Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?

[nPeace]

Outside of the gospels there is nothing else that supports it.

The gospels themselves are copies of Mark told in a mythological style and obviously influenced by earlier pagan myths.
.

Is there any evidence outside the Gospels to indicate their reliability?

Luke 3:1, 2
Tiberius - Wikipedia
Tiberius (/taɪˈbɪəriəs/; Latin: Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus; 16 November 42 BC – 16 March 37 AD) was Roman emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD, succeeding the first emperor, Augustus.

The tribute penny mentioned in the Bible is commonly believed to be a Roman denarius depicting the Emperor Tiberius.

Silver denarius of Tiberius 14CE 37CE found in India Indian copy of a the same 1st century CE Coin of Kushan king Kujula Kadphises

 

[shmogie]

Authenticity. Some critics question the authenticity of Daniel, assuming the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This forger, he theorized, took past events and made them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned, however, from that day until the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.—Mt 24:15; Da 11:31.

Historical. Several manuscripts of parts of the book of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea caves. The earliest manuscript dates from the first half of the first century B.C.E.; the book of Daniel was an accepted part of the Scriptures in that time and was so well known to the Jews that many copies had already been made of it. That it was recognized as a canonical book of that time is supported by the writer of the Apocryphal, but historical, book of First Maccabees (2:59, 60), who made reference to Daniel’s deliverance from the den of lions, and that of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace.

We have also the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus, who states that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. This occurred in about 332 B.C.E., more than 150 years before the Maccabean period. Josephus says of the event: “When the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated.” (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5]) History also recounts that Alexander bestowed great favors on the Jews, and this is believed to have been because of what Daniel said about him in prophecy.

Language. Daniel 1:1–2:4a and 8:1–12:13 are written in Hebrew, while Daniel 2:4b–7:28 is written in Aramaic. Regarding the vocabulary used in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 860) says: “When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, nine-tenths of it can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri from the 5th cent. B.C. or earlier. The remaining words have been found in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than the 5th cent. B.C. While it is at least theoretically possible that this small balance of vocabulary suddenly originated after the 5th cent. B.C., it is equally possible to argue from a fifth-century B.C. written form to an earlier oral one. By far the most probable explanation, however, is that the missing tenth represents nothing more serious than a gap in our current knowledge of the linguistic situation, which we may confidently expect to be filled in process of time.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1979.

There are some so-called Persian words in Daniel, but in view of the frequent dealings that the Jews had with Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others, this is not unusual. Furthermore, most of the foreign names used by Daniel are names of officials, articles of clothing, legal terms, and such, for which the Hebrew or Aramaic of the time apparently had no equally suitable terms. Daniel was writing for his people who were for the most part in Babylonia, and many were scattered in other places at this time. Therefore, he wrote in language that would be understandable to them.

Doctrinal. Some critics object because Daniel alludes to the resurrection. (Da 12:13) They assume that this is a doctrine that was developed later or was taken from a pagan belief, but the reference in Daniel is in agreement with the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, which contains statements of belief in a resurrection. (Job 14:13, 15; Ps 16:10) Also, there are actual instances of resurrection. (1Ki 17:21, 22;2Ki 4:22-37; 13:20, 21) And on no less authority than the apostle Paul we have the statement that Abraham had faith in the raising up of the dead (Heb 11:17-19) and also that other faithful servants of God of ancient times looked forward to the resurrection. (Heb 11:13, 35-40; Ro 4:16, 17) Jesus himself said: “But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’”—Lu 20:37.

Those who claim that the book is not really prophetic but was written after the events occurred would have to move up the time of writing of the book beyond the days of Jesus’ ministry on earth, for the ninth chapter admittedly contains a prophecy concerning the Messiah’s appearance and sacrifice. (Da 9:25-27) Also, the prophecy continues on and recounts the history of the kingdoms that would rule right down to “the time of the end,” when they will be destroyed by the Kingdom of God in the hands of his Messiah.—Da 7:9-14, 25-27; 2:44; 11:35, 40.

Great post ! Few scholars doubt that Daniel was written during the time of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. Skeptics must twist themselves in copious numbers of knots to say otherwise. Why ? Because Daniels prophecies can be historically shown to be true.

