How reliable are the T.N.Kh./ Old Testament prophecies, and how do we know?

[timojin]

That time-frame was based on the generations of names in their oral tradition. Only, some of those generations were way longer than any real humans ever live, while others are glossed over because so little is known about them, so the scribes' math it pretty screwy. That's not a criticism: every tribe makes up some screwy math and physics to explain its own origin.
(I am, however, extremely critical of modern people who try to impose those ancient stories on other people who know better.)

Where? In the Bible? Lots of nearby cultures are mentioned, but not in detail, since the Jews of that time didn't get close to any of the cultural centers. Probably, they got to the market at the edge of Damascus, Hebron, Tyre, Beersheeba, sold some bullocks, bought some fabric and olive oil, then moved on. They knew about Sumer, Egypt and Assyria, but not Greece or Rome, until they were conquered, and certainly not about India or China.

If the much-storied Abraham invented a whole language, 1. To whom did he speak it ? 2. Why would he need it? and 3. Why doesn't the bible mention it?

That's what i said. Some of the peoples in the region were like the Jews, more or less, while some were very far advanced beyond them.
The bible doesn't talk much about them, because it was never meant to be the story of mankind. The early parts were meant to be the story of the Jews - as they liked to tell it, from their own perspective, for their own self-esteem. The collection, and later parts, were meant for European Christians, to give a background and authority to their religion, which the Roman priests were constructing.

Abraham come from UR Chaldean an before the area was Sumeria and after Akkadian replaced them . The language I believe was Semitic , then Abraham moved among Canaanites, I believe the language was no muy different because Abraham dealt with Hittite also in the area by Hebron.
Beside each culture or tribu will recant verbally to ancestry about himself and not history of their neighbors unless there is some interaction like dispute . Let's look at the American history and how much details are written on colonizing the native American , even we had paper and pen and we had ability in reading and writing.

 

[Jeeves]

Yes, and how much of it is legend, wishful thinking, one-sided, obfuscation and just plain lies?
Thus, also with the bible - plus one difference:
It taken out of its native land and re-written in the fourth century AD, by a committee of Roman Catholic prelates, for use in Europe.

 

[rakovsky]

All I wanted to add was thebible gives a great account of creation.
Who was the witness of creation?
If there was no witness the account must be made up.
A great start... Even the start of the story is made up.

The Lord God would have been the witness of Creation and then could have told Adam, Abraham, Moses, or other Bible writers about what happened.

 

[rakovsky]

What, you found people buried in places where people died? Astonishing!

I am not personally sure that Abraham was ever actually found by modern archaeologists in Hebron.
But the Bible does say he died at least about there and there is a famous shrine there called the Tomb of Abraham today.

Whom did you ask and how do you know they're the same people as the ones in the stories?

Jewish tradition says that the Tomb of Abraham is that of "the" Abraham from the Bible.

Have we machtched the Assyrian Expansion into Egypt? or the conquering o Cambyses conquering of Egypt , with writing in the bible with those expansions . If you have done the you will give some credence to the to the Prophets

What's that got to do with prophets or prophecy?

I think he was inferring that if the Bible's stories were legitimate, they would have to include Assyrians conquering Egypt.
I don't agree with his logic though. Just because Assyria conquered Egypt doesn't mean that the Bible "has" to say this.

But if you want pretty sound information on the Bible - though not up-to-date on archeology - read Isaac Asimov's Guide

Here is a direct link:
http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.n...e-to-the-Bible-The-Old-and-New-Testaments.pdf

He claims:

Isaiah 26:19. Thy dead men shall live . . .
This verse is good evidence for the lateness of the apocalypse, for the doctrine of resurrection of the dead reaches its development in the post-Exilic period, certainly not as early as the lifetime of Isaiah.
...
Jews will then return from exile (another sign that the passage is to be dated long after the time of Isaiah)

I don't agree with this claim by Asimov that resurrection was just made up after the Exile.
First of all, dead people resurrecting is something talked about in the pre-Exile story of Elijah resurrecting a young person, and then another story where Elijah's bones touch a corpse and the corpse reenlivens.

Second, the Psalms predict resurrection of the dead eg. Psalm 16 (where God doesn't "let the holy one undergo decay/the pit") and Psalm 22 (the people who are in the dust praise God).

