Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[HitchSlap]

Now that's interesting ... in view of the fact that there was a 400-year period of time between the Testaments where God sent a unique famine:

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

"Several hundred years after the Babylon exile," as you put it, would have put the book of Daniel right square within that famine.

In addition, it would have made Daniel, not Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Didn't click, but lemme' guess, article written by a non-scholar asserting it's true because we reeeeeeeally want it to be true?

So perhaps there is no reason to address anything that you have to say either, because of your biases. Works for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are aware that the KJV is a protestant bible version?

Even if It is, that doesn't make me a Protestant.

I believe in Chilton's Auto Manual ... that doesn't make me a mechanic.

I believe in Taber's Medical Encyclopedia ... that doesn't make me a doctor.

 

[AV1611VET]

Leave it to the atheists to school the Christians on their Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not my Bible.

They belong to Satan.

 

[Ginger123]

Daniel, date of, authorship date

That's a religious site, would you expect them to write that none of it was true?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a religious site, would you expect them to write that none of it was true?

That doesn't work with me.

I've quoted NASA before, only to have it handwaved.

Besides, you guys have a shoot-the-messenger mentality.

 

[Ginger123]

Besides, you guys have a shoot-the-messenger mentality.

If the messenger knowingly gives me a false message I would do more than just shoot him,
in fairness though, they only tell lies because they know their lies will never be found out,
will you check to see if they are lies? will any creationist? NO, they spoon it to you and you swallow it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's a religious site, would you expect them to write that none of it was true?

Read the words Ginger.

 

[dad]

If the messenger knowingly gives me a false message I would do more than just shoot him,...

Pity the postman that delivers a bill to the wrong address of some lady that was mean to him! Or maybe this..?

http://www.infowars.com/252-documen...as-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-cronyism-etc/

 

[Freodin]

Daniel, date of, authorship date

Hm... if we allow that "naturalists" are biased against the reality of prophecy, can we also agree that Christians are biased towards the reality of prophecy?

But to address that arguments from your link:

Josephus obviously wrote after Daniel, Alexander and the Maccabees. As did Origines. All that shows is that the story of the prophecy was around at that time... and no one doubts that.

Also no one says that Daniel was written after the Maccabees. It goes up very well until the time of the Maccabean revolt...but not anything further.
The Maccabean books in turn were not written for some half century after these events. So there is no reason why there should not be a reference to a modern and rather popular text like Daniel in them.

A manuscript of Daniel was dated to 120 BCE. Why would that cast doubt on a date of writing around 170 BCE? And why would that support a writing at 500 BCE?

Details in Daniel were shown to be correct by archeology, and Daniel used terms from Persian government. Yet there is no reason to assume that the author of Daniel could not have used these terms. After all, the Persians were not forgotten or extinguished or something like that.

So there is no conclusive evidence that these verses were written before the events.

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides, you guys have a shoot-the-messenger mentality.

If the messenger knowingly gives me a false message I would do more than just shoot him,
in fairness though, they only tell lies because they know their lies will never be found out,
will you check to see if they are lies? will any creationist? NO, they spoon it to you and you swallow it.

Thank you for the QED.

 

[Freodin]

Now that's interesting ... in view of the fact that there was a 400-year period of time between the Testaments where God sent a unique famine:

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

"Several hundred years after the Babylon exile," as you put it, would have put the book of Daniel right square within that famine.

As Daniel was, in any case, written after Amos, even the time of the Babylonian exile would have "put the book of Daniel right square within that famine".

And why would the keep a book like Daniel from being written?

In addition, it would have made Daniel, not Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament.

Why that? They are not that chronologically sorted. Amos is after Daniel, for example, when he was writing some 200 years earlier even in your version.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hm... if we allow that "naturalists" are biased against the reality of prophecy, can we also agree that Christians are biased towards the reality of prophecy?

Well we could I suppose. There will be a time when we can see who is correct. There are many yet to be fulfilled.

But to address that arguments from your link:

Josephus obviously wrote after Daniel, Alexander and the Maccabees. As did Origines. All that shows is that the story of the prophecy was around at that time... and no one doubts that.

Also no one says that Daniel was written after the Maccabees. It goes up very well until the time of the Maccabean revolt...but not anything further.
The Maccabean books in turn were not written for some half century after these events. So there is no reason why there should not be a reference to a modern and rather popular text like Daniel in them.

A manuscript of Daniel was dated to 120 BCE. Why would that cast doubt on a date of writing around 170 BCE? And why would that support a writing at 500 BCE?

Details in Daniel were shown to be correct by archeology, and Daniel used terms from Persian government. Yet there is no reason to assume that the author of Daniel could not have used these terms. After all, the Persians were not forgotten or extinguished or something like that.

So there is no conclusive evidence that these verses were written before the events.

There is no conclusive evidence that they were not.

 

[Freodin]

Well we could I suppose. There will be a time when we can see who is correct. There are many yet to be fulfilled.

