Prophecy

Author: disgusted

Posts

Total: 75
#31
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
“Seventy ‘sevens’ meaningless
Seventy septets [of years] No mention of years

Seventy weeks [of years]No mention of years
Complete failure.
Your argument is weak when even Jewish sites understand the reference as being 490 years. God judged the Jews with a seventy-year exile from the land with the Babylonian conquest, per the curses of Deuteronomy 28. Some understand this as a judgment from God for not obeying the Sabbath rest for the land. 

Israel had apparently failed to observe the land’s one-year-in-seven sabbath for 490 years, so the term of the Babylonian captivity was set at 70 years to make up the deficit. 2 Chron. 36:21 says, “The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested,
until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.” 
This is a reference to Jeremiah 25:11.

I see it as a multiple of the first 70-year exile because the people failed to heed the warning and per Leviticus 28:18. 

Leviticus 26:17-19 (NASB)
17 I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you
will flee when no one is pursuing you. 
18 If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 
19 I will also break down your pride of power; I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze.

Fact, they were carried away to Babylon because of their sins for seventy years.


2 Chronicles 36:20-21 (NASB)
20 Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete.


Fact, after their return from Babylon they continued to sin so God warned Daniel the punishment would be seven times more severe per Leviticus 26:18 the next time He judged them, per Daniel 9:24 - seventy sevens has been decreed for your people. 

So, God is going to judge them again in the future for seventy years plus an additional multiple of seven times for their sin.




Here is what the failed prophesy actually says:

 Seventy weeks

I pointed out the distinction. 

It depends on the TRANSLATION.

Daniel 9:24 (NIV)
24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

So, just as God judged them for seventy years the next time He would judge them seven times seventy years. 



#32
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

(24) Seventy septets [of years] have been decreed on your people and the city of your Sanctuary [for you] to make an end of transgression, to atone for sin and to wipe away iniquity, to bring about universal justice, to confirm the visions and the prophets and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
"The history of the Persian Achæmenid period as recorded in the Scriptures is fragmented and obscure, and is impossible to decipher by reference to the Scriptural accounts alone. Even the "traditional" Hebrew chronology, preserved in the Talmuds and other ancient Hebrew writings such as the Midrashic history Séder Olam, doesn't help much because, being an orally-transmitted tradition, it sadly became somewhat garbled through telling and re-telling. However, thanks to Claudius Ptolemæus's Κανον Βασιλεον ("Canon of the Kings" or "Royal Canon") and the work of modern archæologists and secular historians, we do have a fair idea of what was actually happening during that period, and a reasonably reliable time-line."

Using the Ptolemaic chronology the dates do not line up with Cyrus' issuing of the decree, but as laid out by Philip Mauro in his work, Seventy Weeks:

"Concerning the dates given in Ptolemy's table of Persian Kings, Anstey says: "They rest upon calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and on certain vague floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years." And he shows, by a great variety of proofs taken entirely from the Scriptures, that the period which Ptolemy assigns to the Persian Empire is about eighty years too long. It follows that all who adopt Ptolemy's chronology, or any system based upon it (as all modern chronologists prior to Anstey do) would inevitably be led far astray. It is impossible to make the real Bible-events agree, within 80 years, with the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy. This single fact makes many modern books on Daniel utterly worthless, so far as their chronology is concerned; and the chronology is the main thing.
CONCERNING ECLIPSES
     An attempt has been made to call Astronomy to the aid of the defective Chronology of Ptolemy, by utilizing certain incidental references, contained in fragmentary historical records, to eclipses of the sun or moon. But such references are of no value whatever for the purpose, seeing that it is impossible to determine, in any given case, which one of a number of eclipses- within say fifty or a hundred years- was the one referred to. For example, one of the clearest of these historical references is that of the "Eclipse of Thales," mentioned by Herodotous. This eclipse is located by one astronomer as occurring in 625 B. C.; by another as late as 585 B. C. (a difference of 40 years); and by others at different dates in between (Anstey, p. 286).
     We see then first that the method adopted in current expositions of the Seventy Weeks prophecy is fundamentally wrong; and second that the chronological system on which they are all based is formed largely by guesswork, and is certainly very wide of the mark as regards the length of the Persian Empire.

I already laid out how Anstey arrived at the biblical timeline in an earlier post that you failed to comment upon. 

24Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
 No years are mentioned in the prophesy and so it is a failed prophesy.


No, for if Anstey's account is true then the dates point to the time of Jesus. But some argue the prophecy does not have to line up exactly to 490 years. The start and end dates would be known by the issuing of the decree by Cyrus and the destruction of the city and temple.  

#33
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Daniel 9:24 (NIV)
24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness,to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
Is still seventy weeks, a year and a half.
A week is SEVEN days. Thus seventy times (one week) seven. 

#34
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I was wondering if you know why it is so important that the passage is presented as not merely a prophesy but a prophesy of AD70.
God's original covenant was with the Hebrews/Jews, but at some point a second covenant with all mankind was established.

The critical thing about AD70 is that it was when the Jewish state and people (represented by the 2nd temple) were destroyed in a war with the Romans.  Israel would not exist again until 1948.  

By setting the date of the new covenant with God as AD70 it can be presented not a an expansion of the coventant to include gentiles but an actual switch in God's favour from Jew to Gentile.
#35
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

I say its not a prophesy at all.

I could copy and paste from here, but I will link to it instead.


It's not the last word in scholarship, but it is very readable.  The section on Daniel and the 'seventy weeks' is on page 612.


It concerns Daniel 11 and 12. There is no way that Daniel 2:44, 9:24-27, or 12 refers to the time of "Ptolemy III, who reigned from 246 to 221 b.c." 

I already addressed the argument regarding Daniel and the scenario that Daniel was written before Antiochus III or IV, not after. I also see a distinction between the prophecy about Antiochus and the prophecy about the end times. The Bible uses various terms for the end of the Mosaic covenant such as the last days, latter times, the day of wrath, the day of vengeance, the end of the age, etc. Daniel 9:24 says that with the destruction of the city and temple everlasting righteousness would be established. The Mosaic covenant could never establish everlasting righteousness. Righteousness was only as good as the next time Israel sinned, then another sin offering to atone for the people's sins had to be offered. 



#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I was wondering if you know why it is so important that the passage is presented as not merely a prophesy but a prophesy of AD70. 
God's original covenant was with the Hebrews/Jews, but at some point a second covenant with all mankind was established.
The critical thing about AD70 is that it was when the Jewish state and people (represented by the 2nd temple) were destroyed in a war with the Romans.  Israel would not exist again until 1948.
By setting the date of the new covenant with God as AD70 it can be presented not a an expansion of the coventant to include gentiles but an actual switch in God's favour from Jew to Gentile.
Any historical evidence would simply be evidence that someone made a claim and wrote it down.

It is not evidence of any sort of commitment from gods.
#37
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
And trying to argue about any of them is the epistemological equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
I'm willing to do that if you want to supply the counter argument? 
My "counter argument" is simply granting you "the text is historically accurate".
If you grant the biblical texts are accurate then you need to show they are not a revelation from God for they make this claim thousands of times in that they say, "the LORD said," "God spoke...," "the word of the LORD...," and so on.  


And even "the gospels" that you highlighted, if taken as historically authentic, they are, at most, accurate accounts of what the authors themselves believed to be true at the time.  The Jesus said, "this and that and some other thing" and sure, maybe that person existed and maybe they even said that stuff, but that doesn't make any supernatural claims any more likely to be true than if someone said that same stuff today.
And what do you have from the early historical record that counter them? 
My "counter argument" is simply granting you "the text is historically accurate".

If you grant historical accuracy then you add additional evidence to the claim that Jesus was a real, true to life Person, which contradicts what you said earlier about Him as not real. 


All of the "authentication" claims that supposedly fit the Jewish and Christian writings also apply equally well to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

And the Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly older and better authenticated.  The earliest tablets that record the Epic of Gilgamesh are estimated to be from about 3000 BCE.  The oldest surviving record of the Jewish stories are from about 300 BCE.
The question is which borrowed from the other since Moses states that the written genealogical records were handed down and he compiled them into the Torah. 
I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter who borrowed from whom, if you agree that they are BOTH historically accurate.
First, what do you see as accurate about the Epic of Gilgamesh so we can compare the claims? They both state a worldwide flood. I agree that they are both historical artifacts but I question the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh as being the source of the biblical accounts. I see the Epic of Gilgamesh as a somewhat hearsay of the biblical accounts that Moses, inspired by God, wrote down giving the true account. 