As in all things with skeptics, the foregone premise is " these things cannot happen". Filtered through that premise ANYTHING, SOMETHING, must be presented as supporting that premise.

 

[LiveByFaithNotSight]

Great post ! Few scholars doubt that Daniel was written during the time of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. Skeptics must twist themselves in copious numbers of knots to say otherwise. Why ? Because Daniels prophecies can be historically shown to be true.

As in all things with skeptics, the foregone premise is " these things cannot happen". Filtered through that premise ANYTHING, SOMETHING, must be presented as supporting that premise.

absolutely bro

 

[Dell]

Authenticity. Some critics question the authenticity of Daniel, assuming the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This forger, he theorized, took past events and made them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned, however, from that day until the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.—Mt 24:15; Da 11:31.

Historical. Several manuscripts of parts of the book of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea caves. The earliest manuscript dates from the first half of the first century B.C.E.; the book of Daniel was an accepted part of the Scriptures in that time and was so well known to the Jews that many copies had already been made of it. That it was recognized as a canonical book of that time is supported by the writer of the Apocryphal, but historical, book of First Maccabees (2:59, 60), who made reference to Daniel’s deliverance from the den of lions, and that of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace.

We have also the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus, who states that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. This occurred in about 332 B.C.E., more than 150 years before the Maccabean period. Josephus says of the event: “When the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated.” (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5]) History also recounts that Alexander bestowed great favors on the Jews, and this is believed to have been because of what Daniel said about him in prophecy.

Language. Daniel 1:1–2:4a and 8:1–12:13 are written in Hebrew, while Daniel 2:4b–7:28 is written in Aramaic. Regarding the vocabulary used in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 860) says: “When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, nine-tenths of it can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri from the 5th cent. B.C. or earlier. The remaining words have been found in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than the 5th cent. B.C. While it is at least theoretically possible that this small balance of vocabulary suddenly originated after the 5th cent. B.C., it is equally possible to argue from a fifth-century B.C. written form to an earlier oral one. By far the most probable explanation, however, is that the missing tenth represents nothing more serious than a gap in our current knowledge of the linguistic situation, which we may confidently expect to be filled in process of time.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1979.

There are some so-called Persian words in Daniel, but in view of the frequent dealings that the Jews had with Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others, this is not unusual. Furthermore, most of the foreign names used by Daniel are names of officials, articles of clothing, legal terms, and such, for which the Hebrew or Aramaic of the time apparently had no equally suitable terms. Daniel was writing for his people who were for the most part in Babylonia, and many were scattered in other places at this time. Therefore, he wrote in language that would be understandable to them.

Doctrinal. Some critics object because Daniel alludes to the resurrection. (Da 12:13) They assume that this is a doctrine that was developed later or was taken from a pagan belief, but the reference in Daniel is in agreement with the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, which contains statements of belief in a resurrection. (Job 14:13, 15; Ps 16:10) Also, there are actual instances of resurrection. (1Ki 17:21, 22;2Ki 4:22-37; 13:20, 21) And on no less authority than the apostle Paul we have the statement that Abraham had faith in the raising up of the dead (Heb 11:17-19) and also that other faithful servants of God of ancient times looked forward to the resurrection. (Heb 11:13, 35-40; Ro 4:16, 17) Jesus himself said: “But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’”—Lu 20:37.

Those who claim that the book is not really prophetic but was written after the events occurred would have to move up the time of writing of the book beyond the days of Jesus’ ministry on earth, for the ninth chapter admittedly contains a prophecy concerning the Messiah’s appearance and sacrifice. (Da 9:25-27) Also, the prophecy continues on and recounts the history of the kingdoms that would rule right down to “the time of the end,” when they will be destroyed by the Kingdom of God in the hands of his Messiah.—Da 7:9-14, 25-27; 2:44; 11:35, 40.

A post from AngelOfLight

The general consensus among scholars is that Daniel is a pseudepigraphic work, that is, a work that was was written much later than the text claims.

• Numerous historical errors and anachronisms. The book starts by claiming that Jerusalem fell in the third year of King Jehoiakim. This contradicts all known historical evidence, including the timeline from Jeremiah. There are also a number of indications that the author confused Nebuchadrezzar with Nabonidus. One of the more important characters from the book, Darius the Mede, is totally unknown to history and appears to be either a complete fabrication or a conflation of several other people.
  
