How reliable are the T.N.Kh./ Old Testament prophecies, and how do we know?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by rakovsky, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,816
    Abraham come from UR Chaldean an before the area was Sumeria and after Akkadian replaced them . The language I believe was Semitic , then Abraham moved among Canaanites, I believe the language was no muy different because Abraham dealt with Hittite also in the area by Hebron.
    Beside each culture or tribu will recant verbally to ancestry about himself and not history of their neighbors unless there is some interaction like dispute . Let's look at the American history and how much details are written on colonizing the native American , even we had paper and pen and we had ability in reading and writing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,571
    Yes, and how much of it is legend, wishful thinking, one-sided, obfuscation and just plain lies?
    Thus, also with the bible - plus one difference:
    It taken out of its native land and re-written in the fourth century AD, by a committee of Roman Catholic prelates, for use in Europe.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    The Lord God would have been the witness of Creation and then could have told Adam, Abraham, Moses, or other Bible writers about what happened.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    I am not personally sure that Abraham was ever actually found by modern archaeologists in Hebron.
    But the Bible does say he died at least about there and there is a famous shrine there called the Tomb of Abraham today.

    Jewish tradition says that the Tomb of Abraham is that of "the" Abraham from the Bible.


    I think he was inferring that if the Bible's stories were legitimate, they would have to include Assyrians conquering Egypt.
    I don't agree with his logic though. Just because Assyria conquered Egypt doesn't mean that the Bible "has" to say this.


    Here is a direct link:
    http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.n...e-to-the-Bible-The-Old-and-New-Testaments.pdf

    He claims:
    I don't agree with this claim by Asimov that resurrection was just made up after the Exile.
    First of all, dead people resurrecting is something talked about in the pre-Exile story of Elijah resurrecting a young person, and then another story where Elijah's bones touch a corpse and the corpse reenlivens.

    Second, the Psalms predict resurrection of the dead eg. Psalm 16 (where God doesn't "let the holy one undergo decay/the pit") and Psalm 22 (the people who are in the dust praise God).

    Third, Asimov is using the story of resurrection in Isaiah 26 as "evidence" to say that Isaiah's "apocalypse" is late (ie post-exile). But how do we know that resurrection is a "late" post-exile teaching in the first place? Because it doesn't show up ever until the post-Exile writings? Well, Isaiah was not a post-Exile prophet. But Asimov concludes that Isaiah 26 is post-Exile because it includes resurrection. This is awfully circular logic by Asimov through and through.
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,439
    1. They aren't.
    2. The prediction and the fulfillment of that prediction are in the same book. Make sure you write them so they match.
     
  9. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Lmojin is probably expecting people to take the story seriously.
    However, what he is giving is his own personal interpretation of the Creation story. And people's interpretations don't always work out.

    What you should want to do to understand the story is check the rabbis' and best old-school and modern mainstream Christian theologians' explanations and pick what works.
    The reason is that even if the story is made up 3200+ years ago, the writer still probably tried to write it so it at least made sense, whereas 3200 years people will have some trouble figuring out on their own what it was supposed to mean.

    So I don't think that what Genesis is intending to tell is a story where:

    Google definitions says of seduce "attract (someone) to a belief or into a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy."
    God told Adam not to eat the fruit from the tree, but then she persuaded him to. It's like seducing with a temptation.
    The devil's temptation was so that people could turn into Gods or God's equal (something seemingly beneficial) by breaking this rule.
    But the course of action was inadvisable, because the master of the Garden said not to do it.
     
  10. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    Alex's comment was: "Could the bible just be made up stuff and any parallel to reality simply an interesting coincidence."

    You replied that Alex's comment was "far too reasonable". Your agreement is finding it extremely reasonable "that every single bit of information within it is made up."
     
  11. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    I think he could be saying that the Hebrew Old Testament never says that their story was received from other unrelated earlier civilizations and cultures, but rather was received from their ancestors and also that the Creation story doesn't include a list of names other than Adam, Eve, and their children.