Christians seem to understand that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than both Judaism and Christianity and that Gilgamesh himself was very likely a historical king.  And it seems like it would be difficult for them to deny the accounts that "the first man was made of mud" and "the gods sent a great flood because the humans displeased them" and "one of the gods decided to warn one of their followers about the flood before it happened" without being incredulous about those same exact stories written in their own special books.

But even then, a Christian has the impulse to believe that even if some of that stuff is true, that doesn't mean the ancient Sumerian gods were "real".
Some Christians act on impulse, others have investigated the evidence and data. And the non-Christian has the impulse to believe that some of the biblical accounts are untrue. 
Historical accuracy does not "prove" supernatural claims.
It gives evidence of the reasonableness of it since if it is accurate on history then why is it not accurate on God?


And so, any Jewish or Christian arguments attempting to claim "historical accuracy" of their ancient texts are absolutely and utterly moot. 
No, they are not. It is reasonable and logical evidence.
Historical accuracy does not "prove" supernatural claims.

The Bible does not depend on historical verification alone. There are many other lines of reason. Considering the number of authors claiming to speak from God and their consistent themes and unity through centuries is just one such line of reason apart from history and prophecy. As I mentioned, every OT writing has a typology of Jesus Christ that cannot easily be explained away because of the details.  

#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you grant the biblical texts are accurate then you need to show they are not a revelation from God for they make this claim thousands of times in that they say, "the LORD said," "God spoke...," "the word of the LORD...," and so on.  
"Historically accurate" =/= 100% true.

If you grant historical accuracy then you add additional evidence to the claim that Jesus was a real, true to life Person, which contradicts what you said earlier about Him as not real. 
"Historically accurate" = The Jesus is a historical figure.

First, what do you see as accurate about the Epic of Gilgamesh so we can compare the claims? They both state a worldwide flood. I agree that they are both historical artifacts but I question the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh as being the source of the biblical accounts. I see the Epic of Gilgamesh as a somewhat hearsay of the biblical accounts that Moses, inspired by God, wrote down giving the true account. - https://www.compellingtruth.org/Gilgamesh-flood.html 
That was written down thousands of years before Abraham was even born.  And I'm sure you agree that the age of a lie does not make it true.

It gives evidence of the reasonableness of it since if it is accurate on history then why is it not accurate on God?
In the same way that you can believe there was a great flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but you don't believe that means Ishtar is a goddess.

Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods. [LINK]

The Bible does not depend on historical verification alone. There are many other lines of reason. Considering the number of authors claiming to speak from God and their consistent themes and unity through centuries is just one such line of reason apart from history and prophecy. As I mentioned, every OT writing has a typology of Jesus Christ that cannot easily be explained away because of the details.  
If there were 100 different sources that were internally consistent, logically and stylistically, that claimed, for example, "Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods." [LINK]

The stylistic and logical coherence would mean nothing to you.
#39
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you grant the biblical texts are accurate then you need to show they are not a revelation from God for they make this claim thousands of times in that they say, "the LORD said," "God spoke...," "the word of the LORD...," and so on.  
"Historically accurate" =/= 100% true.
It gives credibility to the biblical claims. They are reasonable to believe. If they are truthful on one thing why not on others when the evidence points to other information as reasonable. It is just one confirmation but it shows the Bible can be trusted regarding history. If I told you I saw someone putting a body in your trunk and others back up the claim then you open the trunk and find a body there, you would be more inclined to believe me when I described the person who did this.


If you grant historical accuracy then you add additional evidence to the claim that Jesus was a real, true to life Person, which contradicts what you said earlier about Him as not real. 
"Historically accurate" = The Jesus is a historical figure.
Your point?


First, what do you see as accurate about the Epic of Gilgamesh so we can compare the claims? They both state a worldwide flood. I agree that they are both historical artifacts but I question the accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh as being the source of the biblical accounts. I see the Epic of Gilgamesh as a somewhat hearsay of the biblical accounts that Moses, inspired by God, wrote down giving the true account. - https://www.compellingtruth.org/Gilgamesh-flood.html 
That was written down thousands of years before Abraham was even born.  And I'm sure you agree that the age of a lie does not make it true.

I'm not following your connection between Abraham and the Flood?