Third, Asimov is using the story of resurrection in Isaiah 26 as "evidence" to say that Isaiah's "apocalypse" is late (ie post-exile). But how do we know that resurrection is a "late" post-exile teaching in the first place? Because it doesn't show up ever until the post-Exile writings? Well, Isaiah was not a post-Exile prophet. But Asimov concludes that Isaiah 26 is post-Exile because it includes resurrection. This is awfully circular logic by Asimov through and through.

 

[spidergoat]

What makes those prophecies reliable, and how does the prophecy function?

1. They aren't.
2. The prediction and the fulfillment of that prediction are in the same book. Make sure you write them so they match.

 

[rakovsky]

Cute! He creates men and women - plural, in the same way as other animals - on Saturday afternoon, and then, next Monday morning, He wakes and says, "I think I'll get me some red clay and make a special little metaphor-man - and then had the afterthought of making the metaphor-wife out of his rib, and sticking these ignorant savages in the same garden where the gods had their most precious fruit trees. Then he doesn't even bother to keep an eye on them!
And we're supposed to take this seriously?

Lmojin is probably expecting people to take the story seriously.
However, what he is giving is his own personal interpretation of the Creation story. And people's interpretations don't always work out.

What you should want to do to understand the story is check the rabbis' and best old-school and modern mainstream Christian theologians' explanations and pick what works.
The reason is that even if the story is made up 3200+ years ago, the writer still probably tried to write it so it at least made sense, whereas 3200 years people will have some trouble figuring out on their own what it was supposed to mean.

So I don't think that what Genesis is intending to tell is a story where:

He creates men and women - plural, in the same way as other animals - on Saturday afternoon, and then, next Monday morning, He wakes and says, "I think I'll get me some red clay and make a special little metaphor-man - and then had the afterthought of making the metaphor-wife out of his rib

How do you mean 'seduced'?

Google definitions says of seduce "attract (someone) to a belief or into a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy."
God told Adam not to eat the fruit from the tree, but then she persuaded him to. It's like seducing with a temptation.
The devil's temptation was so that people could turn into Gods or God's equal (something seemingly beneficial) by breaking this rule.
But the course of action was inadvisable, because the master of the Garden said not to do it.

 

[rakovsky]

I didn't say that it is made up only that it's possible.
Suggesting that something is made up, or fiction, is not to claim that every single bit of information within it is made up.

Alex's comment was: "Could the bible just be made up stuff and any parallel to reality simply an interesting coincidence."

You replied that Alex's comment was "far too reasonable". Your agreement is finding it extremely reasonable "that every single bit of information within it is made up."

 

[rakovsky]

• "In fact, they were still nomadic herdsmen, long after the great civilizations of the middle east region (and Asia, that they never heard of) had been established. After sitting out the worst famine period in Egypt .... they overpowered another small nation and took its land. Had to fight to keep it; had to fight for any advantage - pretty much all the time. But eventually they settled and became civilized enough to set down in writing their oral traditions, myths, legends, folklore, popular stories and prophecies - and, as you say, lists of names. (Making up that chronology must have been a creative challenge.)" - JEEVES

• Nothing was said about other culture nor any name .

Where? In the Bible?

I think he could be saying that the Hebrew Old Testament never says that their story was received from other unrelated earlier civilizations and cultures, but rather was received from their ancestors and also that the Creation story doesn't include a list of names other than Adam, Eve, and their children.

Or maybe he just doesn't realize that earlier he himself had mentioned a "chronology of names".

If the much-storied Abraham invented a whole language, 1. To whom did he speak it ? 2. Why would he need it? and 3. Why doesn't the bible mention it?

Sorry, I don't understand why you are asking about Abraham inventing a whole language.
The Bible says that Abraham came from Ur (Sumeria or Babylon), which was a preceding civilization before Abraham. The Bible doesn't deny that civilizations preceded Abraham.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes, and how much of it is legend, wishful thinking, one-sided, obfuscation and just plain lies?

I expect that American history, to which you refer, is generally or mostly correct, as opposed to "legend, one-sided, and just plain lies".

However, I think it often involves obfuscation or wishful thinking. To give a simple example, they might tell you that Japan attacked the US in WII, but often won't go into details about peace possibilities that were missed or stymied by the US side. The US history of WWII could be generally correct, but there could still be obfuscation, etc. on some issues.

