The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I'm not going to argue the Koran. Carry on guys.

Originally Posted by business_kid I'm not seeking to build faith where it may have been flushed down the toilet, but I think both of you are underestimating the value of the Bible. The problems come when you say "This means <such and such>, and <such and such> is ridiculous." The problem is often misinterpretation.

The same can be said for Astrology. If information must be "interpreted" it is nearly useless. By definition information needs to be clear and specific. "Interpretation" is commonly left to Poetry and Mythology.

I'm glad you quoted my comments above, because I wrote those words with those without faith in mind, and I may be wrong, but I would include you among them. Many things require interpretation, the Bible among them. Take for example, John 5:10 where the Jewish leaders say to a man healed on the Jewish Sabbath:" …It is not lawful for you to carry the cot." Judea was a Roman province under Roman law; The Jews as a nation were also bound by the Mosaic Law; But the Law they referred to was the Talmud - the interpretations of the Mosaic Law by long dead clerics, which was neither binding on Jews nor inspired, but which was enforced by these religious leaders. That's what I mean by interpretation.

Are you asserting that things written or collated up to 3,500 years ago but originally penned/carved perhaps as much as 6,000 years ago do not need interpretation and would be readily understood today by all?

I don't get your point about mythology or astrology, except as a weak attempt to taint the Scriptures by association. It's not worthy of further comment.

Originally Posted by business_kid Are you asserting that things written or collated up to 3,500 years ago but originally penned/carved perhaps as much as 6,000 years ago do not need interpretation and would be readily understood today by all?

Of course not. Things written by Geoffrey Chaucer, for example, in English need to be interpreted though written just 700 years ago. It's less obvious but things written just 100 years ago, especially from unfamiliar cultures even in the same language, often lack context for true understanding. That doesn't mean they have zero value but it does mean they have less value than things we know we understand well and can be tested with modern tools and practices. There is a valid concept of "The Test of Time" and even some things we think we understand well now will almost certainly undergo revision in the future.

Well, I wouldn't argue with most of that. I read some of John Wyclyffe's Bible in Middle English and it was very heavy lifting.

Interestingly, probably the greatest reason old texts are in need of careful interpretation was given as a reason for revising the KJV in the introduction to the 1952 Revised Standard Version. They highlighted words still in use today, but whose meaning has changed. But the KJV took some inspiration from Wyclyffe's translation.

Now what's educational in post #10288 is that we have an absolute date in history, agreed by all competent authorities, where Daniel was used to foretell the news perhaps a few hours or less in advance, but Isaiah was used to foretell the news, and the name of the general about 200 years in advance. Forertelling the name of a future king who hadn't been born yet is some trick, don't you think? And who used the prophets and foretold the name? The God you think doesn't exist, or if not, who? Don't try me with the 'later forgery' line, because there was a perpetual curse on anyone who falsified Scriptures, so nobody would have dared to do it.

Originally Posted by business_kid Don't try me with the 'later forgery' line, because there was a perpetual curse on anyone who falsified Scriptures, so nobody would have dared to do it.

Actually the canon of the Old Testament was established in three stages, not all at once. This is still reflected in its Jewish name of Tanakh, an abbreviation of "Torah, Neviim, Khitayim" or "Law, Prophets and Writings". The Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) was fixed immediately after the return from exile, when Ezra organised an all-day reading of the text. It's generally agreed that the purpose of this was to establish the official text publicly. The canon of the Prophets (including the history contained in Joshua-Kings) was established later and that of the Writings later still. Until books had been formally canonised, they were not "Scripture" and so could be modified without it being considered falsification.

So for example, the Samaritans, who broke off from official Judaism soon after the Return, had an almost identical Torah but a lot of differences in their prophetic books. And the Greek translation made in the 3rd Century BC has the Prophets clearly translated "as is" from the Hebrew Tanakh, but a lot of extra material in books like Daniel and Esther, which belong to the Writings.

Originally Posted by business_kid . Forertelling the name of a future king who hadn't been born yet is some trick, don't you think?

Indeed... some trick.

@business_kid
Is Nero relevant? Realizing Revelation is speaking of him and events surrounding him, historically speaking, is the only way the last book of the Bible makes sense, IMO (and that of the so-called preterists).

Originally Posted by TorC @business_kid Is Nero relevant? Realizing Revelation is speaking of him and events surrounding him, historically speaking, is the only way the last book of the Bible makes sense, IMO (and that of the so-called preterists).

No Nero is irrelevant. Revelation is not talking about him. Nero lived 54-68CE. It wasn't until 96CE John wrote Relevation as a book of prophecy set in the future, in the "Lord's Day." Why prophesy history? There are parallel prophecies about Jesus future coming in Kingdom power in many books, Revelation among them. I cannot think of an instance where the Bible masks the meaning of anything historical. The only significant things about Nero is that he was the last of the Caesar dynasty. He was one nasty little <expletive> between two more benign emperors.

You have to look for the meaning of 666 in the Lord's Day, which by general agreement is now. We are not the only ones who think that. Even guys like Elvis Presley and Ronald Regan could see we are living in the last days. But better send me questions on PM, because there's a very high noise-signal ratio on this thread.

Originally Posted by business_kid You have to look for the meaning of 666 in the Lord's Day, which by general agreement is now. We are not the only ones who think that. Even guys like Elvis Presley and Ronald Regan could see we are living in the last days.