There are many accounts of a worldwide flood in ancient folklore. It means many people believed in such a flood. If there were so many it stands to reason that one belief or one account set in motion others since a worldwide flood would have eliminated and decimated humanity.  

#40
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

It gives evidence of the reasonableness of it since if it is accurate on history then why is it not accurate on God?
In the same way that you can believe there was a great flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but you don't believe that means Ishtar is a goddess.

Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods. [LINK]
Again. all this proves is that one borrowed from the other. Since you have records that are earlier you believe that the biblical record is the later record. As I said before, this is not necessarily the case. These accounts could very well have been corrupted and then written down and the biblical account makes many claims that can be backed up in its revelation. Back up these other claims to the same degree. 


The Bible does not depend on historical verification alone. There are many other lines of reason. Considering the number of authors claiming to speak from God and their consistent themes and unity through centuries is just one such line of reason apart from history and prophecy. As I mentioned, every OT writing has a typology of Jesus Christ that cannot easily be explained away because of the details.  
If there were 100 different sources that were internally consistent, logically and stylistically, that claimed, for example, "Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods." [LINK]

The stylistic and logical coherence would mean nothing to you.

It would mean that one account or some parts of an account may very well be accurate, but the rest corrupted since the contradictions. You assume the Epic came first because it predates the biblical writings. What it does is avoids the biblical prophecies by a tangent on the Flood. The Flood is an account, not prophecy.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
"Historically accurate" =/= 100% true.
It gives credibility to the biblical claims. They are reasonable to believe. If they are truthful on one thing why not on others when the evidence points to other information as reasonable. It is just one confirmation but it shows the Bible can be trusted regarding history. If I told you I saw someone putting a body in your trunk and others back up the claim then you open the trunk and find a body there, you would be more inclined to believe me when I described the person who did this.
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.

"Historically accurate" = The Jesus is a historical figure.
Your point?
Historical The Jesus =/= gods.

Historical Joseph Smith =/= The Angel Moroni.

Historical Lafayette Ronald Hubbard =/= Xenu

That (Gilgamesh) was written down thousands of years before Abraham was even born.  And I'm sure you agree that the age of a lie does not make it true.
I'm not following your connection between Abraham and the Flood? 

There are many accounts of a worldwide flood in ancient folklore. It means many people believed in such a flood. If there were so many it stands to reason that one belief or one account set in motion others since a worldwide flood would have eliminated and decimated humanity.  
Look, if there was only "one family of survivors" from this legendary flood, it would make sense that only one version of it would survive.

But you're missing the point.  Just because we can verify there was some sort of flood in that area around that time does not mean "gods are real".
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods. [LINK]
Again. all this proves is that one borrowed from the other.
It "proves" no such thing.

Since you have records that are earlier you believe that the biblical record is the later record. As I said before, this is not necessarily the case.
You are correct.  But it doesn't matter which one came "first" because neither one of them proves "gods".

These accounts could very well have been corrupted and then written down and the biblical account makes many claims that can be backed up in its revelation. Back up these other claims to the same degree. 
Are you talking specifically about "The Book of Revelation"?

If there were 100 different sources that were internally consistent, logically and stylistically, that claimed, for example, "Anu, the god of gods, agreed that their labour was too great. His son Enki, or Ea, proposed to create man to bear the labour, and so, with the help of his half-sister Ninki, he did. A god was put to death, and his body and blood was mixed with clay. From that material the first human being was created, in likeness to the gods." [LINK]

The stylistic and logical coherence would mean nothing to you.
It would mean that one account or some parts of an account may very well be accurate, but the rest corrupted since the contradictions. You assume the Epic came first because it predates the biblical writings. What it does is avoids the biblical prophecies by a tangent on the Flood. The Flood is an account, not prophecy.
The flood was prophesied before it happened!

You make a great point, "It would mean that one account or some parts of an account may very well be accurate, but the rest corrupted since the contradictions."

In other words, just because some of the story might be historically accurate, it does not mean that any of the rest of it is any more likely to be true.
#43
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
"Historically accurate" =/= 100% true.
It gives credibility to the biblical claims. They are reasonable to believe. If they are truthful on one thing why not on others when the evidence points to other information as reasonable. It is just one confirmation but it shows the Bible can be trusted regarding history. If I told you I saw someone putting a body in your trunk and others back up the claim then you open the trunk and find a body there, you would be more inclined to believe me when I described the person who did this.
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.

