|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
deerbreh writes: Whom to believe? Lets see those modern educated very biased scholar's you are talking about is 2,000 years removed from the facts. Just who was those true believer folks trying to impress? They were looking for Jesus to come back any day. Many pooled everything they had so that everybody could have what they needed. Yes they really expected you and I to be here arguing about who wrote what when. God Bless, God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I can tell you it was written before Matthews death but you have made up your mind by reading what Atheist and so-called christian's have said about it. So there is no point. At the same time you have read pro-christian literature and have a closed mind, so there's equally no point.
Irenaeus, quoted Papias, a follower of John and a companion of Polycarp as quoted by Eusebius. So Papias existed. He said Matthew was written in Hebrew. This dates to 60 AD. So a man Eusebius, a noted liar, mentions this more than 300 years after Jesus died and this is good evidence?
quote: You do know that the gMat that we have shows no evidence of translation from Hebrew/Aramaic in to Greek, so it is unlikely that we even have the text that Papias allegedly mentioned?
That would put it prior to 60 AD. And then you would have to assume that the text we have was exactly the same as the one that 'Matthew' wrote, and we know that there are many variants of all of the Gospels, look at the long ending of Mark for eaxmple. Even if we accept that Matthew wrote a Gospel, there is nothing unusual about biblical books being edited time and again, so there is a possiblity that an anonymous author edited the book sometime after 70 CE. But not having any existing texts really doesn't help your case at all.
quote: But until some good evidence is uncovered that is all this is, tradition. Do you approach all ancient texts in the same manner as you approach the Bible, or are you more critical of them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Paulk writes: They said that Matthew produced a collection of sayings, written in Hebrew. The Gospel we are talking about is not a collection of sayings and it is written in Greek. Clearly they are not the same document. So you dispute:
quote: If Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Armaiac to the audience that Matthew is directed at which is the Jews. Why is it impossible that James, who some credit with translating it into Greek or some other person such as Luke translate if for the early Gentile Church? But as far as the unbeliever is concerned nothing can be correct about the entire Bible. If it is then that would mean that more of it could be true and then everybody would be subject to the God of the Bible. So that is fine you have your belief's and opinion's I have mine.Eternity will be determined by those belief's. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Why would they be biased? Scholors who allow bias to creep into their research are going to get something wrong and another scholar is going to show them up in front of the whole community of scholars. They lose face and don't get promoted. What incentive would thay have to do that? As for 2,000 years removed, so what. They have the text. They have other texts to compare it to. They have the benefit of 2000 years of scholarly advances in literary, linguistic and textual analysis.
quote: Hmm - They want to believe what confirms their faith as they understand it? Religious dogma is one of the strongest reasons for bias that prevents critical analysis. The history of the church is replete with examples of religious dogma trumping critical analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Nonsense. If we believe something is correct in the Koran are we then subject to the Allah of the Koran? Really squishy logic there, ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I dispute the idea that the doocument referred to is the Gospel later attributed to Matthew on the grounds that neither the content nor the language match. And since the content differs it is not possible that the Gospel is a translation of the document mentioned by Iranaeus. (Besides which the evidence suggests that much of the Gospel is copied from Mark's Gospel)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Brian writes: You do know that the gMat that we have shows no evidence of translation from Hebrew/Aramaic in to Greek, so it is unlikely that we even have the text that Papias allegedly mentioned? I know there are those that hold that belief and I also know there are those that believe it was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. What does that prove? Only that different people have different opinions.
Brian writes: And then you would have to assume that the text we have was exactly the same as the one that 'Matthew' wrote, and we know that there are many variants of all of the Gospels, look at the long ending of Mark for eaxmple. You mean to tell me science can assume a smear, a pea sized universe that our universe came from existed in an absence of No Thing. This is a fact we know it is, we are here. But I should not assume that a book that was said to be written by a particular person which was quoted by others is what I have today. I have the book also.
Brian writes: Even if we accept that Matthew wrote a Gospel, there is nothing unusual about biblical books being edited time and again, so there is a possibility that an anonymous author edited the book sometime after 70 CE. But not having any existing texts really doesn't help your case at all. Somebody might have edited the book after 70 AD but what difference does that make as to what Matthew prophesied?
