Any comment W_Fortenberry?

Hi W_Fortenberry!Just saying hello, it is nice to see you again. I hope you and your loved ones are very well.Brian.

Hi Brian,Thanks for the welcome. It is good to be back. My family and I are doing very well and I trust the same is true of you and yours.

This is the second theme which you claim demonstrates the Bible's unreliability. The Bible portrays God as being a God of order (I Cor 14:40 and etc.). Thus all that the God of the Bible does will be done in an orderly fashion. If He were to choose out a people for the purpose of revealing Himself to mankind, it only stands to reason that He would interact with that nation in an orderly fashion. Thus to attempt to discredit the Bible based on the orderliness of its accounts is to presuppose that God did not interact with men as the Bible says He did. Therefore I do not agree that the systematic chronologies of the Bible are evidence of its unreliability. I will agree that it is highly unlikely that such systemization would have occurred without either the direct interaction of God among men or the direct manipulation of the entire cannon after its completion and acceptance (allow me to interject here that I do not believe such a manipulation as demanded by this explanation to be possible). The presence of orderliness alone is not sufficient evidence to discredit the Biblical accounts.

As i have asked in other posts, how can we take the bible as fact? It is a fact that the bible has been changed many many times over the years, and there are many diffrent versions of the bible. If you were to take the bible into a court of law and try to use it as evidence it would be thrown out, as it can be shown that the bible has been tampered with. So again I will state the burden of proof falls to the initial claim that the bible is a factual. Untill you can prove to me that the bible is completly true (which is impossible to do) any and all claims that the bible is proof of anything holds no weight in a debate.------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--

sup32string,I am sure you realize that this thread was started by Brian for the express purpose of seeking the answers that I have provided and will continue to provide to a list of statements presented in another thread. If you would be so kind as to allow us to discuss the topic for which this thread was created, I would greatly appreciate it.If you wish to argue about who has the greater burden of proof, I am sure you could start another thread to that effect. I, for one, am not the slight bit interested in who must prove what. I participate in this forum during my severly limited spare time for the sole purpose of increasing my knowledge and understanding of the debates in which I take part.Furthermore, though you may not accept the Bible as true in its entirety, I sincerly doubt that anyone here would disagree with Proverbs 18:13. Yes, it would certainly be wise to learn as much as one can about a matter before putting forth an opinion. I look forward to seeing your new thread on the burden of proof.

w_fortenberry,Since you use the bible to answer questions and quote verses, it is resonable to ask how correct these passages are, so the fact that this thread was started to seek answers one must ask if the answers being given are in fact true. In order for one to obtain the answers they are seeking, and I too am looking, one must find out if the sources are in fact reliable. So this is why this post is on this thread. Again I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me how credible these answers you are giving are. Sorry if I had steped in on the thread, but if you two did not wish input from others then you probably should have emailed each other and not used a public board for this. At this time I dont wish to argue the burden of proof, it wont get either of us anywhere, but the reliability of your sources must be adressed if you are going to quote from the bible and use it as fact.
I just hope you understand why I am questioning, for if the sources you are using to answer the questions is unreliable then the answers are useless. If your not prepared to defend your sources then maybe you should stop posting answers, and if you are prepared, I would be greatly interested in hearing them. I hope the both of us can increase our knowledge of the subject, this is why I asked the question, not to irritate, but to be educated. You seem like an intelligent person, and so far not a single person I have asked have given me any satisfactory answers, and I was hoping maybe you could.------------------
--ignorance is humankind's worst enemy--

Very well, sup32string. I welcome you to the debate. Are you familiar with the arguments that have been presented to date? If so, please inform me of exactly which part of my answer requires further clarification. Please inform me of which sources you are referring to, where I made use of them (please quote), and why you think each specific usage is unreliable. I would be happy to answer any of your questions, but I will only do so at the proper time and place. To deviate from the topic at hand would not be beneficial to those participating in this thread. If you were to open a new thread specifically for discussing your questions, I would certainly give consideration to posting on that thread. In this thread, however, I would like to keep my posts on topic.Again, I welcome you to the debate, and I look forward to learning your view of the systematic chronologies of the Bible.