  
• The succession of nations in the book appears to be wrong. According to Daniel, it was Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. In reality, Media fell to Persia about 15 years before the fall of Babylon.
  
  
• There is ample evidence from the text that the author expected the Greek Seleucid king Antiochus IV to be the catalyst that sparked the final battle between God and ad his enemies. The author expected that this battle would end with the the destruction of the earthly system and the institution of the literal Kingdom of God.
  
  
• When read in context, all of Daniel's prophecies point to Antiochus IV. The author thus expected him to be the last King of the Seleucid line, and that the 'time of the end' would therefore be about 164 BC.
  
  
• The book of Daniel is totally unknown prior to about 150 BC. There are a number of lists of books considered sacred by the Jews - Daniel is not among them.

The original purpose of the Book of Daniel was to comfort and encourage persecuted Jews during the Maccabean revolt. It all began in December of 167 BC, when the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem with an idol bearing his likeness. He went on to force his Jewish subjects to abandon the Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws, torturing and killing all who opposed him. At this outrage, the Jews revolted under Judas Maccabeus, driving the Seleucid armies out of Palestine and recapturing the Temple. In December of 164 BC, they rededicated the Temple to Jewish worship on the first Hanukkah.

During the revolt, pious Jews began to circulate an anthology of stories allegedly written four hundred years earlier by a Jewish hero named Daniel. These stories relate how Daniel and his friends, while serving as officials in the courts of pagan kings, risked their lives to avoid breaking Jewish food laws or worshipping false gods. When the mightiest kings on Earth tried to force them to compromise their religious principles, they passively waited on God's miraculous intervention to save them. The success of Daniel's prophecies of events up to and including the atrocities of Antiochus supposedly demonstrated that God would miraculously intervene on schedule to rescue the Jews from Antiochus as well.

The prophet Daniel supposedly predicted that four great empires were to rise and fall in succession between his day and the end of the world: Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Alexander the Great's Greek Empire was to break up into four smaller empires, the most important being the Seleucid Empire in Syria to the north, and the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt to the south. After seven Greek kings ruled in succession, the eighth was to snatch the throne from three candidates who had more right to it than he did. This king, Antiochus Epiphanes, provoked the Maccabean War. The Book of Daniel predicted that God would miraculously destroy Antiochus Epiphanes, resurrect the righteous dead, and set up an everlasting, worldwide Israelite Empire three and a half years after the desecration of the Temple; in other words, the Messianic Empire should have begun in June of 163 BC. Since these predictions largely came true until the middle of the war and failed thereafter, we know that the author lived in Seleucid times, not Babylonian times.

A good read on the subject...
The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

 

[Dell]

Of course, you are assuming that science is the arbiter of truth. That is nonsense, and actually degrading to the scientific method.

Science sa

You are emphatic with your NO's, and your adamant no's are not true at all. Everything you cite has counter, thorough scholarship to refute it.

Your statements re the NT texts and foundation documents is a minority opinion, not based in verifiable fact.

You state that there is no logic to the Bible. Am I to assume that you have been granted the mantle of the determiner of all logic , thus making what I find logical voided by your opinion ?

Within the rules governing science, there is no mechanism to measure or quantify a miracle. That doesn't mean they don't occur, in fact they do, it only means they aren';t reproducible or consistently observable by science.

Science can only find truth when that truth is within the pervue of science, many things are not.

1st line of my posted was "Science viewpoint"..

Miracles and science are not compatible because miracles are supernatural and do not follow the laws of nature. Declaring something a miracle would mean you would say "The universe didn't follow the laws of nature during this event". Science doesn't do that. If it observes an event that it cannot explain with the known laws of nature, it assumes that said laws are flawed or incomplete and must be amended to include the new event.

If science were to declare an event a miracle, they would be effectively saying "We will never find a natural explation for this event". Or, to put it more bluntly, declaring something a miracle is the epistemic equivalent of giving up.

What would be the status of laws of nature if miracles were actually to occur? First, would they cease to be genuine laws? If we say that a generalization that is violated by some event cannot be a genuine law of nature, then it would follow that miracles are logically impossible.