You seem to think that the argument for God is contained in one bucket so that when you establish a leak you lose all the water. History (His Story) is just one aspect of the argument and worldview, just like your atheistic system of belief is built on many different ideas, but core beliefs sustain it. The credibility is from the whole system. When you realize there is a leak in one bucket and you are losing water you forget that there is a network of buckets underneath that catches the water. 


"Historically accurate" = The Jesus is a historical figure.
Your point?
Historical The Jesus =/= gods.

Historical Joseph Smith =/= The Angel Moroni.

Historical Lafayette Ronald Hubbard =/= Xenu

The examples are not equitable. Where did any of these others claim to be God or where did they give proof? Where did they claim to rise from the dead or claim to fulfill numerous prophecies?
#44
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
That (Gilgamesh) was written down thousands of years before Abraham was even born.  And I'm sure you agree that the age of a lie does not make it true.
I'm not following your connection between Abraham and the Flood? 

There are many accounts of a worldwide flood in ancient folklore. It means many people believed in such a flood. If there were so many it stands to reason that one belief or one account set in motion others since a worldwide flood would have eliminated and decimated humanity.  
Look, if there was only "one family of survivors" from this legendary flood, it would make sense that only one version of it would survive.

But you're missing the point.  Just because we can verify there was some sort of flood in that area around that time does not mean "gods are real".

It would be another confirmation that points towards the claim though, wouldn't it?

#45
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
"Historically accurate" =/= 100% true.
It gives credibility to the biblical claims. They are reasonable to believe. If they are truthful on one thing why not on others when the evidence points to other information as reasonable. It is just one confirmation but it shows the Bible can be trusted regarding history. If I told you I saw someone putting a body in your trunk and others back up the claim then you open the trunk and find a body there, you would be more inclined to believe me when I described the person who did this.
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.
It depends on how unified the accounts and details are to its confirmation, for a religious claim is a worldview. How does the worldview make sense of life?

That (Gilgamesh) was written down thousands of years before Abraham was even born.  And I'm sure you agree that the age of a lie does not make it true.
I'm not following your connection between Abraham and the Flood? 

There are many accounts of a worldwide flood in ancient folklore. It means many people believed in such a flood. If there were so many it stands to reason that one belief or one account set in motion others since a worldwide flood would have eliminated and decimated humanity.  
Look, if there was only "one family of survivors" from this legendary flood, it would make sense that only one version of it would survive.
No, not necessarily. As the family multiplied and settled in other areas over generations the account would become corrupted by some or all. The biblical account does not claim it is corrupted but a true account because its source is God. 


But you're missing the point.  Just because we can verify there was some sort of flood in that area around that time does not mean "gods are real".

Again, it is just one line of evidence that points to God. That is the point. 
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.
You seem to think that the argument for God is contained in one bucket so that when you establish a leak you lose all the water. History (His Story) is just one aspect of the argument and worldview, just like your atheistic system of belief is built on many different ideas, but core beliefs sustain it. The credibility is from the whole system. When you realize there is a leak in one bucket and you are losing water you forget that there is a network of buckets underneath that catches the water. 
What I'm saying is that, in the same way that you can believe some historical events in The Epic of Gilgamesh, and yet, you do not believe every single word, especially the references to the gods.

In the same way, I can believe some historical events in what you might call "the holy scriptures" but that does not mean I believe every single word, especially the references to the gods.

Historical The Jesus =/= gods.

Historical Joseph Smith =/= The Angel Moroni.

Historical Lafayette Ronald Hubbard =/= Xenu
The examples are not equitable. Where did any of these others claim to be God or where did they give proof? Where did they claim to rise from the dead or claim to fulfill numerous prophecies?
Just because these people lived and were presumably sincere, does not lend any credibility to their claims about gods, prima facie.

Just because these people made claims that were somewhat different than The Jesus, does not lend any particular claim about gods either more or less credibility.
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.
It depends on how unified the accounts and details are to its confirmation, for a religious claim is a worldview. How does the worldview make sense of life?
Historical credibility does not lend credibility to unverifiable claims.