Which is just what I wanted to show with this debate. We have been faced with the claim of such precise and undeniable fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible, with just these verses as "evidence".

I think I could show that they are neither precise nor undeniable.

There is no conclusive evidence that they were not.

Not completely conclusive, I agree. But as they say, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. It would have been quite easy to present such evidence... just show that Daniel predicts something that happens after it could be shown to have been written. Like, after it was cited and mentioned in other works.

But it doesn't. It stops right there at the point were the rest of the world starts to notice it. That is quite a piece of evidence for a later date.

 

[HitchSlap]

So perhaps there is no reason to address anything that you have to say either, because of your biases. Works for me.

True, you could do that. But if you understood why scholars believe the book of Daniel is anonymous and why they believe it was written later, then you wouldn't claim bias as my motivation. This the difference between a critical historical, and one one of a personal devotional to ancient texts. You're left having to accept the least plausible explanation so your faith remains congruent. As an atheist, I'm free to accept things as they are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is just what I wanted to show with this debate. We have been faced with the claim of such precise and undeniable fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible, with just these verses as "evidence".

I think I could show that they are neither precise nor undeniable.

There is nothing in the Bible or prophesy that will ever be absolute. There will always be a way to dismiss it. For instance, Israel. Israel is the main focus for most of prophecy. The fact that is is a nation once again is very significant to the prophecies of the Bible. The fact that the Bible said that the Jews would come back from the four corners of the world, and that the north and south would be forced to let them go; is remarkably fulfilled as the nation was being repopulated by The Jews, Russia (north) was forced to let them go and so was Ethiopia (south).

Isaiah 43:5-6

King James Version (KJV)

5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;


This was written around 701-681 BC.

Not completely conclusive, I agree. But as they say, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. It would have been quite easy to present such evidence... just show that Daniel predicts something that happens after it could be shown to have been written. Like, after it was cited and mentioned in other works.

But it doesn't. It stops right there at the point were the rest of the world starts to notice it. That is quite a piece of evidence for a later date.

God allows for the ability to dismiss even something so specific as the one I gave you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

True, you could do that. But if you understood why scholars believe the book of Daniel is anonymous and why they believe it was written later, then you wouldn't claim bias as my motivation. This the difference between a critical historical, and one one of a personal devotional to ancient texts. You're left having to accept the least plausible explanation so your faith remains congruent. As an atheist, I'm free to accept things as they are.

There are good reasons to believe them to be true. You can accept them as not but you have the choice.

 

[Freodin]

There is nothing in the Bible or prophesy that will ever be absolute. There will always be a way to dismiss it. For instance, Israel. Israel is the main focus for most of prophecy. The fact that is is a nation once again is very significant to the prophecies of the Bible. The fact that the Bible said that the Jews would come back from the four corners of the world, and that the north and south would be forced to let them go; is remarkably fulfilled as the nation was being repopulated by The Jews, Russia (north) was forced to let them go and so was Ethiopia (south).

Isaiah 43:5-6

King James Version (KJV)

5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;


This was written around 701-681 BC.

That is... doubtful. And that is the problem: there is good reason to assume that it (also) was written at a later date, most likely during or after the Babylonian exile. And thus it would refer to the Jews returning to their homeland then. Not in some vague future that wouldn't have interested that readers of that time (much less the proposed earlier time).

God allows for the ability to dismiss even something so specific as the one I gave you.

How can you give me anything specific if there is nothing in the Bible or prophecy that is every absolute?

 

[Ginger123]

That's a religious site, would you expect them to write that none of it was true?

Read the words Ginger.

I see....don't you realise that I can read they are telling lies? do you think I have never seen these sites before?
you believe it because you want to believe it you don't believe it because it's true, they know you would never check to see if it's true, you just want to believe that it is.

Creationism is built on half truths and out and out lies, I know this because I know what they write are lies, it's as obvious to me as 2+2=5 is to you, if you saw that how would you tell me it was wrong if I couldn't see it as plainly as you could? what if I wanted to believe 2+2=5? how hard would it be for you then? creationism is true for you only because you want it to be true and for no other reason.

As I said before you can do better than creationism, I firmly believe that one day you will be free of it.

PS, Do you read Atheist or science sites when people ask you to?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is... doubtful. And that is the problem: there is good reason to assume that it (also) was written at a later date, most likely during or after the Babylonian exile. And thus it would refer to the Jews returning to their homeland then. Not in some vague future that wouldn't have interested that readers of that time (much less the proposed earlier time).

Most stayed in Babylonia but only around 45,000 came back and you would have to show evidence of the north and south being forced to let them return as well.

How can you give me anything specific if there is nothing in the Bible or prophecy that is every absolute?

This is a very specific prophecy that gives details that are significant and yet you choose to dismiss it claiming that it might be referring to the Babylonian exile that has no reason to give the directions of the returning Jews. It is a choice. God allows you that.

No matter what we show as prophecy you can dismiss it in some way. So how can we show evidence for prophecy when you will find a reason to dismiss it?