Following that "seeing or knowing perfectly the future" as in prophecy, is in itself a miracle. If time is following a script or is circular then free will is a false assumption, else history is created at the moment because we have free will and prophecy is a false assumption because is is impossible to be seen. And if you cant see it then its impossible to 100% reliably predict it, you can make a calculated guess only.

All that said, if "miracles" is a false assumption then so is half of the bible.

BTW. The science viewpoint is the only viewpoint that manifest hard evidence. Christian viewpoints seem to have a problems with that, seeing by faith and not facts.

 

[shmogie]

1st line of my posted was "Science viewpoint"..

Miracles and science are not compatible because miracles are supernatural and do not follow the laws of nature. Declaring something a miracle would mean you would say "The universe didn't follow the laws of nature during this event". Science doesn't do that. If it observes an event that it cannot explain with the known laws of nature, it assumes that said laws are flawed or incomplete and must be amended to include the new event.

If science were to declare an event a miracle, they would be effectively saying "We will never find a natural explanation for this event". Or, to put it more bluntly, declaring something a miracle is the epistemic equivalent of giving up.

What would be the status of laws of nature if miracles were actually to occur? First, would they cease to be genuine laws? If we say that a generalization that is violated by some event cannot be a genuine law of nature, then it would follow that miracles are logically impossible.

Following that "seeing or knowing perfectly the future" as in prophecy, is in itself a miracle. If time is following a script or is circular then free will is a false assumption, else history is created at the moment because we have free will and prophecy is a false assumption because is is impossible to be seen. And if you cant see it then its impossible to 100% reliably predict it, you can make a calculated guess only.

All that said, if "miracles" is a false assumption then so is half of the bible. No, prophecy relates to the omnipotence of God, when he reaches into history and manipulates for his own purposes. At that point in time, a personś ability to turn right instead of left, and a grander scale, may be affected for a short while. Nevertheless, the primary purpose of free will in that individual, or all, is never affected. The end of virtually all prophecy is a point of critical free will.

Miracles occur, that is, occurences that defy the man defined laws of nature. They cannot be explained by using those laws. There are laws that science isn´t aware of at play. The creator operates within the laws of his nature, we cannot define Him, there are many things we don´t know, or will ever know, our lack of knowledge is irrelevant to their existence.

BTW. The science viewpoint is the only viewpoint that manifest hard evidence. Christian viewpoints seem to have a problems with that, seeing by faith and not facts.

Since my education, training and experience is in the law, specifically criminal law, I see the term evidence differently.

There are types of evidences, all given value based upon certain criteria. Many scientific hypothesies and theories are based on little evidence, or none. They are held by faith. The singularity before the big bang, the brane theory of the universe, the first living organism from non living chemicals, are just a few. Science has itś faith, I have mine.

 

[nPeace]

A post from AngelOfLight

The general consensus among scholars is that Daniel is a pseudepigraphic work, that is, a work that was was written much later than the text claims.

• Numerous historical errors and anachronisms. The book starts by claiming that Jerusalem fell in the third year of King Jehoiakim. This contradicts all known historical evidence, including the timeline from Jeremiah. There are also a number of indications that the author confused Nebuchadrezzar with Nabonidus. One of the more important characters from the book, Darius the Mede, is totally unknown to history and appears to be either a complete fabrication or a conflation of several other people.
  
  
• The succession of nations in the book appears to be wrong. According to Daniel, it was Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. In reality, Media fell to Persia about 15 years before the fall of Babylon.
  
  
• There is ample evidence from the text that the author expected the Greek Seleucid king Antiochus IV to be the catalyst that sparked the final battle between God and ad his enemies. The author expected that this battle would end with the the destruction of the earthly system and the institution of the literal Kingdom of God.
  
  
• When read in context, all of Daniel's prophecies point to Antiochus IV. The author thus expected him to be the last King of the Seleucid line, and that the 'time of the end' would therefore be about 164 BC.
  
  
• The book of Daniel is totally unknown prior to about 150 BC. There are a number of lists of books considered sacred by the Jews - Daniel is not among them.

