Bible Prophecies

[DeletedUser]

And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king

If memory serves, Alexander was king of Macedon - on the fringes of the Greek world. Greece itself was not unified and recognised no overall king - indeed parts of it were even republics and did not recognise any king at all. Even if we allow that Macedonia was pre-eminent among the Greek states at the time, its hegemony was established by Philip II (Alexander's father) and was not added to by Alexander, whose campaigns were primarily in Asia and Africa. Alexander therefore was NOT the first king of Greece/Grecia on any interpretation of the historical facts.

 

[DeletedUser8950]

I don't believe wikipedia word-for-word, but it is accurate, I was only providing the link for those who don't understand the words meaning.
To clarify.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you, DN.

In many examples of the Bible, some people are refered to as royalty, when they are not such, and by the time Alexander finished his conquest, he was pretty much the King of the world at that point, so Greece would be included. It's not like today where a world power has no say in how they run the government in China. Alexander was the King of the then-known World.

Not to mention, Macedonia and Greek were very close, and the conquest of Alexander was refered to as a greek conquest. And Alexander's father was confirmed of being of Greek decent.
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/

Besides that, what of the other aspects of the prophecy? The trueness that once the horn became mighty, it was broken and four horns took its place?
The very fact that when alexander was on his way home after his conquest he died and four generals took over his Kingsdom.

Does that not seem overly convenient?

 

[DeletedUser]

So, basically, you're going to run on writings, parts of which are suspected of being written between 700 b.c. and 100 a.d. as prophetic for predicting things that happened between 1200 b.c. and 300 b.c. ?

You see the problem with that, right?

 

[DeletedUser8950]

So, basically, you're going to run on writings, parts of which are suspected of being written between 700 b.c. and 100 a.d. as prophetic for predicting things that happened between 1200 b.c. and 300 b.c. ?

You see the problem with that, right?

No, cos

 

[DeletedUser]

wrong, the Bible book of Daniel had to be written before Alexander, because the Daniel's writings were shown to Alexander. And when they said that he was the Greek King spoken of here (Bearing in mind this shows that the outcome of this prophecy was known and interpretted before it happend), and it pleased Alexander so much, that he did not destroy the city of Jerusalem.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, that's cute Blondie14. The book of Daniel is a vaticinium ex eventu, or postdiction, not prediction. The vast majority of biblical scholars date that particular book to around 164-63 b.c., with almost all of them dating it to well before Alexander's time (356-323 b.c.). Perhaps you should go back to Sunday school.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you, DN.

In many examples of the Bible, some people are refered to as royalty, when they are not such, and by the time Alexander finished his conquest, he was pretty much the King of the world at that point, so Greece would be included. It's not like today where a world power has no say in how they run the government in China. Alexander was the King of the then-known World.

Not to mention, Macedonia and Greek were very close, and the conquest of Alexander was refered to as a greek conquest. And Alexander's father was confirmed of being of Greek decent.
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/

Besides that, what of the other aspects of the prophecy? The trueness that once the horn became mighty, it was broken and four horns took its place?
The very fact that when alexander was on his way home after his conquest he died and four generals took over his Kingsdom.

Does that not seem overly convenient?

I agree with Hellstrom, but also the given fit of the biblical text to known facts seems contrived. My standards of proof are much higher. If a prediction cites a king of Greece then that's what I expect. Not a king of somewhere else who is also Greek. If it refers to a king of Persia AND and king of Media I want two definite individuals unambiguously of that status and description, not a fudge-fit.
If an astronomer predicts a total eclipse in Paris I would not accept that a partial eclipse nearby would fit the bill. If I am to prefer the claims of religion over science then it must at least meet the standards of accuracy I currently insist upon and enjoy.
A vague hit in the general area with a bit of tweaking is, for me, a fail.

And read this bit again:

In many examples of the Bible, some people are refered to as royalty, when they are not such

In the next breath the person who wrote that will tell you that the Bible is wholly and literally true. *GASP*hmy:

I rest my case m'lud.

 

[DeletedUser]

Im sorry you don't understand, like ive said before, my friends, it is always possible to find fallacies in anything, even when it is true.

Evolution, is a different story, since they don't even have answers. Or proof to back them up.

You have no proof, Hellstromm, that what those so-called "Bible Scholars" say is true.

And ive noticed, ive provided links to places where these things are backed up, but you choose to deny them, and accept whatever may seem to go against it, very interesting. And most of those things are theories, please, provide proof, and ill believe it, and this prophecy will be thrown out.

Since you seem to know so much then, my friend, then tell me why Alexander didn't destroy Jerusalem? Just for starters.

 

[DeletedUser]

Im sorry you don't understand, like ive said before, my friends, it is always possible to find fallacies in anything, even when it is true.

Evolution, is a different story, since they don't even have answers. Or proof to back them up.

You have no proof, Hellstromm, that what those so-called "Bible Scholars" say is true.