Wow! Two indisputable experts there! Reagan consulted Astrologers in matters of State and Elvis died in 1977, 4 years shy of a half century ago... not to mention pandering to Tricky Dick on drug use of The Beatles while he was stoned out of his mind. Yeah these guys certainly knew what was going on in 2021. <sarc>

Originally Posted by business_kid But better send me questions on PM, because there's a very high noise-signal ratio on this thread.

Not sure whether Confirmation Bias or Dunning-Kruger applies here but then the whole concept of Prophesy is rather shady, possibly qualifying as Occult.

Originally Posted by enorbet Wow! Two indisputable experts there! Reagan consulted Astrologers in matters of State and Elvis died in 1977, 4 years shy of a half century ago... not to mention pandering to Tricky Dick on drug use of The Beatles while he was stoned out of his mind. Yeah these guys certainly knew what was going on in 2021. <sarc>

Your sarc is justified - they were no rocket scientists, hence my use of the word 'even.'

Originally Posted by enorbet Not sure whether Confirmation Bias or Dunning-Kruger applies here but then the whole concept of Prophesy is rather shady, possibly qualifying as Occult.

Occult is a very broad paintbrush. I prefer "Supernatural," which is more specific along the same lines. And that's my point. The ones described as 'demons' had a certain amount of superhuman power, but never accurately foretold the future. They did, however, duplicate the first 2 of the 10 plagues, no mean achievements in themselves.

OTOH, writing a message to a named future conquering king 200 years in advance giving details of how he achieved his biggest conquest to that date, telling him what to do, and promising him more in return is in a different league altogether. One should be able to draw lessons from that passage (Isaiah 44:27-45:7) alone, and you shouldn't allow Dunning-Kruger to hold a man of your intellect back in doing that.

You have the right to reject Scripture. I object, however, to your dismissal of prophecy as hocus-pocus coupled with your supreme confidence that you have analysed the situation accurately.

FWIW, business_kid, the only "supreme confidence" I have is that absent objective, corroborating evidence words are merely hearsay. Add to that the further back in time those words were written, the more evidence should be required.

Can you actually imagine a court case for where "Yes, your Honor, I saw the defendant steal that loaf of bread. In fact I saw it 5 years before he committed the act in a vision, since I am a Prophet" would be entered into court record? I'm more than casually certain that "testimony" would be tossed out, inadmissible, as would tea leaves, crystal balls or skulls, horoscopes, seances, and any other hocus pocus.

There is a non-zero chance that I'm mistaken and that criminal court should allow such "testimony" but I have zero experience that demonstrates the validity, and I'm glad for that. I find it quite troubling that all these "miracles" took place only in ancient times before video cameras. I have yet to see credible evidence for demons, angels, or anything superhuman or supernatural.

So, on the basis that it's inadmissable in a court you think, and it's age (2570 years) you're throwing out a date in history agreed by all historians who study the matter, and the two prophecies of it's occurrence which were in Babylon when Babylon fell. You're going against the obvious facts that Babylon fell and the Jews were repatriated, and an Empire changed hands [Babylonian --> Medo-Persian].

Yet, on the absolute flimsiest of evidence and even no evidence at all but gaps where people hope to find evidence, you believe long convoluted tale of evolution - the gaps, the postulations of some scientists about what did or didn't happen millions or hundreds of millions of years ago, and somehow convince yourself that's more reliable.

I won't kick you when you're down, enorbet, however sorely I might be tempted

Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

EDIT: Darwinism can be viewed as another human doctrine adopted by many modern scientists as if it were, indeed, a religion. Amongst too many academic cliques to question or disagree with the Theory of Evolution is to be labeled a blasphemer not to be taken seriously. Such has been my experience in Grad school. I settled for a Bachelor of Science Degree, not willing to play their games.

Originally Posted by business_kid So, on the basis that it's inadmissable in a court you think, and it's age (2570 years) you're throwing out a date in history agreed by all historians who study the matter, and the two prophecies of it's occurrence which were in Babylon when Babylon fell. You're going against the obvious facts that Babylon fell and the Jews were repatriated, and an Empire changed hands [Babylonian --> Medo-Persian].

To clarify, I'm not going against History. I'm going against Prophesy. There has never been discovered any means to actually see the future. Whether Time exists or is a human construct matters not in this regard, we can't interrupt, see or or travel through time in any way but along a sequential path. Even if you posit that some Divinity can see or affect all time any time there is zero evidence that any humans can.

Originally Posted by business_kid Yet, on the absolute flimsiest of evidence and even no evidence at all but gaps where people hope to find evidence, you believe long convoluted tale of evolution - the gaps, the postulations of some scientists about what did or didn't happen millions or hundreds of millions of years ago, and somehow convince yourself that's more reliable.

Here we are at polar opposites. The evidence for Evolution is nowhere near flimsy, right down to the cellular level and with agreement in every facet of Science. No reputable Biologist, for example, discounts Evolution, even those that believe in Creation. The only people that reject the Theory of Evolution are those that believe in the literal interpretation of the biblical literature. There is a definitive relationship between fundamentalist religions even with geographic loci who reject Evolution entirely on religious grounds, not on scientific grounds.

Originally Posted by business_kid I won't kick you when you're down, enorbet, however sorely I might be tempted

I don't consider you "down" nor am I tempted to kick you or even desire to see or hear of you being kicked by anyone. I bear you no ill will personally. I wish you well. I only oppose some of your conclusions and convictions. This is a debate, after all.