Hi W_F,Thanks for your reply.Can I just remind you of the claim that I made on the other thread. What I am stating is that modern day historians doubt the reliability of the Bible because of these themes.The way in which I use the Old Testament is as an historical source for attempting to reconstruct the origins of Ancient Israel. What I am claiming is that historians have doubts about the reliability because the Bible has certain traits that seem unhistorical, in this case the apparently regimented time scales, the passing of periods of time that are too well packaged. Historians doubt that these chronologies are accurate because, in their experience, and frankly in everyones personal experience, life isn't quite that well ordered, you even agree with this.However, your explanation for the schematic chronologies is that God is behind these chronological structures, which is fair enough on a theological level. But, in relation to an historical enquiry, God cannot be considered as a factor. God has never been proven as an entity that can affect the natural world. Historians only examine items that can be verified, they need cold, hard examinable evidence.Therefore, God is not a part of historical enquiry, sure your explanation is accpetable in a theological sense, but it isn't acceptable from an historical viewpoint, and I am speaking exclusively from an historical viewpoint.Imagine that you are a student at a university and you are studying history, and you use God as a reason for an event. Your tutor would remind you that you are in the department of History not Divinity or Religious Studies.What is essentially happening when God is included is that you are including a factor that cannot be examined by historical methodology, how could the historian verify that God has intervened? You are introducing an X-factor, whenever there seems to be a problem then 'God' is the cause.I think, as I have said before, that we are approaching the problem from two different angles. I am looking at the Old Testament claims from an historical point of view, which cannot include God, and you are coming from a theological point of view, which is has God as its main factor.My basic argument is that historians doubt the Bible because it is unreliable when used as an historical source, I welcome your responses to this claim, but your responses have to be given from an historical viewpoint, coming from a theological viewpoint is NOT addressing a historical problem. You are answering an 'X' type question from a 'Y' type method of enquiry.I realise that this restricts you greatly in being able to address these problems but this is the nature of historical research. The supernatural is beyond the realms of historical enquiry, any alleged supernatural event has , for the historian, to have a natural explanation because natural events can be verified and examined. For example, the parting of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds), may have been cuased by a volcanic eruption on the Island of Thera, this would be accessible to the historian, but God is not in the equation.To address my claims from an historical viewpoint would require you to present specific examples of similar well-ordered, verifable neatly packaged chronologies from other sources. You could say then that the apparent schematic chronologies in the Old Testament are possible because in such and such a culture we have evidence of similar well-ordered chronologies.My claims that these schemes undermine the reliability of the Bible as a reliable source for reconstructing accurate history doesn't mean that the Bible is untrue, it only means that for some people, historians in this instance, doubt that events have been recorded accurately.So I would like to repeat that from a historical viewpoint God cannot be used as an explanation, if you are going to seriously address these historical problems then you have to do it from an hisrorical approach.Can I assume that my first point about the long life spans have been accepted by you as a valid reason for historians doubting the accuracy of Bible?Again this doesn't mean that the Bible is untrue, I am only asking if you agree that it is valid reason for historians doubting its authenticity because these long life spans have never been verified.Thanks again.Brian.PS, I am glad you are back at the forum, I very much enjoy your contributions, it isn't often that I get to discuss topics that are directly related to my area of study. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

Hi fortenberry,
I just now noticed your post in my index. Guess I'll have to change my preferences and have responses emailed to me. Time is short this morning so I may not have time answer to your objection before going off to work. Will try to get back to you before the day is over. Thank you for your reply.db

That's not exactly a quote. My assertion is that the when the formula is applied to the genealogy of Genesis chapter five, it results in normal lifespans. Not quite. Your statement could be misleading. The quote from Job supports the theory, yes. But it is not primary evidence. a) The age of Job is not given. The number of 'years' he lives afterward, is given.b) I do not consider that to be a failure. Not even an oversight. But I will look at it with you all the same. There are two problems with your statement.1) You forgot to add 13 to the (n/12.38). The age given is 140 years. Divide this by 12.38 and the result is 11.3; add 13 and the result is 24.3.2) Job's age at the time of the test is not given. Some men start their family at an early age. The youngest fathers in the Genesis 5 chronology were about fifteen and one half years of age. If this were true of Job's family then he could be a grandfather at thirty and a great grandfather at forty five. So, Job may have been able to produce four generations in less than half a century.I know, I know, "But his children were all killed." And "he couldn't have produced four more generations in only 24.3 years." I have re-read that part. I notice that nothing is said of his children's children; his grand children. And considering his legendary wealth, it would not be unrealistic to assume that he was at or near middle age when the tragedies struck. And it is not unrealistic to assume that his grandchildren were not present at a party where their parents were consuming alcholic beverages. Of course he couldn't produce four generations in 11 years, but he could have "seen" four generations in 24.3 years. Much as you might wish I had ... I did not derive my formula from that text in Job. Furthermore, the Job text we are now considering does not offer a serious challenge to the theory.There is a lot left unsaid in the book of Job. The prologue of the book is small and the epilogue is miniscule. These exist only to introduce and cap a long epic poem about the meaning of life, the universe and everything (thank you Douglas Adams). The portion dealing with family matters forms a miniscule portion of the prologue and even less of the epilogue.The number of the original children is not given and none of them are named. Only Job's three daughters, presumably fathered after his ordeal, are named; none of his seven sons are named (something highly unusual in biblical literature). For this (evidence of matrilineal society) and other reasons, many scholars believe that Job was "borrowed" from Canaanite literature and adapted to the Hebrew palate.We do not know how many of Job's grandchildren or great grandchildren were alive while he raised his ten new kids. And 24.3 years is plenty of time for a man to have ten new kids, and "see" four generations of offspring.There is another factor which may come into play here: evolution of the calendar itself. It was a tumultuous and controversial subject in ancient times and the conflict continues to this day. It is much too complex to discuss here (I just don't want to do it) but there are plentiful materials online and in the library. {there is evidence of the conflict in the Bible itself} I cannot offer you a simple solution to every challenge which may be presented to my theory, but so far I have seen no substantive threat to its validity.Sometimes we have to change our minds to accomodate the facts of life.db------------------
http://www.sun-day-school.us