The original purpose of the Book of Daniel was to comfort and encourage persecuted Jews during the Maccabean revolt. It all began in December of 167 BC, when the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem with an idol bearing his likeness. He went on to force his Jewish subjects to abandon the Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws, torturing and killing all who opposed him. At this outrage, the Jews revolted under Judas Maccabeus, driving the Seleucid armies out of Palestine and recapturing the Temple. In December of 164 BC, they rededicated the Temple to Jewish worship on the first Hanukkah.

During the revolt, pious Jews began to circulate an anthology of stories allegedly written four hundred years earlier by a Jewish hero named Daniel. These stories relate how Daniel and his friends, while serving as officials in the courts of pagan kings, risked their lives to avoid breaking Jewish food laws or worshipping false gods. When the mightiest kings on Earth tried to force them to compromise their religious principles, they passively waited on God's miraculous intervention to save them. The success of Daniel's prophecies of events up to and including the atrocities of Antiochus supposedly demonstrated that God would miraculously intervene on schedule to rescue the Jews from Antiochus as well.

The prophet Daniel supposedly predicted that four great empires were to rise and fall in succession between his day and the end of the world: Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Alexander the Great's Greek Empire was to break up into four smaller empires, the most important being the Seleucid Empire in Syria to the north, and the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt to the south. After seven Greek kings ruled in succession, the eighth was to snatch the throne from three candidates who had more right to it than he did. This king, Antiochus Epiphanes, provoked the Maccabean War. The Book of Daniel predicted that God would miraculously destroy Antiochus Epiphanes, resurrect the righteous dead, and set up an everlasting, worldwide Israelite Empire three and a half years after the desecration of the Temple; in other words, the Messianic Empire should have begun in June of 163 BC. Since these predictions largely came true until the middle of the war and failed thereafter, we know that the author lived in Seleucid times, not Babylonian times.

A good read on the subject...
The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies

Misunderstanding of the books... again.
It is a fact that we have people reading in a book and believing they understand it, and then projecting their views into the reading.
How could one not find problems when they do so.

It is like those who read the books, and then date them based on what they read. Why? They just don't like the idea that anyone is a true prophet - telling the future before it happens.

There will always be unbelievers, who have opinions, and there will still be believers. Nothing changes by opinions.

 

[joelr]

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been called the greatest manuscript find of all time. Discovered between 1947 and 1956, the Dead Sea Scrolls comprise some 800 documents but in many tens of thousands of fragments. The Scrolls date from around 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. and were written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; they contain Biblical and apocryphal works, prayers and legal texts and sectarian documents.

This priceless collection of ancient manuscripts is invaluable to our understanding of the history of Judaism, the development of the Hebrew Bible, and the beginnings of Christianity.

Biblical books found
There are 225 Biblical texts included in the Dead Sea Scroll documents, or around 22% of the total, and with deuterocanonical books the number increases to 235. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of all but one of the books of the Tanakh of the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament protocanon. They also include four of the deuterocanonical books included in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles: Tobit, Ben Sirach, Baruch 6 (also known as the Letter or Epistle of Jeremiah), and Psalm 151. The Book of Esther has not yet been found and scholars believe Esther is missing because, as a Jew, her marriage to a Persian king may have been looked down upon by the inhabitants of Qumran, or because the book has the Purim festival which is not included in the Qumran calendar.:180 Listed below are the most represented books, along with the deuterocanonicals, of the Bible found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the number of translatable Dead Sea texts that represent a copy of scripture from each Biblical book:

Psalms 39
Deuteronomy 33
1 Enoch 25
Genesis 24
Isaiah 22
Jubilees 21
Exodus 18
Leviticus 17
Numbers 11
Minor Prophets 10
Daniel 8
Jeremiah 6
Ezekiel 6
Job 6
Tobit 5
1 & 2 Kings 4
1 & 2 Samuel 4
Judges 4
Song of Songs (Canticles) 4
Ruth 4
Lamentations 4
Sirach 3
Ecclesiastes 2
Joshua 2

Are The Gospels Reliable?

The DS scrolls have nothing to do with the gospels being reliable. They do however show the Christianity was much more diverse than we knew and Gnostic Christians (many who believed the resurrection was only a metaphor) was at least 50%.

The leading scholar on the scrolls is Elaine Pagels and in her book The Lost Gospels she clearly shows that the now orthodox Christians were considered heretics and was formed by power hungry bishops.