Look, if there was only "one family of survivors" from this legendary flood, it would make sense that only one version of it would survive.
No, not necessarily. As the family multiplied and settled in other areas over generations the account would become corrupted by some or all. The biblical account does not claim it is corrupted but a true account because its source is God. 
On the one hand you seem to be suggesting that stories become corrupted over time.

And on the other hand you seem to be suggesting that the oldest version of the story is the least accurate.

But you're missing the point.  Just because we can verify there was some sort of flood in that area around that time does not mean "gods are real".
Again, it is just one line of evidence that points to God. That is the point. 
Unverifiable claims are neither scientific nor logical "evidence", no matter how old they might be.
#48
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.
You seem to think that the argument for God is contained in one bucket so that when you establish a leak you lose all the water. History (His Story) is just one aspect of the argument and worldview, just like your atheistic system of belief is built on many different ideas, but core beliefs sustain it. The credibility is from the whole system. When you realize there is a leak in one bucket and you are losing water you forget that there is a network of buckets underneath that catches the water. 
What I'm saying is that, in the same way that you can believe some historical events in The Epic of Gilgamesh, and yet, you do not believe every single word, especially the references to the gods.
I take it "you" is generic, not specific. I trust the whole Bible as a revelation from God although I realize there is a difficulty in understanding what the meaning was to the culture of the day in our day. The audience of address would not have the same understanding (I would argue a greater understanding) of many of the things we do today. Our cultures are radically different. 


In the same way, I can believe some historical events in what you might call "the holy scriptures" but that does not mean I believe every single word, especially the references to the gods.
That is again a difference between you and me. I do not believe in any other god, however. 


Historical The Jesus =/= gods.

Historical Joseph Smith =/= The Angel Moroni.

Historical Lafayette Ronald Hubbard =/= Xenu
The examples are not equitable. Where did any of these others claim to be God or where did they give proof? Where did they claim to rise from the dead or claim to fulfill numerous prophecies?
Just because these people lived and were presumably sincere, does not lend any credibility to their claims about gods, prima facie.
That is your judgment, not mine. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a text on evidence used in courts of law considered their claims so credible that he became a Christian. He discussed his view in a book he wrote, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. While that means nothing to you and you can chalk it up to a logical fallacy, he was an expert in what constitutes evidence. 


Just because these people made claims that were somewhat different than The Jesus, does not lend any particular claim about gods either more or less credibility.


They never made the claim to be God, nor were their tombs said to be found empty, nor did their followers claim their leader had risen from the dead, nor did Jesus' followers disavow the claim when faced with death according to tradition. These people did not change the world with their teaching. Their beliefs have not filled the world with their message. The Gospel of Jesus Christ has. 
Topic's author
#49
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
A week is SEVEN days. Thus seventy times (one week) seven. 

You mean 490 days, well done you. No matter what lie you tell, the alleged prophesy says 70 weeks and therefore is a failed "prophesy"

#50
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you took a very very old history book, and then some ancient scribe added a bunch of unverifiable details about gods, this would not lend any credibility to the unverifiable details about the gods.  You know this.
It depends on how unified the accounts and details are to its confirmation, for a religious claim is a worldview. How does the worldview make sense of life?
Historical credibility does not lend credibility to unverifiable claims.
Many of the claims are verified, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, per many OT warnings of just that.


Look, if there was only "one family of survivors" from this legendary flood, it would make sense that only one version of it would survive.
No, not necessarily. As the family multiplied and settled in other areas over generations the account would become corrupted by some or all. The biblical account does not claim it is corrupted but a true account because its source is God. 
On the one hand you seem to be suggesting that stories become corrupted over time.

And on the other hand you seem to be suggesting that the oldest version of the story is the least accurate.
My belief is that the oldest account of the Flood is the biblical account although that cannot be proven from the historical record. But I believe it is the account that the others stem from, plus I believe it is accurate and the others are copycats and do not represent the true account although many do have truth in them. However, the biblical flood is not what we verify from history or prophecy.


But you're missing the point.  Just because we can verify there was some sort of flood in that area around that time does not mean "gods are real".
Again, it is just one line of evidence that points to God. That is the point. 
Unverifiable claims are neither scientific nor logical "evidence", no matter how old they might be.


What we would expect to find from a worldwide flood we find, millions of fossils buried in rock layers all over the earth (to borrow a phrase). How they are interpreted is another matter.
#51
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
A week is SEVEN days. Thus seventy times (one week) seven. 