Hi Brian,Thank you for the clarification. Please forgive me for not understanding this sooner. This then is the evidence which is needed if the other claims I have made are to be taken as true. I will endeavor to obtain this evidence and present it here in a concise format. If this can be done, it would provide some validation of the statements that I have made heretofore.To begin with, I would like to direct you to my final posting (Message 80) on the "Flat Earth Beliefs" thread. In that post, I presented a summation of my argument for a geocentric model. I do not wish to get off topic by bringing that discussion into this thread, but I would like to reference it as "food for thought" when considering evidence for God's existence.I have also begun studying the Welsh revivals in hopes that they can also be used as evidence of God's interaction with His creation. If you have access to any information regarding these events, you might want to begin studying it for yourself. (I might take a while)I will be studying several along other venues as well, and will post my information as soon as possible.Thank you once again for your clarification.

Hi W_F,Thanks for the reply.If you can prove that God exists and interacts with the natural world then sure it validates your arguments, and it would more than likely make you a very rich man!Could I offer a friendly word of caution. Be careful not to mistake Belief that God interactedwith Proof that God interacted.A mistake that is often made is that because people said God interacted with them it doesn't necessarily mean that He did.I have long ago stopped trying to disprove God, if my studies into the historical reliability of the bible proves that the BIble is not a reliable source for reconstructing history I still wouldnt claim that this disproves God.Anyway, good luck in your quest and don't forget your Scottish friend when your first million dollars roll in!Cheers, take care.Brian.

According to your earlier analysis, the thirteen years are added to account for childhood years. In every case that I am aware of, these childhood years only occur once per individual. Job had obviously already passed those years by the time of his testing; therefore, it would be highly irregular to add thirteen years to the time span designated for his life after his trial.

Right you are!My mistake. Even less of a chance to father four more generations, but adequate time to father ten children nonetheless, and see the great grandchildren of his original family.I am sure there are more problematic cases with which you could challenge my theory. (Not that I am particularly interested in dealing with them, you understand.) ------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

Brian,I have begun studying the evidences of God and am prepared to present the following preliminary information.I had many avenues open to me through which to persue my search, but I chose to limit myself to just those evidences which the Bible itself claims as proof of the existence of God. Therefore I present as the first of my arguments that the existence of the world itself is evidence for the existence of God according to Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20. I have already presented evidence for this argument in another thread, and I would very much like to hear your opinion of that evidence.To obtain the parameters for my second argument, I searched for all of the instances of "shall know that I am the Lord" within the Bible. I found that the majority of the usages of this phrase were in reference to the fulfillment of specific prophecies. Therefore my second argument is that the fulfilled prophecies of Scripture are evidence of the existence of God. I hope to eventually present evidence of this fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Israel, Ammon, Moab, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, and Seir. However, I am currently going through the long and arduous process of double checking my sources. Let me then begin with just an outline of the prophecies concerning Israel and their possible fulfillments. Any information you can provide in regards to these prophecies will be greatly appreciated.The fulfilled prophecies of IsraelA. Israel destroyed and dispersedLev 26:27-39, Isa 1:7-8, Isa 6:9-12, Deut 29:18-28, Eze 6:1-7, 6:11-14, Eze 7, Eze 11:1-13, Eze 12:17-20, Eze 15, Eze 22:13-16, Eze 23, and Eze 33:23-33These prophecies were not fulfilled until after the time of Christ.B. Israel to be preservedIsa 49:8-26, Eze, 6:8-10, Eze 11:14-21This prophecy is fulfilled in that the Jewish people still exist today.C. Israel to be restoredIsa 49:8-26, Eze 20:33-44, Eze 28:25-26, Eze 34:20-31, Eze 36, Eze 37, Eze 39:25-29This prophecy did not begin to be fulfilled until the early 1900’s and is still being fulfilled today.D. Jerusalem to be enlargedJer 31:38-40, Zech 14:10This prophecy was fulfilled during the early 1900’s in the exact order predicted.The area around the tower of Hananeel was built up first then the Gate of the Corner or the Joffa Gate followed by the development of the hill of Gareb up to the area of Goah and the valley of the dead bodies. Then the city grew with the development of the area where the ashes from the temple sacrifice used to be thrown out. The fields were developed next from northeast of the valley of dead bodies to the brook Kidron and all the way down to the Horse Gate.Again, this is just a preliminary report on the direction in which my study has proceeded. I will present more information as often as possible and will put a priority on any responses which you may have to my posts.Thanks for the challenge,w_fortenberry