The RC church completely lied when they came out with that statement in the 1990s about how the scrolls supported modern Christianity. Scholarship finally told the truth once they got a chance to study the gospels.

 

[joelr]

Authenticity. Some critics question the authenticity of Daniel, assuming the position taken by a third-century heathen philosopher and enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was forged by a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This forger, he theorized, took past events and made them appear to be prophecies. The genuineness of the book of Daniel was not seriously questioned, however, from that day until the early part of the 18th century. Jesus Christ’s own acceptance of Daniel’s prophecy is an even more significant evidence of its authenticity.—Mt 24:15; Da 11:31.

Historical. Several manuscripts of parts of the book of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea caves. The earliest manuscript dates from the first half of the first century B.C.E.; the book of Daniel was an accepted part of the Scriptures in that time and was so well known to the Jews that many copies had already been made of it. That it was recognized as a canonical book of that time is supported by the writer of the Apocryphal, but historical, book of First Maccabees (2:59, 60), who made reference to Daniel’s deliverance from the den of lions, and that of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace.

We have also the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus, who states that the prophecies of Daniel were shown to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. This occurred in about 332 B.C.E., more than 150 years before the Maccabean period. Josephus says of the event: “When the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated.” (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5]) History also recounts that Alexander bestowed great favors on the Jews, and this is believed to have been because of what Daniel said about him in prophecy.

Language. Daniel 1:1–2:4a and 8:1–12:13 are written in Hebrew, while Daniel 2:4b–7:28 is written in Aramaic. Regarding the vocabulary used in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, p. 860) says: “When the Aramaic vocabulary of Daniel is examined, nine-tenths of it can be attested immediately from West Semitic inscriptions, or papyri from the 5th cent. B.C. or earlier. The remaining words have been found in sources such as Nabatean or Palmyrene Aramaic, which are later than the 5th cent. B.C. While it is at least theoretically possible that this small balance of vocabulary suddenly originated after the 5th cent. B.C., it is equally possible to argue from a fifth-century B.C. written form to an earlier oral one. By far the most probable explanation, however, is that the missing tenth represents nothing more serious than a gap in our current knowledge of the linguistic situation, which we may confidently expect to be filled in process of time.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1979.

There are some so-called Persian words in Daniel, but in view of the frequent dealings that the Jews had with Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others, this is not unusual. Furthermore, most of the foreign names used by Daniel are names of officials, articles of clothing, legal terms, and such, for which the Hebrew or Aramaic of the time apparently had no equally suitable terms. Daniel was writing for his people who were for the most part in Babylonia, and many were scattered in other places at this time. Therefore, he wrote in language that would be understandable to them.

Doctrinal. Some critics object because Daniel alludes to the resurrection. (Da 12:13) They assume that this is a doctrine that was developed later or was taken from a pagan belief, but the reference in Daniel is in agreement with the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, which contains statements of belief in a resurrection. (Job 14:13, 15; Ps 16:10) Also, there are actual instances of resurrection. (1Ki 17:21, 22;2Ki 4:22-37; 13:20, 21) And on no less authority than the apostle Paul we have the statement that Abraham had faith in the raising up of the dead (Heb 11:17-19) and also that other faithful servants of God of ancient times looked forward to the resurrection. (Heb 11:13, 35-40; Ro 4:16, 17) Jesus himself said: “But that the dead are raised up even Moses disclosed, in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’”—Lu 20:37.

Those who claim that the book is not really prophetic but was written after the events occurred would have to move up the time of writing of the book beyond the days of Jesus’ ministry on earth, for the ninth chapter admittedly contains a prophecy concerning the Messiah’s appearance and sacrifice. (Da 9:25-27) Also, the prophecy continues on and recounts the history of the kingdoms that would rule right down to “the time of the end,” when they will be destroyed by the Kingdom of God in the hands of his Messiah.—Da 7:9-14, 25-27; 2:44; 11:35, 40.

Yeah yeah, I meant 2nd century BC. Obviously the OT is from OT times.
It's silly that people think the NT wasn't written and taken directly from the OT.
Of course prophecies from the OT were fulfilled? The NT was written to look like that?

We know the NT was a re-write of he OT.

