• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

Esteban X

Active Member
For me there is much evidence that the Bible is the word of God in fulfilled prophecy. So that gives me confidence in the other things it says. I'm not saying that is sufficient proof for you. But that is one of the reasons I believe it.
I question "fulfilled prophecy". In many cases the prophecy is made after the fact, is so vague and general it could be fulfilled by any event, or people actively seek to fulfill the prophecy.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I do not believe that leprechauns exist. And I believe that leprechauns don't exist. That is saying the same thing in two different ways.
It is not.

The first is not being convinced of a claim: that claim being "leprechauns exist"
The second is being convinced of a claim: that claim being "leprechauns DO NOT exist"


These are 2 different claims. One claims the existence of X. The second claims the non-existence of X.

Not being convinced of claim 1, does not auto-magically mean you are convinced of claim 2.

Creationists seems to have a big problem understanding that concept.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That would be time wasting...if the universe has no logical beginning, it's cyclical, one is striving for what exactly...circular reasoning?
What do you mean by a "logical beginning"? I have never heard of logic entering the argument. That is unless one makes the error of assuming the existence of a god. Hmm, perhaps you could find a way to get evidence for your god if you could design a testable hypothesis around your claim.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.

Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
Another is the pattern of accuracy. If book that was supposedly written in 1780 predicts a future President, Donald Trump, and gets quite a bit of the history of 2016 right but somehow messes up quite often on the history of the late 18th century, George Washington manning the airports for example, then we could be pretty sure that it was not written in 1780 but some some time after 2016. I do believe that some of the "prophecies" of the Bible follow that pattern.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.

Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
Can you tell me which you are referring to specifically?
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
The Old Testament was well known to the authors of the New Testament. The New testament authors tailored their narratives to reflect the OT narratives, bolstering the authority of the new scripture.
Hi Valjean,
I wasn't talking about the NT at that point. I was referring to OT scriptures and their prophecy.

I agree with your first sentence. Can you prove your last claim above?
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.

Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
Do you consider the dates given by the writers of the books to be evidence? I suspect not.

Can you give me dates you would accept for the books of Jeremiah, and Daniel being written by?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you consider the dates given by the writers of the books to be evidence? I suspect not.
Very poor evidence, at best. It is easy enough for a writer at a later date to *claim* an earlier date and *claim* to be by the prophet. Such writing by later authors is *common* in ancient texts. Given that 'publication' wasn't a thing at the time, there would be very little to dispute such claims.
Can you give me dates you would accept for the books of Jeremiah, and Daniel being written by?
Jeremiah: This book has two textual traditions, a shorter one in Greek contained in the Septuagint (so third century) and a shorter Masoretic one in Hebrew dating from the 2nd century BC. The Greek was certainly the product of an oral tradition going back farther, but it was also extensively rewritten before the final version. In any case, internal evidence shows it to be from the early Persian period (after 539BC).


Daniel: Authored in the 2nd century BC and talking *about* events in the 6th century BC.


So, to answer your question, the 2nd century BC is a good date for both as to the final form. The Greek version, by the very fact that it is in Greek, puts it after the time of Alexander the Great.

Now, if you want to dispute the conclusions of Biblical scholars, maybe you could give evidence (say, a text from before those dates).
 
Last edited:
Top