[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct."

Nice preconception there Fyron. It might actually support his argument, so therefore it has to be wrong.

Phoenix-D

No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).

This is a completely unwarranted statement. The bible is not the Gilgamesh epic, or the tales of Hercules. The 'mythic' aspects are pretty much limited to the first book or so. Once you get past the creation story and the parting of the red sea you'll find a rather detailed account of the movers and shakers of the ancient jewish world. It describes the bloody history of a tribe of nomads that eventually settled down, usually through the perspective of the most influential political/religious leader at the time.

I know what the Bible is. There is more to it than just the tale of the Hebrew people. Or are you specifically choosing to ignore the New Testament? There is plenty in it that has nothing to do with that tribe of nomads.

[quote]The books of the bible (both oral and then written) were passed down as historical records not mere folklore. Just because a lot of their decisions were made based upon what would seem to be bad acid trips does not mean that the bible is a book of fairy tales. If it was it would be a much more interesting read and wouldn't have so many "begat's" in it.[/b]Ok... you do not know what the term mythology means. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairy tales. I guess I will have to repeat myself: mythology is a collection of tales that define the moral values of a culture. Hmm... the Bible is a collection of tales, which Jews and Christians essentially get their moral values from. Therefore, Bible = mythology.

The Odyssey was passed down as historical record. Does that make everything it says historical fact? No way. Most religious texts/tales were passed down as historical record. The Bible is nothing special in this regard. It has parts based on reality, and parts that are fictional, dramatized for effect.

By the way Fyron, I seem to remember you mentioning that you don't even own a bible. Is that true?

Without a doubt. But does that make a difference? No. There are plenty of Online copies of the Bible available for free.

If so, are you sure that you know what you are actually arguing about?

Yes, I am quite sure.

Grossly misinformed statements like the above quote would seem to indicate that you have some kind of aVersion to religion itself, rather than a specific problem with the bible (a book that you appear to be quite unfamiliar with).

You have grossly misinterpreted my statements. My statements are still quite accurate, and they stand.

I am unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty details of the Bible, but that does not really matter much for this debate. I do not know the nitty-gritty details of other manuscripts, such as the Constitution. But, I know what it is about. Would you say I am quite unfamiliar with it, just because I don't own a copy of it, and I don't read it very often? I would hope not.

[ March 11, 2003, 08:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
A lot of them did not do things like place the heads of all rebels on pikes in front of newly conquered cities. They did not go in and force whole villages to move elsewhere so that they would not know the land around them, and would have a harder time forming a resistance. Or was that the Macedonians (under Alexander the Great)? Probably both. They are only labelled as "barbarians" because the Romans used a word in Latin that the English "barbarian" is derived from. But, that word meant "foreigners" and not "savages". It is the original English translation that has caused a lot of misconceptions as to people assuming that all of the tribes that fought against the Romans were savage.

Actually, the Romans were quite “liberal” as someone else already posted. Give me your money and live as you like. And for that matter, it were different times. The Celts weren’t better or worse in treating their enemies. Heck, they burned the Last warrior to come to a raid to death as a sacrifices to the gods. Better not be late, eh?
You are correct, “barbarians” is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means “bearded”, which was uncommon for Greeks.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesised appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).

And that’s sums it up. No need to discuss any further. Fyron, you just did what you claimed the church did in the EDA. “The earth simply cannot revolve around the sun. If it seems to do so, something fishy has to have taken place.” You just rule out any other explanation because it won’t fit in your world. All the arguments I will bring forth on that matter will fall on deaf ears because what I say just cannot be true. Logic in your world says so!
The point about the prophesies is that either you think that they are possible or they are not. And as a scientist in a Hellenistic tradition you think it highly improbable that prophesy is possible. However, as long as there are indications that it might be possible (biblical texts) you cannot rule it out until you get hard proof that it really is impossible. It might be much more likely that someone tinkered with the texts but that’s no definite proof. I doubt that such hard proof will ever be available. So, I stand critical but will not rule out the possibility that the biblical texts are indeed prophecies.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus).