You mean 490 days, well done you. No matter what lie you tell, the alleged prophesy says 70 weeks and therefore is a failed "prophesy"

No, I already explained to you that Israel missed a number of Sabbath rests of the land, so everyone missed equalled a year in captivity, hence they were in exile seventy years, per Jeremiah and others, and God would increase the time in exile to 490 years for their future disobedience (70 X 7).  

Leviticus 26:17-19 (NASB)
17 I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you
will flee when no one is pursuing you. 
18 If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 
19 I will also break down your pride of power; I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze.


Jeremiah 25:11 (NIV)
11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Fact, they were carried away to Babylon because of their sins for seventy years.


2 Chronicles 36:20-21 (NASB)
20 Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete.



#52
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
If Noah's flood happened God must have intervened a lot more than is explicit in the text.  It is obvious that sloths could not walk from South America to the Middle East and back on their own!

Whatever we know about normal floods does not have apply to miraculous floods, and that implies evidence is irrelevant.  Put another way, what evidence does a miraculous flood produce?   Whatever seems to cast doubt on a flood is easily removed by supposing another miracle.   There is no need to explain how sloths, lemurs or koalas found their way home home - that can be shrugged off as just part of the miracle.
Topic's author
#53
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Supplying three passages unrelated to the alleged prophesy of Daniel is supposed to convince who of what and there is no mention of 490,000yrs. Please try very hard to stick to the subject at hand.
24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [j]to finish [k]transgression, and [l]to make an end of sins, and to [m]make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and [n]prophecy, and to anoint [o]the most holy. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [p]the anointed one, the prince, shall be [q]seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and [r]shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

BTW your god is quite good at looking after white middle class Americans like you, as you've claimed,but he is seriously lacking when it comes to starving children it's just like he doesn't give a fuck or he doesn't exist.
#54
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Supplying three passages unrelated to the alleged prophesy of Daniel is supposed to convince who of what and there is no mention of 490,000yrs. Please try very hard to stick to the subject at hand.
The Bible is its own interpreter. That is to say, the explanation is found within its pages. Daniel, in Daniel 9:1-23 is concerned with the breaking of the covenant Israel made with God and the consequences, the seventy years of captivity.

2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.

4 I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed:
“Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our ancestors, and to all the people of the land.
7 “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 We and our kings, our princes and our ancestors are covered with shame, Lord, because we have sinned against you...

11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.
“Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing on us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come on us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 The Lorddid not hesitate to bring the disaster on us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him...
The Seventy “Sevens”
20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray,a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision:
24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

Thus, God is telling Daniel what will happen to His people in latter years. Just as in Daniel 9:2 (they are in captivity for their sin for seventy years) there will be another judgment that will happen, starting with the decree by Cyrus to rebuild the city and ending by finishing the transgression of the people (in another judgment) and putting an end to sin (no more sacrifices for sin). Thus, just like the present  judgment is seventy years, God will place another judgment upon them that will last seventy times seven years.


18 If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 
19 I will also break down your pride of power

What is their "pride of power?" It is their relationship with God.

Daniel 12:7 (NIV)
7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”

God will break the covenant He made with them and create a new and better covenant after this period is complete.


 
#55
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [j]to finish [k]transgression, and [l]to make an end of sins,... 

BTW your god is quite good at looking after white middle class Americans like you, as you've claimed, but he is seriously lacking when it comes to starving children it's just like he doesn't give a fuck or he doesn't exist. 

Thanks for your opinion. Now I will give you mine.

I am not American.

It is humans who live against God that create these hardships in their suppression of the truth of God, thus God gives them over to their sins to do what should not be done. You witness what happens when humanity refuses to do what God has commanded is good, to love one another and consider their best interest. 

When people and nations turn against God or ignore Him, He gives them over to their sins to let them understand what their sins lead to. They get what they desire. He lets them witness what living apart from God results in. He blesses nations who turn to Him like He blessed Israel while they were obedient. 

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them...
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts...
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Notice verse 24, 26, and 28. What do they have in common? Because they do not want to retain their knowledge in God He gives them over to the desire of their hearts, to do what ought not to be done. In forgetting Him evil results - humanities inhumanity to one another. 


