Frostblood said:
Also, many of the books of the Bible have more than one contributor. Isaiah is a compilation of the writings of at least 2 different people, probably 3. The early chapters of Genesis are a composite of two slightly different traditions ( this is especially clear when you read the Flood story ), etc...
Dictation even today is still very popular as a way of conveying thoughts, ideas, plans, stories, etc... to be transfered into a formal form at a latter point in time. Just because someone does not actually write something down by their own hand does not translate into a fact that they are not responsible for its content. I would question wheather or not the content is consistant as opposed to the style.
Frostblood said:
The NT was written between about 60 and 100 AD. The oldest books of the OT were probably written down about 800 BC, but based on much older storys. The later books of the OT were written up to about 150 BC, although some of the Apocrypha were probably even later.
The reference I made of the 1500 year period was to encompass the whole compilation it was not meant to be limted to the New Testament. Moses lived about 1400 B.C. when as I am sure you know the Ten Comandments were said to be written in stone. While shortly there after cerimonial law, civil law, health laws, and natural laws were committed to writtings and were placed with the ArK of the Covenant.
Frostblood said:
The NT agrees on the existence of Christ, but many people think that the various authors were arguing against each other trying to prove various theological points. The fact that the Gospels seem to agree so closely is largely due to the fact that Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, while John, which wasn't, contradicts the other 3, for example on the date of the Last Supper and the appearance in the Temple.
I am sure these many people are ardent bible supporters. Luke was not one of the original disciples but a physician carrying out his own investigation into Christ. By the way this is just a thought if Matthew and Luke were based on Mark. Why is it that both Matthew and Luke exceed Mark in content? Just something to think about.
Frostblood said:
The OT does contain passages which seem to be fulfilled in the NT - but, this doesn't prove they were divinely inspired, because the authors of the NT could have written their accounts in order to fulfill certain OT passages and appeal to Jews. The OT authors would probably have considered Christ a heretic if they met him ( like the Jews who did meet him ) - for one thing, most of them didn't believe in the afterlife ( well...they believed in something called Sheol, which was a kind of afterlife, but nothing much happened there, it wasn't heaven or hell. ) The only clear references to life after death in the OT are in the later books. There were still conservative Jews around in Jesus' time who didn't believe in the afterlife, but they "died out" pretty soon after.
If you had discerned the prophecy concerning the rebuilding of the temple you could not have made that accusation. You would be able to see Christ came exactly when the Old Testament said he would and from where. There is no way his disciples could pen him in. Either he existed at the appointed time or he did not. As far as the "state of the dead" the bible is consistant the dead know not anything nor do they have anymore a reward. Dead people are dead, Jesus put it in terms of sleep the only reason you know you were a sleep is because you woke up. To say that the disciples were writing to pacify the Jews is one big stretch. The Jews of that time were looking for savior to break the immeadiate hold of Roman athourity and take command of the earth. The Jews of the time were looking for a temporal solution, when Jesus could only offer a spiritual everlasting solution.
Frostblood said:
As I've said, "prophecy" in the OT sense doesn't usually mean predictions. The fact that the Bible is largely accurate on historical and geographical facts proves nothing except that it was written in the time and place everyone agrees it was ( although there are actually some geographic mistakes in the NT ) by people who had some general knowlege.
The problem with disproving predictions is that you can't do it - if I predict the Eiffel tower will get destroyed, that can never be disproved because "It could get destroyed tommorow!" - even though I just made that up and it's nonsense ( OK, it probably will get destroyed eventually... ) It gets even worse if I write my prediction in symbolism so it could mean pretty much anything that my readers want it to mean. The only predictions that can be proved or disproved are absoloutely specific ones.
Your statement was thoughtful and very well put together and true. That is contingent upon whether or not by this statement "As I've said, "prophecy" in the OT sense doesn't usually mean predictions." you meant "prophet" not "prophecy"; in which case that statement as it stands would be erroroneaous. Now here is where it loses its weight when we apply it to the bible. The Bible is very good at explaining what the symbolism means and its reference, if you just look for it, and in other cases it is just blatantly plain. If you do not study for a test. Then in turn fail the test, you can holler, rant, and rave all you want to, but the fact of the matter is, you should have studied. Symbolism in and of itself is not a dead art, this world is steep in symbolism, look at money, art, architecture, and even sports teams. If I ask you what nation I am reffering to when I say it is represented by an eagle or another by a bear. You would have no problem telling me what nations I am alluding to. Granted to a great extent the old testament prophesies were warnings against Israel; typically the song, and dance goes like this. GOD, "If you will only listen to me and keep my commandments all will be well for you." Israel, "sure no problem" (Israel sins gravely and repeatedly). GOD, sends them someone to remind them to repent. Israel does not want to listen so they kill the messenger. GOD finally allows them to witness the fruit of their sin. They then repent, GOD in his infinite mercy forgives them. Many disasters did happen to Irael because of their disobediance and they were recorded. You can deny them all you want but that does not change their record. These were only part of the total prophesies though.
You call predicting the next four world powers in 600 B.C. (Qualthwar)vague and obscure (FrostBlood)political satire.
Edward Gibbon was the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Notice this incredible statement from a secular historian. He says, the images of gold, silver, or brass that might serve to represent the nations and their kings were sucessively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome. Where do you suppose the historian Gibbin got this imagery from? Where did Gibbon get the idea from that gold, silver, brass and iron would represent the nations of antiquity the answer is of course, from the bible. Now Rome ruled from 168 BC to 476 AD. Is this all "the political satire of the day" had to say about these empires? No, there is the issue of feet of iron and clay, and the ten divisions. Iron and clay do not naturally chemically mix. By the way who conquered Rome nobody but it was divided from within western Rome into ten divisions. Now GOD says they will not cleave to one another. Well let us see if that is indeed true. It has not been for the lack of trying that Europe is not united. How many have attempted to bring about this result? Charlemagne, Charles the V of Spain, Louis the XIV of France, Napolean, Lenon, Adolf Hitler came the closest but failed. Go to any secular history book you will find there was only four world ruling Empires since this declaration Babylon, Mede-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
