year is not only about the spirit of xmas but also the story and spiritual side
I will wish you a Merry Christmas and sincerly hope you have a good one :-)

Other Comments by down_under

334. Comment #14248 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Hi D_U, It seems that the story of jesus was common in mythology. Has everyone seen the Mithras video here? http://richarddawkins.net/article,441,Merry-Mithras,QI-BBC2
Mithras is essentially is Jesus (before jesus)

Other Comments by BillySands

335. Comment #14329 by down_under on December 22, 2006 at 3:58 am

I hadnt seen that video before its great! haha
I had hjeard of Mithra though yes (interestingly the capital of Mithran Society was where the vatican stands now)
But there are many moe man-gods, all that predate Jesus with very similar stories

Horus (also known as AMEN Ra)
Mithra
Osiris (who along with Isis and Horus makeup the trinity)
Dionysus
Buddah
Krishna

and many more

sadley many Christians view these websites and books with the "fingers in the ears, eyes closed humming lalalala i cant hear you lalalala jesus is real lalalala" attitude.

Interesting how so many Christians can view Horus, Osiris, Mithra, Baal, Dionysus etc etc as nothing more than mythology yet still so strongly belive in Jesus.

Also has anyone ever seen an Egyptian temple to Horus? Looks remarkably ike a Church! Crucifixes and all!!

Other Comments by down_under

336. Comment #14357 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 6:11 am

I believe the anti Horace was called ..... wait for it...
Set-An

Other Comments by BillySands

337. Comment #14976 by Mark Taunton on December 27, 2006 at 5:11 pm

Hi, Billy!

Ref post (482): you were right and I was wrong!

You said: "The greeks under Alexander (also totally alien) moved faster than the Romans ever did."

I had quoted the KJV of Deuteronomy 28:49, which says that the nation God would send against Israel would be "as swift as the eagle flieth". In copying the text from the Online Bible I lost the formatting (for convenience in inserting the quote), but in so doing I missed the detail that the words "as swift" are actually in italics in the KJV. This indicates that those words are a translator's (subjective) interpolation, without a matching term in the original text. A plainer rendering would therefore be just "as the eagle flies". So my extrapolation with respect to the speed the Roman army moved at was unwarranted, and I cannot argue with your comment on the Greek's mobility by comparison.

The result is that the focus is not on speed, but on being "as the eagle flies". You also say:

"If the verse had said their symbol was the eagle, not that they were like an eagle, I would think you had a point."

But such a way of speaking is not a Biblical one – the word "symbol" is not found in the Bible, though symbolic language occurs a great deal. You suggest the text should say "X has a symbol which is a Y" where X=Rome and Y=eagle. In contexts where one thing stands for (is symbolic of) another, the Bible commonly has just "X is like Y" or "the Y is the X" (e.g. Dan 8:21). Thus "as the eagle flies" is equivalent to that more expansive wording you look for.

I suggest also that "as the eagle flies" is remarkably physical in its match to the Roman invaders. How would a Jew in Israel in AD66-70 see the model eagle held aloft by the aquilifer at the head of each arriving legion? The imagery of Deuteronomy 28:49 was exactly what the Romans intended their standards to convey – here was a powerful force that could sweep down on its prey and destroy it and carry it off, at will. The Jewish resistance fought hard – they practically wiped out the 12th legion, even taking their eagle standard – but they were still defeated in the end.

Now the phrase "as the eagle flies" of verse 49 is also used in Jeremiah of an Egyptian pharaoh attacking Moab (Jer. 48:40), so it is not uniquely prophetic of the Roman invasion of Israel. I also accept that many details of the Deuteronomy 28 prophecy as a whole relate to other invaders before Rome. The earlier part of the chapter is full of ways that God said he would use various nations to punish his people, with the purpose of turning them back to him, including on occasion taking some of them away from the land; a similar catalogue is found in Leviticus 26.