Here we can see where Luke borrowed material from Kings:
at 23:00

 

[joelr]

Is there any evidence outside the Gospels to indicate their reliability?

Luke 3:1, 2
Tiberius - Wikipedia
Tiberius (/taɪˈbɪəriəs/; Latin: Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus; 16 November 42 BC – 16 March 37 AD) was Roman emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD, succeeding the first emperor, Augustus.

The tribute penny mentioned in the Bible is commonly believed to be a Roman denarius depicting the Emperor Tiberius.

Silver denarius of Tiberius 14CE 37CE found in India Indian copy of a the same 1st century CE Coin of Kushan king Kujula Kadphises

I don't get it?

First they just said "commonly believed", not proven.

But also, so one of the anonymous NT writers mentioned something real? In superhero movies they often show NY city as well as many other accurate cultural references. That doesn't mean that Iron Man is a real person?

Again, every single possible mention of Jesus is covered here by experts, including a pastor who believes in some form of Christianity:

the consensus is clear, we cannot know if the gospels are reliable by historical fact.

 

[joelr]

Since my education, training and experience is in the law, specifically criminal law, I see the term evidence differently.

There are types of evidences, all given value based upon certain criteria. Many scientific hypothesies and theories are based on little evidence, or none. They are held by faith. The singularity before the big bang, the brane theory of the universe, the first living organism from non living chemicals, are just a few. Science has itś faith, I have mine.

All of those science ideas are based on mathematical realities. No scientist has faith in them. They look for predictions that the model makes and then find ways to test them.
Once a theory fails in it's predictions or is replaced by a more likely theory scientists abandom the old theory.

What they never do is say "I know science is telling me this theory is probably wrong but I'm going to keep having faith in it". That never happens. Even if one scientist holds onto an idea for emotional reasons the next generation has no such attachments. Like with Hoyle and his steady-state universe.

Conjectures and possibly hypothesis could be based on little or no evidence but a theory has to have some formal backing. If it doesn't it isn't a theory, it's a conjecture and treated as such.

 

[nPeace]

The DS scrolls have nothing to do with the gospels being reliable. They do however show the Christianity was much more diverse than we knew and Gnostic Christians (many who believed the resurrection was only a metaphor) was at least 50%.

The leading scholar on the scrolls is Elaine Pagels and in her book The Lost Gospels she clearly shows that the now orthodox Christians were considered heretics and was formed by power hungry bishops.

The RC church completely lied when they came out with that statement in the 1990s about how the scrolls supported modern Christianity. Scholarship finally told the truth once they got a chance to study the gospels.

Did I say anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls having anything to do with the reliability of the Gospels? I don't recall saying that.
Are you certain you read the post carefully?

 

[nPeace]

I don't get it?

First they just said "commonly believed", not proven.

But also, so one of the anonymous NT writers mentioned something real? In superhero movies they often show NY city as well as many other accurate cultural references. That doesn't mean that Iron Man is a real person?

Again, every single possible mention of Jesus is covered here by experts, including a pastor who believes in some form of Christianity:

the consensus is clear, we cannot know if the gospels are reliable by historical fact.

We cannot know a lot of things, that's why atheist believe what they do, and Christians believe what they do.
However, the opinions of atheist are not the Christian Greek Scriptures. Did you read the information I posted?
It can be confirmed.

 

[Dell]

the brane theory of the universe

What is that?

Since my education, training and experience is in the law, specifically criminal law, I see the term evidence differently.

There are types of evidences, all given value based upon certain criteria. Many scientific hypothesies and theories are based on little evidence, or none. They are held by faith. The singularity before the big bang, the brane theory of the universe, the first living organism from non living chemicals, are just a few. Science has itś faith, I have mine.

No doubt there is some believing or putting faith in a hypothesis, and there be many of scientist or professors who will not admit that there is a thread of faith or belief in their work. Many of those in the end abandon a fruitless endeavor realizing they put more faith than reason and wasted valuable time. Read biography of Einstein, he had to abandon alot of work and change alot of his thinking. Science doesn't claim to be infallible, it's ever evolving with new discoveries as they come into the light as you might say. That's a major difference between sciences faith and religions faith.

