Evolution, is a different story, since they don't even have answers. Or proof to back them up.
Wow, that is a most incredibly ignorant statement to make there Blondie. Please, please, get an education. Your gross ignorance is painful.
You have no proof, Hellstromm, that what those so-called "Bible Scholars" say is true. ... And most of those things are theories, please, provide proof, and ill believe it, and this prophecy will be thrown out.
"Until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. [...] There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming." ~ The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. p. 448.
ISBN 0138598363
"<the Book of Daniel> is dated by most scholars to the second century B.C., when Judea was once again under attack." ~
http://books.google.com/books?id=FyTeW7vQ8K4C&pg=PA26
"We know quite a lot about how the Book of Daniel came to be written. It was written about 164 B.C., probably by several authors." ~
Norman Cohn,
Fellow of the British Academy and Professor Emeritus at Sussex University.
"Most academic scholars who study it believe that it was actually composed about 150 years before the time of Jesus, much later than the Babylonian exile. So the actual setting of the book appears to be the what we call the Maccabees." ~
James Tabor,professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
"Daniel is actually a figure from the Babylonian exile. In fact, he spends his entire life in Babylon. But the Book of Daniel attributed to him is actually written during the Maccabean revolt. Most scholars would say it's written about the year 165 BCE. and it uses the figure of Daniel as a way of reflecting and intensifying the experiences of the Jewish people in the middle of this crisis." ~
L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Christian Origins at the University of Texas at Austin.
"The most convincing argument for a young date, however, is chapter eleven, in which Daniel has a vision of the Syrian Wars, waged between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires, successors of the empire of Alexander the Great. The prophecy is very accurate: all major conflicts are mentioned, and the Sixth Syrian War is even mentioned in great detail. However, after the author of Daniel has given his description of the desacration of the temple, the persecution of the Jews, and the beginning of the Maccabaean revolt in 166 BCE, his prophecy goes astray: he predicts a new war between the Ptolemies and Seleucids. This never took place; instead, the Seleucids had to fight in the east. It proves that the text was finished after 166." ~ Jona Lendering: author, ancient hist
orian, & teacher at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, site admin for the Livius historical website, and author of
Alexander de Grote. -
http://www.livius.org/da-dd/daniel/11_comm.html
Etc and so on...
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.
I reviewed your "link" pertaining to the Book of Daniel. It was less than professional, demonstrated a large degree of ignorance, and absolutely no depth of research, nor bibliography/citations.
Btw, I'm surprised you decided to cite that source, considering the author, Larry Wessels, has absolutely nothing nice to say about Jehovah Witnesses and their
"false religion."
http://www.biblequery.org/Newsletters/JehovahsWitnessesDeceivedDeceivers.doc
http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/JehovahsWitnesses/JWFalseProphecies.htm
http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/JehovahsWitnesses/JW.htm
Since you seem to know so much then, my friend, then tell me why Alexander didn't destroy Jerusalem? Just for starters.
Umm, why should he? What purpose does it serve? Oh fine, I'll bother...
You are basing this notion on the historical rewrite, Jewish Antiquities, posed by Flavius Josephus circa 70 a.d., a good 400 years after A
lexander's time.
"Most scholars agree that the following story, told by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his Jewish antiquities 11.317-345, is not true." ~ Jona Lenderling -
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t35.html
Visit that link. I see no reason to argue this particular point further, as it's a flawed argument for debate.
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
Umm, no. There is no "proof" whatsoever for biblical creation. None, nada, nipso. And also no. Evolution has already been proven as factual, with some elements as theory but still evidentially heavy. The fallacy is on your end, due to your lack of education on this particular issue, and thus participating in a debate from a podium of ignorance.
Yes, always a mean thing to say, but I'm being factual.
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
I think Eli has effectively clarified the error in your understanding of evolution as "random," as it is clearly
not random. Regardless, that comment, as well as previous comments you presented, demonstrates your ignorance on evolution and possibly any other science. Your interpretation of "survival of the fittest" is not only excruciatingly narrow, but quite boldly incorrect.
We still have very old manuscripts and copies of books of the Bible, and if don't trust humans bad enough, then learn hebrew and greek, and translate it yourself, and you'll come out with a copy, very much like that of the New World Translation, i am not being arrogant, it is fact.
Well, you're wrong, as you usually are. First off, it has already been demonstrated by many scholars that the New World Translation is intentionally inaccurate. Second, even with a translation, it's still humans who wrote it in the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Third, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate the distortions that have occurred over time, thereby further posing question to human intercession.
To make a literal comparison between a human and any other animal is highly insulting. There is not another creature on this Earth with the ability to have abstact thought, sentient abilities, discerning capabilities, and that seek to find joy in life.
My cat would, quite effectively, dispute that argument.