But the reason I say that Deuteronomy 28:49 and onward applies to Rome is that the total set of details Moses gives, of a particular invading nation (marked by the shift to a singular nation/enemy, compared to plural "enemies" before that), taken together, fit no other prior attacker. According to Moses, the foreign oppressing nation will meet ALL of the following descriptions (vv49-57, referenced in [] below):

(a) come from far away [49]
(b) be like an eagle [49]
(c) speak an alien (non-semitic) language [49]
(d) be of "fierce countenance" [50]
(e) ravage the land, taking the produce and ruining the people [51]
(f) besiege the Israelites in their own cities [52]
(g) by siege, reduce the Jews to eating their own children [53-57]
(h) successfully cause the besieged cities to fall, throughout the land [52]

So, to answer your earlier alternative proposals in more detail:

Assyrians?
- No, don't fit (c) – they spoke Akkadian/Aramaic, similar enough to Hebrew, some Jews could speak it (Isaiah 36:11). Also they did not completely satisfy (h) – according to the biblical record, though the Assyrian king Sennacherib successfully besieged many other Israelite cities, he failed to take Jerusalem, and King Hezekiah was saved from his army (Isaiah 37). This is also evidenced by Sennacherib's own record (on the "Taylor Prism", on view in the British Museum) – he says he had Hezekiah trapped "like a caged bird", but makes no mention of actually capturing him – he would no doubt have gloated over him had he done so!

Babylonians?
- No, neither satisfies (c) at least – again, they spoke a Semitic language.

Medes?
- No, they didn't do (e-h).

Seleucids?
- No, they don't meet several points, including (f-h).

Ptolemies?
- No, they didn't meet (a) at least.

The only candidate invading nation that meets all of the details is Rome.

Point (d) is significant in another way. It is linked to Daniel's much later prophecy (Dan. 8). The power that Daniel predicted would arise to replace the 4-way split Greek rulership is described as being "of a fierce countenance", quoting exactly this detail. In Daniel's prophetic context that power is unquestionably Roman, following on from Greece. Daniel's predictions in this prophecy are so detailed and such an accurate fit that the critics unanimously say Daniel must have been written after the events, else how could he get it so right? The problem is, if Daniel was indeed composed circa 160 BC somewhere in the land of Israel, how could the writer know in such detail of the events and fine details of life in the courts of Babylon and Medo-Persia, from 400 years earlier and a thousand miles away?

Additionally, in the last part of Deuteronomy 28, Moses goes on to give more details of what else would also happen to the Israelites; these are not explicitly said to be caused by the particular invading nation of vv49-57, but are given after it is described. Some of the details definitely do fit the consequences of Rome's aggression:

(g) the Jews would be greatly reduced in numbers [62]
(h) they would be forcibly removed from their own land [63]
(i) they would be dispersed among all peoples, across the whole earth [63]
(j) they would not be allowed to settle and have peace [65]
(k) they would experience great hardship and distresses [65-67]
(l) they would be taken into Egypt by ship and sold for slaves, but find no buyers.

(Now I've not investigated what evidence may exist for (l) being fulfilled particularly by the Romans. The Romans however did control Egypt, and slave markets were a normal part of life there, during the 1st and 2nd centuries, i.e. at the time of the suppression of the Jewish revolts, so it seems entirely plausible.)

Points (g-k) have been very clearly fulfilled, particularly from the time of the Jewish revolts against Rome, when the Jews last had a homeland, right down and into the 20th century. For example, (g): hundreds of thousands of Jews in the land were killed in the Roman wars.

How could Moses have known all this? And what sort of message was that to be giving to a people about to enter and take possession of the promised land? It hardly seems a useful or humanly appealing thing to predict in those circumstances!

But if the Bible is true – as I believe – then it all makes complete sense, and Moses shows that he was indeed a prophet of the living God, exactly as the Bible claims of him.

In this contribution, I've not even started on all the other details I listed in my previous post, and Billy questioned (480). I hope to deal with those points at a later time.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

338. Comment #14978 by Vardu on December 27, 2006 at 5:30 pm

Can't you atheists understand that God is so astonishingly omnipotent that he didn't, or doesn't, even have to exist in order to have created us!
What could be more obvious?

Other Comments by Vardu

339. Comment #14980 by Vardu on December 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

Mark Taunton:

I don't know if Moses knew any of those things you list. In fact, I don't think that you could make a case that Moses existed at all. Most of the Bible was written during the Babylonian captivity with much of its history projected backwards, which gives the impression of fulfilled prophesy.
The Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner, spent much of his celebrated career studying these things and couldn't see any warrant at all for believing biblical prophesy as authentic.
And we mustn't forget those biblical prophesies that blatantly failed.
I believe Mark Twain summed it all up rather nicely when he wrote that '(The Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.'
And, oh, we must not forget the Bible's wonderful God who never gives a second thought to ordering or condoning genocide, even including the unfortunate victims animals!
I wonder why, though, his remedy for leprosy - incantations and the blood of birds - has never been taken up or applied even by believers who work with the poor sufferers of that terrible malady?