 

[Dell]

Yeah yeah, I meant 2nd century BC. Obviously the OT is from OT times.
It's silly that people think the NT wasn't written and taken directly from the OT.
Of course prophecies from the OT were fulfilled? The NT was written to look like that?

We know the NT was a re-write of he OT.

Here we can see where Luke borrowed material from Kings:
at 23:00

Richard Carrier is way to far radical on the side of mythisist trying to prove Jesus never existed. He nauseates even atheists listening to him because of his obsessed hatred of Christianity. I would recommend to read or watch lectures of Bart Ehrman, you'll get a lot more church and manuscript history from a scholarly perspective.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's interesting. Can you give examples of the independent corroborations of prophecy? I can see that could be quite compelling to an outsider.

As one example, the Bible predicted Israel would be a Jewish nation again in (inside the Gentile calendar) 1948 CE.

 

[shmogie]

What is that?

No doubt there is some believing or putting faith in a hypothesis, and there be many of scientist or professors who will not admit that there is a thread of faith or belief in their work. Many of those in the end abandon a fruitless endeavor realizing they put more faith than reason and wasted valuable time. Read biography of Einstein, he had to abandon alot of work and change alot of his thinking. Science doesn't claim to be infallible, it's ever evolving with new discoveries as they come into the light as you might say. That's a major difference between sciences faith and religions faith.

Faith isn´t evidence. Evidence leads to faith.

 

[shmogie]

All of those science ideas are based on mathematical realities. No scientist has faith in them. They look for predictions that the model makes and then find ways to test them.
Once a theory fails in it's predictions or is replaced by a more likely theory scientists abandom the old theory.

What they never do is say "I know science is telling me this theory is probably wrong but I'm going to keep having faith in it". That never happens. Even if one scientist holds onto an idea for emotional reasons the next generation has no such attachments. Like with Hoyle and his steady-state universe.

Conjectures and possibly hypothesis could be based on little or no evidence but a theory has to have some formal backing. If it doesn't it isn't a theory, it's a conjecture and treated as such.

Science uses a set of rules as to how and why a certain piece of information has evidentiary value. Using those rules, an eyewitness account of a bank robbery would be of no value. Science and itś methodology leads to certain interpretations, within the framework of that methodology. Science is not the measuring stick of the entire human experience.
Tell me, do you believe abiogenesis occurred ? If so, why ? It has never been observed, itś mechanism is unknown, the environment in which it allegedly occurred is unknown, the alleged precursor chemicals are unknown as is their mixture proportions. Thousands of scientists believe in it with fervor, with not one reason to do so other than faith.

 

[shmogie]

The DS scrolls have nothing to do with the gospels being reliable. They do however show the Christianity was much more diverse than we knew and Gnostic Christians (many who believed the resurrection was only a metaphor) was at least 50%.

The leading scholar on the scrolls is Elaine Pagels and in her book The Lost Gospels she clearly shows that the now orthodox Christians were considered heretics and was formed by power hungry bishops.

The RC church completely lied when they came out with that statement in the 1990s about how the scrolls supported modern Christianity. Scholarship finally told the truth once they got a chance to study the gospels.

The alleged lost Gospel are all newer than the canonical Gospels, in some cases by centuries.

There is no doubt that all she postulates doesn´t apply to the Apostolic Church, detailed in the Bible, nor the immediate Post Apostolic Church from which letters show the canon about 80% in use.

Gnosticism always was a minority sect, proclaimed heretical by Paul an Apostle, acknowledged as being so by the other Apostles.

The issues at the council of Nicea were between Arianism and Trinitarianism, Gnosticism had virtually ceased to exist. c. 300 AD

Yes, as predicted in the NT, the Church began radically changing for base reasons, it would have been unrecognizable by the Apostles earlier than 300 AD.

 

[metis]

The Church actually didn't change that much except for the fact that since it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and because it grew so rapidly it had to make some pretty significant adjustments.

Where the Church really got into trouble is especially when it aligned itself with the secular powers, often for good reason, but still that created serious problems both in terms of secular influence but also materialism as it became a way for all too many clergy to acquire wealth and power. Centuries later the Church countered by insisting on celibacy and, eventually, limiting income. The monastic orders also helped along this line by setting examples, including many that took vows of poverty.