 

[rakovsky]

One important thing I want to please ask people in the thread to discuss is the possibility of precognition, like I wrote about in messages #2 and #3 in this thread.
For example, I quoted Sascha Vongehr writing on the Science 20 website about the scientific theoretical possibility of precognition.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm open to scientific evidence of precognition, but that has nothing to do with the mythology of the Jews, which is almost complete bullshit.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The Lord God would have been the witness of Creation and then could have told Adam, Abraham, Moses, or other Bible writers about what happened.

Well do you claim God told someone if so be specific.
We have a statement of alledged fact yet no evidence of how the fact was arrived at.
I say it was made up, and we do not even know who made it up, yet on such an important issue you seem happy to believe the account because it is in the bible.
You are aware the bible was written by men, edited by men, printed and distributed by men which offers no recomendation as to its validity but suggest it merely records mens opinions and views.
If you accept something as being true would it not be wise to question the qualification and soundness of mind of the author and the motivations behind his writing.
As I said as no human witnessed any of the events of creation how can a human write about it?
IF God told someone who was it?
Think it through and ask yourself if it could be anything other than made up.
Alex

 

[spidergoat]

If you accept something as being true would it not be wise to question the qualification and soundness of mind of the author and the motivations behind his writing.

It's more than that. The evidence of a statement in a book can't just be another statement in the same book! It doesn't matter if the person writing the book is qualified and sane with nothing but good motivations.

 

[Jeeves]

One important thing I want to please ask people in the thread to discuss is the possibility of precognition, like I wrote about in messages #2 and #3 in this thread.
For example, I quoted Sascha Vongehr writing on the Science 20 website about the scientific theoretical possibility of precognition.

No, I hold no store by precognition. What I've read about it, the proofs seem flimsy, at best. The examples with which I'm somewhat familiar are in language so vague and a time-frame so difficult to calculate as yo make them quite meaningless. The biblical ones: "The nation shall suffer because her kings don't obey the god" would be reliably counted on to come true, of any country, anywhere, any time.

As for my exchanges with Timojin, I won't even try to reconstruct them in the new, incomplete contextual version.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It's more than that. The evidence of a statement in a book can't just be another statement in the same book! It doesn't matter if the person writing the book is qualified and sane with nothing but good motivations.

Excellent point.
Alex

 

[rakovsky]

I'm open to scientific evidence of precognition, but that has nothing to do with the mythology of the Jews,

I wrote about scientific evidence of precognition in my 2nd and 3rd messages and wish people would reply about that more.
It has to do with Jewish traditions, in that the traditions involve future claims of events in foretellings. They claimed to be "seers", another word for "prophet" used in Hebrew in the Tanakh. They claimed to have "fore-knowledge" ("pre-cognition") of future events like Messiah's arrival.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

They claimed to have "fore-knowledge" ("pre-cognition") of future events like Messiah's arrival.

How can anyone know what will happen in the future?
Why would anyone believe that such is possible?
Because they have a gift from God I suppose, well that presents a problem as it suggests God has everything planned a d if so this means that free will is a myth.
Alex

 

[spidergoat]

I wrote about scientific evidence of precognition in my 2nd and 3rd messages and wish people would reply about that more.
It has to do with Jewish traditions, in that the traditions involve future claims of events in foretellings. They claimed to be "seers", another word for "prophet" used in Hebrew in the Tanakh. They claimed to have "fore-knowledge" ("pre-cognition") of future events like Messiah's arrival.

I know, I read your links. But there isn't any reliable evidence of such a thing.

I'm also aware of Jewish claims which also aren't evidence.

 

[Sarkus]

Alex's comment was: "Could the bible just be made up stuff and any parallel to reality simply an interesting coincidence."

You replied that Alex's comment was "far too reasonable". Your agreement is finding it extremely reasonable "that every single bit of information within it is made up."

No, I said that it is far too reasonable that it could be just made up, I.e. a possibity. I consider that far more likely than accepting the bible at face value, for example, where miracles seem common-place, which is the the alternative Alex was considering.
Personally I would reasonably expect the truth to be somewhere in between, with place names, and the general history to be reasonably accurate, but significant embellishment and interpretation when it comes to the detail of the stories being told.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I regard things this way.
If evidence contains any part that is wrong you should treat the lot as suspect.
The bible starts off with a clearly made up proposition so I askhow can one treat anything therein as reliable.
Alex