Other Comments by Vardu

340. Comment #15001 by Mark Taunton on December 28, 2006 at 2:55 am

Hi, Vardu.

Most of the Bible was written during the Babylonian captivity with much of its history projected backwards, which gives the impression of fulfilled prophesy.

Please go and read my earlier posts again (e.g. 455 above). I am deliberately not talking about prophecies which could in theory have been written after the event and projected backwards. I chose specific, large scale, detailed Bible prophecies that provably were written before the events they predict.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

341. Comment #15006 by JohnC on December 28, 2006 at 4:20 am

Mark, there are probably more people who believe that Nostradamus has produced accurate predictions than partisans for the Deuteronomist. This kind of delusional thinking has all the hallmarks of a mental illness, except that sufferers in most other respects seem to exhibit "normal" behaviour. We are a long way from understanding how such delusional thinking can arise and sustain itself, but it is clear that debate about the details of the delusion with the afflicted person is generally a waste of time. Perhaps you might try some therapy ..

Other Comments by JohnC

342. Comment #15007 by Mark Taunton on December 28, 2006 at 4:42 am

Vardu:

I wonder why, though, his remedy for leprosy - incantations and the blood of birds - has never been taken up or applied even by believers who work with the poor sufferers of that terrible malady?

Please read Leviticus 14 again more carefully. The ritual involving two birds and the blood of one is not described as a remedy for leprosy:

"And the LORD [=Yahweh] spoke unto Moses, saying: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: he shall be brought unto the priest: and the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper, then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop ..." (Lev 14:1-4).

The ritual concerns a symbolic cleansing of the leper, after he was checked and found to be clear of the disease.

In this context, note also the use of quarantine in relation to leprosy - the priest had to go out of the camp to inspect the leper, since the law required lepers to keep themselves away from the rest of the population (Lev 13:45-46), thereby reducing the risk of infection. In these days we understand the heath benefits of such a regulation, though the peoples of that era generally do not seem to have done so. The law of Moses, even by your reckoning, is at least 2600 years old, but was decidedly ahead of its time. I ask: how come?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

343. Comment #15008 by JohnC on December 28, 2006 at 4:56 am

"The law of Moses, even by your reckoning, is at least 2600 years old, but was decidedly ahead of its time"

Compared with what! The "law" - and let's drop the Moses fiction - was noticeably more barbaric, reflecting its closeness to its tribal past, than that of most competing civilizations in the last millenium BCE.

Therapy, Mark, therapy ...

Other Comments by JohnC

344. Comment #15009 by Mark Taunton on December 28, 2006 at 4:59 am

JohnC:

Surely logic and reason are independent of majority or minority views. I thought this site was supposed to be all about "reason" and "science" in the context of atheism being still a minority position in most of the world. So it doesn't matter how many people believe what about Nostradamus versus the Biblical prophets.

Please try to deal rationally with my argument (as presented in this thread over the past 4-5 pages), rather than questioning my mental health.

On Nostradamus: his predictions seem to me to be generally of the nature that Joadist wants the Bible prophecies to be (but they aren't): vague, non-specific and of very limited scope - the sort of "prophecy" which it is easy to find some proposed fulfillment of. Biblical prophecies, as I have sought to illustrate with respect to a small subset, are of a very different character.

So I ask simply: is my argument true or false? If it is false, please point out where my error lies.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

345. Comment #15010 by JohnC on December 28, 2006 at 5:08 am

Ok, I'll play for a bit. You make much (at 405) of Deut. 28 - please let's start with a verse from this chapter that in your view represents a clearly fulfilled prophecy, with your view of the provenance of the chosen text. You might also add which qualified authorities - historians, textual critics, rabbis - share your interpretation. With links, please.

Other Comments by JohnC

346. Comment #15013 by Mark Taunton on December 28, 2006 at 6:04 am

JohnC: Sorry, I have no time now to produce the form of response you ask for - my wife will be cross to know I'm even replying at all! I'll be offline for 3-4 days, so don't expect more from me for the present.

However, in the meantime, please consider, not just one verse, but the whole section of Deuteronomy 28 from v49-57. As I outlined above (490), the whole lot together are prophetic of the Roman invasion of Israel and their suppression of the Jewish revolts. The book of Deuteronomy, like the whole of the Old Testament, was provably in existence before these events took place - evidenced in the Dead Sea scrolls which date from some time in the 1st Century BC through at latest the mid 1st Century AD. In any case, even a sceptic such as Vardu acknowledges that the critical consensus allows a much earlier date for it (~600BC). A quick google search will easily find plenty of information on the historical aspects of Roman activities in Israel, including for example a quite detailed account on a completely anti-Christian website: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/militant.htm ...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

347. Comment #15014 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 28, 2006 at 6:16 am

>>Comment #15009 by Mark Taunton<<

All your postings Mark are well-mannered; something maybe a few Atheists and nearly every other Theist in here do not possess.