    Or maybe he just doesn't realize that earlier he himself had mentioned a "chronology of names".

    Sorry, I don't understand why you are asking about Abraham inventing a whole language.
    The Bible says that Abraham came from Ur (Sumeria or Babylon), which was a preceding civilization before Abraham. The Bible doesn't deny that civilizations preceded Abraham.
     
  12. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    I expect that American history, to which you refer, is generally or mostly correct, as opposed to "legend, one-sided, and just plain lies".

    However, I think it often involves obfuscation or wishful thinking. To give a simple example, they might tell you that Japan attacked the US in WII, but often won't go into details about peace possibilities that were missed or stymied by the US side. The US history of WWII could be generally correct, but there could still be obfuscation, etc. on some issues.
     
  13. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    One important thing I want to please ask people in the thread to discuss is the possibility of precognition, like I wrote about in messages #2 and #3 in this thread.
    For example, I quoted Sascha Vongehr writing on the Science 20 website about the scientific theoretical possibility of precognition.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,439
    I'm open to scientific evidence of precognition, but that has nothing to do with the mythology of the Jews, which is almost complete bullshit.
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Well do you claim God told someone if so be specific.
    We have a statement of alledged fact yet no evidence of how the fact was arrived at.
    I say it was made up, and we do not even know who made it up, yet on such an important issue you seem happy to believe the account because it is in the bible.
    You are aware the bible was written by men, edited by men, printed and distributed by men which offers no recomendation as to its validity but suggest it merely records mens opinions and views.
    If you accept something as being true would it not be wise to question the qualification and soundness of mind of the author and the motivations behind his writing.
    As I said as no human witnessed any of the events of creation how can a human write about it?
    IF God told someone who was it?
    Think it through and ask yourself if it could be anything other than made up.
    Alex
     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,439
    It's more than that. The evidence of a statement in a book can't just be another statement in the same book! It doesn't matter if the person writing the book is qualified and sane with nothing but good motivations.
     
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,571
    No, I hold no store by precognition. What I've read about it, the proofs seem flimsy, at best. The examples with which I'm somewhat familiar are in language so vague and a time-frame so difficult to calculate as yo make them quite meaningless. The biblical ones: "The nation shall suffer because her kings don't obey the god" would be reliably counted on to come true, of any country, anywhere, any time.

    As for my exchanges with Timojin, I won't even try to reconstruct them in the new, incomplete contextual version.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Excellent point.
    Alex
     
  19. rakovsky Registered Member

    Messages:
    56
    I wrote about scientific evidence of precognition in my 2nd and 3rd messages and wish people would reply about that more.
    It has to do with Jewish traditions, in that the traditions involve future claims of events in foretellings. They claimed to be "seers", another word for "prophet" used in Hebrew in the Tanakh. They claimed to have "fore-knowledge" ("pre-cognition") of future events like Messiah's arrival.
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    How can anyone know what will happen in the future?
    Why would anyone believe that such is possible?
    Because they have a gift from God I suppose, well that presents a problem as it suggests God has everything planned a d if so this means that free will is a myth.
    Alex
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,439
    I know, I read your links. But there isn't any reliable evidence of such a thing.

    I'm also aware of Jewish claims which also aren't evidence.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,360
    No, I said that it is far too reasonable that it could be just made up, I.e. a possibity. I consider that far more likely than accepting the bible at face value, for example, where miracles seem common-place, which is the the alternative Alex was considering.
    Personally I would reasonably expect the truth to be somewhere in between, with place names, and the general history to be reasonably accurate, but significant embellishment and interpretation when it comes to the detail of the stories being told.
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    I regard things this way.
    If evidence contains any part that is wrong you should treat the lot as suspect.
    The bible starts off with a clearly made up proposition so I askhow can one treat anything therein as reliable.
    Alex
     

Share This Page