And ive noticed, ive provided links to places where these things are backed up, but you choose to deny them, and accept whatever may seem to go against it, very interesting. And most of those things are theories, please, provide proof, and ill believe it, and this prophecy will be thrown out.

Since you seem to know so much then, my friend, then tell me why Alexander didn't destroy Jerusalem? Just for starters.

A fallacy by definition is not true. So true things are always also false by your reasoning.

Except evolution. That really IS false.

Any shred of credibility you might have clung to is gone Blondie. We don't even speak the same language. A 5-year old has better debating skills than that. We're done discussing as I'd be embarrassed to continue at that level.

 

[DeletedUser]

It was an expression, my friend, a fallacy that you see. But isn't there. That is what I was talking about, but if you wish to end this discussion, by all means, do what you wish.

 

[DeletedUser]

interesting debate , as im not a biblical scholar of any sort ill mostly stay out of this one but i would like to make one comment and thats this

Both evolution and biblical creation have a wealth of proof in favor of them

they also both have a great deal of holes filled with the unknown and the extreemly unlikely


in the end niether can be proven or disproven

theres plenty of evidence good and bad for both but to make any kind of declarative statement that one of hte other has been either proven or disproven is simple falacy

 

[DeletedUser]

So, going along with that statement, which I can mostly agree with, the question remaining is this, will you take the greater leap of faith and unlikeliness and believe we're all an accident, or that we were intelligently designed?

 

[DeletedUser8950]

So, going along with that statement, which I can mostly agree with, the question remaining is this, will you take the greater leap of faith and unlikeliness and believe we're all an accident, or that we were intelligently designed?

Is this post satire?:laugh:

 

[DeletedUser]

So, going along with that statement, which I can mostly agree with, the question remaining is this, will you take the greater leap of faith and unlikeliness and believe we're all an accident, or that we were intelligently designed?

well if your asking my personal beliefs based on all the scientific evidence ive studdied to ME it takes less blind faith to beleive in some form of intelligent design then to beleive in random evolution

as to what form that intelligent design was i couldnt honestlly say



but its up to each individual to study what they can and try to make teh best informed desicion they can



but i will say this much

IF one chooses to beleve random evolution then there realy is no need for any moral structure as its survival of the fittest and those that can should take whatever they want whenever tehy want however they want

however if one follows the basic unifiying standards that most religions share like helping others , living a moral life , having a code of conduct, following the rule of law etc etc then even if random evolution proves to be true at least youve done something positive with your life

jsut a little food for thought

 

[DeletedUser]

So true, The Bible is perfect, it is the people that have ruined its credibility, if people would truly follow it, and not claim to and be a hypocrite, then the world would already be a paradise, but is was foretold such would be the case anyway. But i look foward to when paradise is here.

 

[DeletedUser]

So true, The Bible is perfect, it is the people that have ruined its credibility, if people would truly follow it, and not claim to and be a hypocrite, then the world would already be a paradise, but is was foretold such would be the case anyway. But i look foward to when paradise is here.

i didnt say the bible was perfect although many great things can be learned from it in the end it was created by man and is therefore flawed

god may have inspired its creation but man translated it man edited it and man put it all together therefore the hand of mans influence in thsi case means its garunteed to be flawed since man is not perfect jsut a little food for thought



personaly many great things can be taken from the bible but also from budism taoism and many other texts and religions

 

[DeletedUser]

but i will say this much

IF one chooses to beleve random evolution then there realy is no need for any moral structure as its survival of the fittest and those that can should take whatever they want whenever tehy want however they want

You're on the right track.

Ask yourself this: why does a bear look after its cubs? Is it because it believes in God and moral laws?

'random evolution' is a contradiction in terms. The Theory of Evolution suggests that change is the product of environmental pressures on random mutations, but that is not the same thing. The chihuahua was bred ultimately from the wolf. All the changes in DNA were random, but the selective pressure of human interference gave those random events a direction. In nature those pressures are provided by other factors, such as edibility, camouflage, speed etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

A bit off-topic, but if we're going to discuss scientific theories it would be well to understand the following:

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms. Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're on the right track.

Ask yourself this: why does a bear look after its cubs? Is it because it believes in God and moral laws?

'random evolution' is a contradiction in terms. The Theory of Evolution suggests that change is the product of environmental pressures on random mutations, but that is not the same thing. The chihuahua was bred ultimately from the wolf. All the changes in DNA were random, but the selective pressure of human interference gave those random events a direction. In nature those pressures are provided by other factors, such as edibility, camouflage, speed etc.

a bear looks after its cubs to fulfill its instinct to perpetuate the species and continue its genetics

a bear in teh wild will brutaly kill another bear if it suits the bears needs for food and teritory increases the bears chances of perpetuating its individual genetics ( this is a prime example of survival of the fittest)

IF humans had no moral obligations and simply followed our genetic imperitive men would kidnap as many women as they could and force them to work to produce food while also raping them as much as possible to propetuate his genetics and there would be no laws to stop him since its morality that makes law