#56
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Continued,

I lived in Africa. I was born there. My mother was born in South Africa and I have lived there too. I have seen the corruption there. I have seen the power-hungry madness and the greed at the expense of others in socialist regime after regime throughout Africa. I? have seen the consequences of social Darwinism around the world; the killing employed by atheistic and socialistic regimes around the world, and IMO, the same kind of socialism that others practice and push in the vitriol and leftist hatred and ideology are also displayed even on these threads.

I see what is happening in your country with this leftist insanity, the censorship and blackballing of everything conservative every day by a radical leftist agenda that will leave your country worse off if it continued to be unaddressed. I see the dishonesty in the media that has become a lying arm of the Democrat Party that pushes propaganda 24/7. I see how your court system, your justice system, your institutions of higher learning, your arts and entertainment, your media, your social media, all support this liberal agenda that cripples countries and makes them less free. I see the liberal agenda taking over on the coasts and Great Lakes where it penetrates the institutions mentioned. And what are the most susceptible victims of American society if not the youth who have not learned the skills to understand the indoctrination taking place?

IMO, the Democrat Party, to a large extent, is a godless party. It, generally speaking, has no vision, no wisdom, no mercy, just a craving for power to push its standards of oppression on others. It suppresses the freedom of speech of those who oppose it and I watch it every day, the hatred and lies it spreads in its propaganda. Today, for instance, it is calling the President a racist, a divider, a "Grand Wizard" while the truth of the matter is that these Democrats are the ones who are dividing, who are the haters, greedy for power. They show malice in their eyes which blaze with anger (watch their eyes when they speak - i.e., Adam Schiff, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters) as they manipulate every situation to their gain. They are masters of manipulation and deception. There is no compassion there, no understanding, just an appeal to demonize as a political weapon. The Democrats use the media as its Gestapo to hunt and villainize all those who oppose it. It makes up fictions that are so outrageously believed by their flock. It promotes and politically activates the base with mass movements sponsored by big money liberalists who have their hand of control in the pie of most aspects of your economy, including social media companies. Your country is on the precipice. There is a fight currently taking place that will determine which way your country swings but, generally speaking, it seems to me to be controlled largely by the Democrats who are the more corrupt and who have led the masses to groupthink, like sheep to the slaughter. What stupidity, IMO.

If you want to see what happens to a society that rejects God and follows its own way then look what happened to Old Covenant Israel as an example. 


#57
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
If Noah's flood happened God must have intervened a lot more than is explicit in the text.  It is obvious that sloths could not walk from South America to the Middle East and back on their own!
I agree that God intervened.


Whatever we know about normal floods does not have apply to miraculous floods, and that implies evidence is irrelevant. 
Evidence like million, perhaps billions of fossils buried in rock layers all over the earth (to borrow the phrase)? 

Would you expect an animal on the plains who dies to be fossilized? Now multiply that by millions of animals on the plain, in the valleys and on the mountains. A catastrophic event or events would explain how millions, perhaps billions of animals are encased as fossils. 

What is necessary for an animal to be fossilized? 


Put another way, what evidence does a miraculous flood produce? 
Millions of fossils...over the earth. Mudslides and pressure burying these animals would cause them to fossilize.


Whatever seems to cast doubt on a flood is easily removed by supposing another miracle.   There is no need to explain how sloths, lemurs or koalas found their way home home - that can be shrugged off as just part of the miracle.

Pangaea, then the hypothetical continents of Gondwanaland and Laurasia are one explanation (or plate tectonics). Do you believe in continental drift?

 


#58
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Put another way, what evidence does a miraculous flood produce? 
Millions of fossils...over the earth. Mudslides and pressure burying these animals would cause them to fossilize.

That is what a non-miraculous flood would do.   The effects of a miraculous flood would be whatever God wanted them to be.
#59
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Retrning to Damiel, the interpretation you favour is not the only one that can fit the text.   i reject that interpreation because it relies on supernatural fore-knowledge.   Why do you reject theinterpretation i prefer?
#60
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Put another way, what evidence does a miraculous flood produce? 
Millions of fossils...over the earth. Mudslides and pressure burying these animals would cause them to fossilize.

That is what a non-miraculous flood would do.   The effects of a miraculous flood would be whatever God wanted them to be.
Okay.

The earth filled with water until there is no ground left.