Any comment W_Fortenberry?

The big questions are surely whether the two catastrophes you refer to ever happened and why they would affect lifespan.To start with the division of the division f the Earth - it is far from clear tat that refers to a physical catastrophe at all. The best match in the Bible is the Babel myth which is not a geological catastrophe at all. And is there any physical evidence for such a catastrophe ? If not, why not ?As for the Flood there is no evidence for a genuine worldwide flood at any time in the last 10,000 years. The biggest flood proposed as the basis of the myth is the flooding of the Black Sea - a smaller event, and even that is disputed.As for the ages, even the age of 239 you quote as coming AFTER the Flood is highly implausible. While it is true that the maximum lifespan was not do greatly different even in ancient times, we have nothing to suggest that even that age is possible for a human.

I am not aware of any reputable studies that place any credence in the "table of Nations" as representing actual history.Do you have any references ?(And, BTW, you do realise that "mighty men which were of old" simply means "heroes who lived a long time ago" ? If so can you explain why you find the "men who were of old" to be at all significant ?)

I have looked at Bill Cooper's work (it's on line at Lambert Dolphin's site).And no, I do not consider it reputable - for reasons which have nothing to do with his qualifications. You see I happen to have a translation of one of the works he used as a source - Snorri Sturlusson's Prose Edda. Now the Edda is probably as reliable as any of the sources Cooper uses - yet he completely leaves out Sescef's ancestors as they appear in the Edda, as well as the fact that these ancestors supposedly lived after the Flood.Now leaving out important information - that happens to completely contradict his assertions - without explanation is a little less than honest.As to motives I can only speak of my own. I am concerned primarily with the truth. I am not opposed to the "history" found in the Bible because it is found in the Bible. But neither do I accept it as historically accurate because it is in the Bible.

In the specific case of Seskef's ancestry I would say that neither the Edda, nor the other documents Cooper refers to is reliable - I beleive that Seskef is a legendary figure with no known ancestry. This view is supported by other stories which have Seskef found, as a child, in a shield flaoting in the sea.. However Cooper's whole argument (in this section) depends on the idea that there is a pagan tradition identifying Sescef with Japeth.Now the Edda is largely an attempt to preserve the pagan historical traditions - and this particular section appears in the prologue which is relatively free of myth. It DOES include the Biblical flood and it is absolutely clear that Seskef lived many generations later. So Snorri Sturlusson, although a Christian, does NOT make this link and explicitly denies it.But Bill Cooper does not mention this. He just insists that the documents he has must be entirely accurate and does not address this point at all. He completely ignores it, cutting off the genealogical information from the Edda at Seskef.The most plausible explanation for the data in this section is that the few sources which do identify Seskef with Japeth simply picked this way of fitting Seskef into the Biblical narrative. All the sources which make this identification are Christian.I can see no reason why you would consider Cooper's work more plausible than the alternative other than a bias in favour of Cooper's conclusions. The fact that Cooper clearly avoids discussing contrary evidence in this case in itself indicates that relying on Cooper alone will not lead to a reliable conclusion.If the "ancient manuscripts" have nothing better than a few similar names, not even adequately discussed (Why not consider the fact that Iapetus is one of the - many - uncles of Zeus, and it was Zeus whom the Romans identified with Jupiter ? That it was Iapetus' granddaughter, Pyrrha, who survived the Greek flood myth ?)I am familiar with the claims about biblical prophecy, but I have never encountered anyone who could give me a really convincing example. Even the best examples have more of an appearance of wishful thinking then prdiction while one common example - Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre requires creative interpretation to avoid admitting that it was a failure.

Well it seems that you endorse the claims of Cooper and the like because they support what you already believe. But if their posiiton rests on conclusions decided on in advance then you cannot then turn around and claim that their work supports your case - that would be a circular argument.So far as the Messianic prophecies go those that I have seen are mostly reinterpreted - some not intended as prophecies at all. The most clear messianic prophecies have not been fulfilled.But the most amazing thing is your idea that those who actually do look for the truth instead of following the dogma you have - for whatever reason chosen to follow - are not looking for the truth. You even admit that you follow emotions rather than facts. If you want to go along that path then you have no right to suggest that others are not interested in the truth or even "Truth" (whatever that may be).

Looking at your posts it is clear that you were attempting to support your position by invoking Cooper's works. Message 25 in particualr - and message 32 certainyl implies that you considered Cooper's scholarship and methodology to reliable, despite your comment in message 36 which states that you expected criticism of Cooper's claim on those grounds.With regard to messianic prophecies if you do not know that the usual "prophecies" have been reinterpreted then I have to question if you have really looked into the matter at all. Don;t you eve know that some of the material put forward as "prophecy" is from Psalms ?In your previous post you insisted that anyone who really looks for the truth - insrtead of assuming that the Bible is It as you do - is not looking for the truth. I can understand why you would want to cast such a slur - your views are clearly not defensible on their own merits - but that does not make it any less unpleasant and mean-spirited. And you want me to accept that ?The "message" was a hypocritical lie. An attempt to run from the truth by casting groundless slurs onn anyone who genuinely looks for the truth. Maybe the Bible does support your "message" - but if so then that is one more count against it.[Added in Edit]
You are not my enemy because you tell the truth. If you are my enemy it is because you are opposed to the truth.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-29-2003]