Real prophesy is not possible IF there is no God. I cannot prove to you scientifically that God exists, but you cannot prove that God does not exist. Why? Because God is outside of creation, being the creator Himself. I can point to things that lead me to believe that there is a designer, such as the complexity of life, the complexity of molecular structures, the complexity of the formation of our solar system, and on and on, but you will say that those are the result of accidents, or are "the way things are". Neither of us can prove or disprove that there was a hand that set it all in motion.

Incidently, the point of prophesy in the Bible is not the prediction of the future, but the revealing of God's will. It might involve foretelling the future, but not always. It is God speaking through a person to reveal His truth.

[Baron Munchausen]

Mephisto wrote:

You are correct, “barbarians” is a term for a foreigner but it is Greek, not Roman. It means “bearded”, which was uncommon for Greeks.

Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them. That's why the long, repetitive, multi-voweled 'trance' words in the Gnostic texts are called 'barbarous names'. They're huge, confusing messes of letters to us, but they were apparently representing some form of chant for the ancient people who wrote them down.

Alpha Kodiak: Kudos for recognizing that God cannot be either proven or disproven. Most people these days think that if the logic diagram cannot be closed then the 'issue' to be proven is automatically disproven. Deh... so much for modern 'education'...

[ March 11, 2003, 16:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Actually, no. 'Barbarian' comes from the Greeks immitating what the sound of foreigner's language sounded like to them.

I stand corrected. There are sources that say it derrives from "bearded" but this seems only to be a rumor.

A link:
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue010.html

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Alpha Kodiak: Kudos for recognizing that God cannot be either proven or disproven. Most people these days think that if the logic diagram cannot be closed then the 'issue' to be proven is automatically disproven. Deh... so much for modern 'education'...

It is a good thing that I have never once made a claim or argument as to whether the Christian God exists or not, isn't it? If you can not prove whether something exists or not, continuing to claim that it exists is just as large a logical fallacy as continuing to claim that it does not exist.

I think I need to repost this, because it keeps being ignored, and it is much more important than these silly arguments over the alleged prophesizing powers of the Bible:

All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology (please read back a few Posts to see what mythology is if you do not know the real definition) and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong?

[ March 11, 2003, 17:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.[/QB]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... you do not know what the term mythology means. It has absolutely nothing to do with fairy tales. I guess I will have to repeat myself: mythology is a collection of tales that define the moral values of a culture. Hmm... the Bible is a collection of tales, which Jews and Christians essentially get their moral values from. Therefore, Bible = mythology.

The Odyssey was passed down as historical record. Does that make everything it says historical fact? No way. Most religious texts/tales were passed down as historical record. The Bible is nothing special in this regard. It has parts based on reality, and parts that are fictional, dramatized for effect.

I am quite aware of the definition of mythology. Myths do not necessarily define the morals of a culture. They explain cultural practices and natural phenomena. Morality may or may not be associated with them. You seem to be saying that the only moral basis of a culture (particularly an ancient one) is myth. This isn't so. The morality dictated within the bible was shaped by the conditions and leaders at the time. The leaders themselves were guided by religious beliefs though and perhaps that is something that you are not comfortable with.

Comparing the bible to the odyssey is just an attempt to minimise the bible, nothing more. The odyssey is a literary construct showing the heroes journey through a supernatural landscape that required the heroes to stab cyclops in the eye and resist the unnatural lures of the siren (IIRC). The more fantastical elements of the bible are, for the most part, limited to visions by various prophets and environmental effects attributed to god. Both of which are well within the realms of modern comprehension and acceptance.

Also, the bible (again, for the most part) is meant to be taken literally, and so does not really qualify as myth. Why did I have to qualify that? Because you have Take various scriptures in context. If prophet X tells his people about his vision it means that prophet X has literally had a vision and is acting upon it. It does not mean that the contents of said vision were walking around in biblical times.

Your implication that the bible is merely a collection of 'tales' minimizes any historical import that it may have and tries to force it into a Category of literature to which it does not belong.