The Prophecy of the 70 weeks of Daniel

quote:

---

Lets see those modern educated very biased scholar's you are talking about is 2,000 years removed from the facts.?

---

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:

---

Just who was those true believer folks trying to impress?

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Somebody might have edited the book after 70 AD but what difference does that make as to what Matthew prophesied?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

I would like to know where I could find the one mentioned by Iranaeous.

---

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.

quote:

---

Concerning the Scholars, "Why would they be biased?" .

​

The only unbiased person is dead or comatose.

---

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?

Off topic (now an authorship of Matthew discussion), going in circles and beyond 300. Time to give this one a decent burial.

quote:

---

But we knew where He was buried, but since we saw Him often after He rose from the dead, that doesn't matter. We know where He lives, that is better. He wrote His word in the hearts of deciples, and they imprinted that to others. We have the record, we always have, and it goes right back to creation.

---

I have expressed my opinion that this discussion should be closed and this quote illustrates some of the problems that have crept into the discussion. This is a religious argument you are making. Even though it is a biblical discussion, it is in the science forums. You can't have it both ways. If you want a scientific discussion about the Bible, you cannot invoke religious arguments.