A Challenge to the Bible's inerrancy...

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by ST1100

History indicates that Rome was established in c. 625BCE, some 500 years prior to the book of Daniel being written.

Depends on what you mean by "Rome." The city itself...yes, quite old. But even going with the date of composition for Daniel being 135 BC, that is still during the time of the Roman Republic. Julius Caesar (arguably the first Roman Emperor) wasn't even born then.

Originally Posted by ST1100

I'd be interested to see this prophecy about the Roman Empire if you would be kind enough to supply it....

Daniel 2:31-45 (my comments in parentheses):
31 "You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome.
32 "The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,
33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
34 "You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
35 "Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
36 "This was the dream; now we will tell its interpretation before the king.
37 "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory;
38 and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold. (So Babylon, where Daniel was living, is the head of gold.)
39 "After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. (This was the Medo-Persian Empire, followed by the Greeks.)
40 "Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. (And here, he's talking about the Roman Empire.)
41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay.
42 "As the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle.
43 "And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery.
44 "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. (This is talking about the "Kingdom of Heaven" established by Christ.)
45 "Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy."

Originally Posted by ST1100

such as Babylon falling to "Darius the Mede". It's basic schoolboy history that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian.....Darius the Mede never even existed.

That is still very much debated among historians.

You seem to have a fairly basic misunderstanding of the study of history. Very few things are KNOWN for certain. Historians study the surviving texts we have, compare it with archaeology, etc., and put together a history. But no one argues more than two historians over what actually happened. The study of history is very often a whole lot of guesswork -- educated guesswork, you bet -- but there are very few things we know with absolute certainty. History is constantly being rewritten as more discoveries are made.

You say "Darius the Mede never event existed," but you don't know that for certain. (Unless you have a time machine -- if so, can I borrow it?) You could certainly find some historians who'd agree with you. But you'd find others who'd tell you you're dead wrong.

Troy is another good example of the uncertainty of history. Scholars used to scoff at its existence, chalking it up to fanciful mythology. But then Schliemann started digging it up and proved the scholars wrong.

The Hittites are another. Scholars used to insist that there was no such thing, that only works of fiction like the Bible and other mythologies mentioned them, and since ancient people were obviously not as educated and superior as we are, they were just silly savages. But then we started digging up lots of evidence of the Hittites.

We still don't know exactly when a prominent historical figure like Julius Caesar was born.

People still don't KNOW what happened to the Roanoke colony. Lots of good guesses, but no one knows for sure.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

You've stretched the meaning of 'correspondence'.

What about the other Gospels?

A document written by one person to another person (or group of persons).

How is that stretching the meaning of correspondence?

[ST1100]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Daniel 2:31-45 (my comments in parentheses):
31 "You, O king, were looking and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary splendor, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome.
32 "The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze,
33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
34 "You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
35 "Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
36 "This was the dream; now we will tell its interpretation before the king.
37 "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory;
38 and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold. (So Babylon, where Daniel was living, is the head of gold.)
39 "After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. (This was the Medo-Persian Empire, followed by the Greeks.)
40 "Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. (And here, he's talking about the Roman Empire.)
41 "In that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have in it the toughness of iron, inasmuch as you saw the iron mixed with common clay.
42 "As the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong and part of it will be brittle.
43 "And in that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, even as iron does not combine with pottery.
44 "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. (This is talking about the "Kingdom of Heaven" established by Christ.)
45 "Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy."

Sorry mams but I see nothing in here that mentions Babylon, the Medo-Persian Empire,the Greeks or the Roman Empire. All I see here is interpretation, conjecture and wishful thinking. Why are you saying that it's talking about the aforementioned civilisations? It doesn't mention any of them by name...it's pure speculation and conjecture.

That is still very much debated among historians.

IMO, it's only denied by apologists.

You seem to have a fairly basic misunderstanding of the study of history. Very few things are KNOWN for certain. Historians study the surviving texts we have, compare it with archaeology, etc., and put together a history. But no one argues more than two historians over what actually happened. The study of history is very often a whole lot of guesswork -- educated guesswork, you bet -- but there are very few things we know with absolute certainty. History is constantly being rewritten as more discoveries are made.

I notice that you conveniently disregard this when it comes to biblical history/archaeology.