Yes, we do see things differently. For me the truth is about an honest search - for you it is agreeing with what you already believe.Cooper is not honestly seeking the truth - he is seeking to support his beliefs, regardless of the truth. That is why he does not deal with significant evidence against his claims.If you were prepared to accept that then that would be enough. You have your beliefs and if they are not genuinely true you don't want to know. Your mind is closed. If you were a Muslim you would make similar claims about the Quran.So how do you know that the Psalms are prophecies ? Psalm 2 is clearly about a human ruler. And a rather violent one at that. Verse 6 states that there is already a King in Jerusalem - before the day when the "you" of verse 7 is "begotten" (the NIV translation of verse 7 looks more likely - 'I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son ; today I have become your Father."')Psalm 69 ? What about verse 5 ? or verse 6 ? Where does it say that it is a prophecy ? Why could it not be about David, who is the reputed author ?Likewise Psalm 22 - and what do the animals have to do with Jesus ?The most amazing thing is that you claim that Jesus has inspired you to "love" me so much that you insult me and boast that the truth is to be found in worshipping you - yes that is what it amounts to. The Jesus I was taught about in church would inspire humility and honesty - and real love. Not the disdain and arrogance you are projecting.

Just a comment on your use of Jeremiah 31.Given that 3 areas are listed there are only 6 possible orders in which they could be built up, even if there were no geographical reasons to prefer a particular order. So the order is not that impressive, but as I will explain even this rests on a questionable interpretation.Jeremiah 30-31 is one prophecy. It makes it clear even in verse 3 of Jeremiah 30 that one of the major points of the prophecy is the return of the Lost Tribes of Israel

quote:

---

For behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah.' The LORD says, 'I will also bring them back to theland that I gave to their forefathers and they shall possess it.'

---

So far the best that we can say is that it has not been fulfilled.While the verses you list do indeed list the areas you mention there is no clear indication that this represents the order in which these areas will be built up. There is no narrative in which the building is described - just a list of areas. Indeed, if we were to take any order of events from this prophecy, we would have to say that the return of the Lost Tribes - which is mentioned in the first few verses of this prophecy (30:1-3) - precedes the building, which is not mentioned until the last few (31:38-40, 40 being the last verse). Of course this has not yet occurred so if you wush to use the order of the verses as an order of events the building referred to cannot have begun yet, since eit must await the arrival of the Lost Tribes. It follows then that the best argument available to you is the unremarkable fulfilment of the areas mentioned being built upon, without relying on the order.
Hardly an impressive example of prophecy fulfilment.

I'm surprised that you don't know. The "Lost Tribes" as those of the Kingdom of Israel (as opposed to Judah) who were taken into exile by the Assyrians and lost to history. That is all the tribes, except Judah and Benjamin (see 1 Kings 12 for the division and 2 Kings 17 for the fall of Israel).And I find it odd that you can't find the references when I quoted one of them for you. Jeremiah 30:3 makes it clear that the return in the following verses includes the tribes belonging to both kingdoms, Israel and Judah. That is repeated in 31:31. Jeremiah 31:18-20 makes specific references to the tribe of Ephraim (who as descendants of Joseph are "childen" of Rachel).

I don't consider the tribes to be literally descendants of individuals in the way the Bible tells it. However the "Lost Tribes" are the people of the Kingdom of Israel, which supposedly formed ten of the tribes, and they are lost to history.

With regard to this challenge, the earlier decree of Cyrus (as mentioned in Ezra 1) is more likely meant - and every source I have found puts the accession of Ataxerxes at 464 BC, which would make his twentieth year 445 BC.Moreover there is a serious problem with any intepretation of the prophecy as referring to Jesus - the events of the final "week" do not fit. Jerusalem was eventually besieged and taken by Rome - but more than thirty years later. The chronology better fits the events of the Seleucid domination of Israel and the Maccabean revolt.

I would say that since they are lost in the sense that their culture has been lost that a return - and certainly a return as described in Jeremaiah would be impossible without supernatural intervention.

I certainly would not trust that site. I've seen the same rubbish before. in my own investigations. The "Prophetic Years" business for instance is an obvious fabrication to try to make the numbers come out "right". Even then he has to put the date of the Crucifixion as 32 AD, contrary to the accepted view (30 or 32 AD).Indeed investigating the rest of the site I find that the author is very greatly distorting the facts. For instance the claim that "the Book of Daniel existed in documented form almost three centuries before Christ was born" (Telnet Communications - High Speed Internet & Home Phone Solutions) is an outright falsehood. There is no such documentation.

Well you aren't agreeing with me at all. I don't think that there was anything supernatural in the return of the Jews.The reason that I beleive that the "Lost Tribes" could only be returned by supernatural intervention is that they were absorbed into other cultures and they simply cannot be identified. That is certainly not the case fo rthe Jews.

It seems that you fail to understand my point. The site you referred to is an apologetic site of the sort that is so biased as to be completely untrustworthy. It simply ahs no value as a serious source. If this is the calibre of your sources then you have no chance of finding the facts.Even if the particular error I pointed out is not directly relevant to the particular issue under discussion, it is serious enough to cast a shadow over every claim made by it. Do you not care about the reliability of your sources ?Even if you find some way to get your "five year error" there is still the question of which decree - the decree of Cyrus came first and is more likely meant and the fact that the last week does not fit.