However, your only proof of God's existence is the Bible. Something you are clearly well-versed in. You should therefore know that there are many evil connotations within the Bible, particulary, but not exclusively, in the Old Testament.

Do you not therefore understand, that former beleivers, such as myself, find such texts to be FILTH?

God creates Homosexuals. Yet condmens them. God creates women, but condemns them to eternal suffering during child-birth and 2nd-class citizenship. God orders the deaths of millions within the Bible 'and it's okay 'cos God told us to do it'. It just doesn't cut water with us Atheists, I'm afraid. We find it very man-hating.

The Bible states that Atheists are fools. Would you consider, Einstein, Hawking, Madame Curie, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Professor Dawkins all as fools?

Furthermore, why is it that we no longer witness burning bushes, miracles and all the other spiritually-induced fables of the Bible in our modern times? Could it be, that such events could not have occured? Could it not be beyond the realm of possibility that you are basing your whole moral-life-system on a book that could be wrong?

I find the Bible abhorrent. I suspect many Atheists do also. It doesn't provide answers, indeed, the Genesis fairytale is quite wrong. If the Bible can be wrong about the origin of Earth, how the hell can it be right about anything else?

Genesis is wrong. The Bible is evil. You Christians are fond of cherry-picking the nice parts out, yet you conveniently forget the bad parts. Stoning people to death for collecting sticks on Sunday? Not allowing women to speak in church? You think this is a GOOD thing?

The Bible is a joke. I find it offensive. I can no longer believe in God. All we witness around us, are natural processes' in a natural universe. I'd not question your mental capacity - as others have done in here - that is quite wrong. I would ask you to consider that maybe the Bible is wrong as a tool for leading a good, productive, life.

Such thinking allows people such as godhatesfags.com to prosper.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

348. Comment #15015 by Peter Hearty on December 28, 2006 at 6:22 am

Mark

I've only just joined this thread, so apologies if I'm misreading you, but the Deut 28, 49-57 could refer to anyone.

In the decades preceeding the "discovery" of Deutoronomy in the Temple, the northern kingdom of Israel had been invaded and destroyed by the Assyrians. Judah itself was then invaded and destroyed by the Babylonians, followed by a Persian occupation. The centuries preceeding all this represented a period of Egyptian domination, and was followed by a period of Greek domination before the Romans finally arrived.

Given its strategic position, poor old Israel/Palestine was continually being threatened by more powerful neighbours.

Now if the prophecy had said something more specific, like mentioning the Romans, or the names of one of the Ceasars by name, then that might've been more impressive.

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

349. Comment #15016 by JohnC on December 28, 2006 at 6:33 am

One verse, that's all. Text and alleged interpretation. Let's get down to the nuts and bolts of this delusion. Unless of course you are uncomfortable at moving beyond the level of untestable generalities. (Sorry your wife won't let you play.)

Other Comments by JohnC

350. Comment #15018 by JohnC on December 28, 2006 at 7:12 am

Peter,
The situation with Deut 28. is worse even than that, since the text is clearly not intended as "prophetic" at all, but as a warning to enforce obedience. A warning takes the form of:
IF you do x, THEN y will happen.
A prophecy is of the form:
You WILL do x, AND y will happen.

Thus verse 1: "And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all the nations of the earth." etc for 15 verses, but then:
"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee."

The section from verse 49 is clearly the Deuteronomist drawing on the memory of a recent invasion to show that the aforementioned curses had once before come to pass, and so would again if obedience was not forthcoming. But written of course from the fictitious perspective of being an older text that predated the events it describes. It is as if I wrote a text tomorrow, but dated it 1950, in which I predicted that whenever Americans voted in a Texan as president a terrible fruitless war would result.

This all makes much more sense within the current scholarly consensus about the "discovery" of the book, which is why I asked our friend to comment on the provenance of the text.

This appears to be the current scholarly consensus. Rabbinical views vary. But no serious person is going to suggest this text is a prophecy of the Roman occupation, or indeed any kind of actual prophecy at all. Except of course for the loony extremists circling in the Kuiper belt of the Xtian solar system.

Other Comments by JohnC