You say "Darius the Mede never event existed," but you don't know that for certain.

Well it's the consensus of serious historical scholars...I think I'd rather go with them than dessert goat herders.

Troy is another good example of the uncertainty of history. Scholars used to scoff at its existence, chalking it up to fanciful mythology. But then Schliemann started digging it up and proved the scholars wrong.

It's a pity they haven't been able to do the same with Nazareth!

The Hittites are another. Scholars used to insist that there was no such thing, that only works of fiction like the Bible and other mythologies mentioned them, and since ancient people were obviously not as educated and superior as we are, they were just silly savages. But then we started digging up lots of evidence of the Hittites.

I don't know where you got that from! The Hittites established two Empires. The Old Hittite Kingdom, which lasted from around about 1680 until about 1500 BCE, and the second, called the New Hittite Kingdom, which lasted from about 1400 util about 1200 BCE. This is all recorded in history. The Egyptians also traded with the Hittites, it's recorded in Egyptian history so I don't understand how anyone believed they were a myth.

We still don't know exactly when a prominent historical figure like Julius Caesar was born.

We can narrow it down to July 12 or 13, in the year 100 BCE......isn't that close enough?

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

A document written by one person to another person (or group of persons).

How is that stretching the meaning of correspondence?

To say that the Gospel of Luke is a letter or is 'correspondence' is a reach. That's one VERY LONG LETTER, buddy! I don't think Mr. Luke had a stack of writing paper lying around to write such a long letter! You also don't seem to consider that the "addressee's" name may have been added to the document long after it was originally written, to create the impression that it was orignally a 'correspondence' in the manner that you evidently believe.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

To say that the Gospel of Luke is a letter or is 'correspondence' is a reach. That's one VERY LONG LETTER, buddy! I don't think Mr. Luke had a stack of writing paper lying around to write such a long letter! You also don't seem to consider that the "addressee's" name may have been added to the document long after it was originally written, to create the impression that it was orignally a 'correspondence' in the manner that you evidently believe.

You're looking at it from a 21st century mindset. To be blunt: Times have changed. It's a mistake with any historic document -- be it the Bible, Cicero, Caesar, the Vedas, or whatever -- to force a modern understanding into the interpretation on it.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by ST1100

Sorry mams but I see nothing in here that mentions Babylon, the Medo-Persian Empire,the Greeks or the Roman Empire. All I see here is interpretation, conjecture and wishful thinking. Why are you saying that it's talking about the aforementioned civilisations? It doesn't mention any of them by name...it's pure speculation and conjecture.

Historic context.

If you doubt me, look at any decent Bible commentary. From secular to religious, Catholic to Protestant, they all agree on this.

Originally Posted by ST1100

I notice that you conveniently disregard this when it comes to biblical history/archaeology.

Not at all. But that's a different discussion entirely.

Originally Posted by ST1100

Well it's the consensus of serious historical scholars...I think I'd rather go with them than dessert goat herders.

Whom have you ever known to have a goat herder for dessert?

Originally Posted by ST1100

I don't know where you got that from! The Hittites established two Empires. The Old Hittite Kingdom, which lasted from around about 1680 until about 1500 BCE, and the second, called the New Hittite Kingdom, which lasted from about 1400 util about 1200 BCE. This is all recorded in history. The Egyptians also traded with the Hittites, it's recorded in Egyptian history so I don't understand how anyone believed they were a myth.

Absolutely. But if you go back and read some of the prominent works of "the educated" during the Enlightenment, many of them were poo pooing the existence of the Hittites.

Chronological snobbery hasn't died. (As many comments in this thread prove.) There's a prevailing attitude that ancient peoples were a bunch of mindless, zealots or savages with no functioning brains. Not true. Human beings today are born with essentially the same brains we've been born with for the past 50,000 years or more. We can't swallow the accounts of ancient historians hook, line, and sinker (speaking of Caesar, the man was a blatant liar and propagandist), but we can't disregard them simply because they were the works of ancients.

Chesterton (as usual) said it best: But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad.

Originally Posted by ST1100

We can narrow it down to July 12 or 13, in the year 100 BCE......isn't that close enough?

You're wrong on that score. No one knows for sure when Caesar was born. There's no absolute proof even of the year, much less the day. Some pretty good educated guesses, yes. But absolute proof? No.