Brian writes: But until some good evidence is uncovered that is all this is, tradition. You do have good evidence, you just don't accept it. Let's put it this way there is a lot more evidence for the book of Matthew to have been written by the apostle Matthew than there is for that point the universe is supposed to have came from. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Paulk writes: I dispute the idea that the doocument referred to is the Gospel later attributed to Matthew on the grounds that neither the content nor the language match. And since the content differs it is not possible that the Gospel is a translation of the document mentioned by Iranaeus. Since you have compared the two documents I would like to know where I could find the one mentioned by Iranaeous. But then you are only disputing the idea. That way no research, no comparison no nothing just your opinion. Thanks for your opinion, God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: It makes a huge difference. If someone edits a prophesy after the supposed fulfillment of that prophesy and all we have is the edited version we can't really be sure how well the original prophesy foretold what was going to happen.
quote: Meaningless comparison as the standards of evidence for cosmology are not the same as the standards of evidence for linguistic and textual analysis. Apples and oranges, in other words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Since you first brought up and quoted Iranaeous, shouldn't you be the one to produce the document if needed? In fact, if you aren't even familiar with the document mentioned by Iranaeous, how much is your quote worth? Seems you are quoting information that you know nothing about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
deerbreh writes: Hmm - They want to believe what confirms their faith as they understand it? Religious dogma is one of the strongest reasons for bias that prevents critical analysis. The history of the church is replete with examples of religious dogma trumping critical analysis. Yes they really needed to have something to shore up their faith because they had sold everything they had and put it in a pile for everyone to share. The church history you are talking about is the RC Church. Hunt up the church history of all those that the RCC was burning at the stake for heresies if you want true church history. Concerning the Scholars, "Why would they be biased?" . The only unbiased person is dead or comatose. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
deerbreh writes: Since you first brought up and quoted Iranaeous, shouldn't you be the one to produce the document if needed? In fact, if you aren't even familiar with the document mentioned by Iranaeous, how much is your quote worth? Seems you are quoting information that you know nothing about. The document Iranaeous quoted does not exist today. But Paulk had come to his conclusions because the content of the two did not match therefore he must have found a copy somewhere.
Paulk writes: Message 336 And since the content differs it is not possible that the Gospel is a translation of the document mentioned by Iranaeus. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Dodgy answer. Scholars are trained to put aside personal bias. And peer review provides the accountability to weed out any bias that might slip into a research paper. As I noted, a scholar who can't put aside personal bias is not going to succeed academically. This is a point that those steeped in fundamentalist religious dogma cannot comprehend, it is imo the reason for the antiintellectualism of fundamentalists - they don't understand the process so they fear it. Do you really think that the inability to apply critical thinking to religious documents is restricted to the RC church? What is your basis for thinking that given that the RC church was defending the literal truth of the same documents that you are upholding as literally true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote:I've compared the description (from Papias) with the Gospel we have. Since the Gospel we have is not just a collection of sayings (unlike the Gospel of Thomas) it is clear that the Gospel of Matthew that we have does not match the description. quote: No, you are the one who offers an opinion without research. You haven't offered any evidence that the Gospel of Matthew that we have was translated from a Hebrew original. Moreover you ignore the body of research that has been done into the origins of the Gospels. Papias ALSO gives an origin for Mark's Gospel, attributing it to a follower of Peter who recorded his memories of Peter's teachings. If this is correct then the copying must be from Mark to the Gospel attributed to Matthew. So either Papias is wrong about both Matthew and Mark, or the Gospel of "Matthew" that we have is not the document he referred to and it was written in Greek, copied from Mark. Why should we believe you over Papias, wriiting in the early 2nd Century AD ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
deerbreh writes: Do you really think that the inability to apply critical thinking to religious documents is restricted to the RC church? What is your basis for thinking that given that the RC church was defending the literal truth of the same documents that you are upholding as literally true? They were protecting the gospel they wanted the world to have according to their dogma. They were not pleased at all when the first Bible was printed. People could read it and make up their own mind. Just like you made up yours. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024