Evidence for the Bible

[land185]

The accuracy of biblical prophecy is amazing. Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance? http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

"I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)

[LilShieste]

The prophecies I saw on your website seemed pretty vague, and could apply to a plethora of generic situations/scenarios. Could you direct me to some specific prophecies that you find particularly convincing?


LilShieste

[tomndebb]

Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance?Would you like to elaborate on this point?
Or is this simply a drive-by witnessing?

[Revenant Threshold]

How could it be by chance? Like this.

Perhaps. :)

[Revenant Threshold]

Too late for the edit: I'm highly disappointed. I was expecting a list only of hits and no record of misses, but some of these "hits" are just things that are expected to occur. I mean, out of the 12 prophecies by Jesus they've put up, 9 of them they admit haven't actually happened yet. If the big guy only gets a 1/4 hit rating when his biggest supporters get to pick, I hate to think what happens to the other guys.

[CurtC]

Evidence for the Bible? I was in a hotel room once, and opened the desk drawer, and there one was!

I'm a believer!

[Red & Black]

Evidence for the Bible? I was in a hotel room once, and opened the desk drawer, and there one was!

I'm a believer!

You know, the same thing happened to me. What are the odds!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't expect this guest to return but if he/she is really interested in pursuing this, I'd like to see some specific examples of alleged fulfilled prophecies (not a link, I'm not interested in arguing with a webpage) and I'll be happy to rip them to shreds. Set 'em up. I'll knock them down.

[KGS]

I love the Bible. It's the best work of fiction ever written.

It's also gone through many revisions & translations over the years, and was "borrowed" from many different sources. The Genesis flood, for example, was taken straight out of the Epic of Gilgamesh. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm)

As for the New Testament, Jesus said some nice hippy-dippy things, can't argue with that. But Paul comes across as a racist, homophobic misogynist. Too bad most Xtians quote "the word of Paul" far more often than they quote "the word of Christ."

Come to think, the Bible also condones slavery, incest, child abuse, pagan rituals and genocide. Can't say I'm big on those parts.

Revelation, however, is fuckin' awesome. 666 ALL THE WAY!!! :cool:

[Bryan Ekers]

You know, the same thing happened to me. What are the odds!
The coincidence makes me giddy!


Anyway, if accuracy of prediction was the criterion, then any science or math textbook outperforms the bible by a huge margin. Everything in it can be verified. Hallelujah!

[Siam Sam]

Or is this simply a drive-by witnessing?
I suspect drive-by wishful thinking.

[Polycarp]

You know, I wish just once one of these little episodes would get sufficiently serious to actually discuss the Bible, and not BS claims or, contrariwise, the theory that because it contains fable and myth, it must therefore be of no value (except perhaps as a doorstop).

[Chief Pedant]

The accuracy of biblical prophecy is amazing. Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance? http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

"I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
You gotta come back. I have questions.
Your cite takes credit for this as an accurate and fulfilled prophecy regarding Israel:

Deuteronomy 29:23
The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur--nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in fierce anger.

Is this a whoosh? Been to Israel lately? If that prophecy counts as correct what would count as wrong? This sort of prediction amazes you?

[Larry Borgia]

In The Matrix Morpheus predicted Neo would be the One. And he was! Amazing!

"Woah, I know kung-fu."

[land185]

Ok, the Book of Micah was written around 700 BC and Micah 5:2 says But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Then about 700 years later, Jesus was born in Bethlehem

Here is an interesting one http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ezekiel_4_3.htm

Also, Genesis 28 :14 says God will bless the world through Jacob's seed. It is interesting to note that the Jews are only 1% of the population of the world yet they hold 23% of Nobel Prize awards. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

Also, the Bible predicted that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, the Jews would be exiled, Israel would become a wasteland, the Jews would be scattered, persecuted, preserved, return to their homeland, reside with their enemies and that Israel would one day be restored (1948). http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/accuracy.htm

Psalms 22:16 speaks of someone whose hands and feet are pierced

Here are some about the Messiah. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/messianic.htm

[monavis]

Ok, the Book of Micah was written around 700 BC and Micah 5:2 says But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Then about 700 years later, Jesus was born in Bethlehem

Here is an interesting one http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ezekiel_4_3.htm

Also, Genesis 28 :14 says God will bless the world through Jacob's seed. It is interesting to note that the Jews are only 1% of the population of the world yet they hold 23% of Nobel Prize awards. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

Also, the Bible predicted that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, the Jews would be exiled, Israel would become a wasteland, the Jews would be scattered, persecuted, preserved, return to their homeland, reside with their enemies and that Israel would one day be restored (1948). http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/accuracy.htm

Psalms 22:16 speaks of someone whose hands and feet are pierced

Here are some about the Messiah. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/messianic.htm

This does not prove anything about Jesus. There is a quote in the Bible when Jesus was on the cross and it states Jesus garments were being fought over so that prophecy would be fullfilled.Same with" they have pierced my hands and feet they have numbered all my bones" This could well be that they did all they could to make it look like Prophecy would be fullfilled as the Gospel of Judus suggests.

Since Jesus is quoted as saying that that generation would not pass away until all things had been accomplished,if the stars were to fall etc. for the end of the world than there would be no meek to inherit the earth as the earth itself would be destroyed. The church then decided that Jesus didn't mean that generation.

Monavis

[cosmosdan]

Hey, when it says Israel will be restored and they will live with their enemies does it say anything about how they will treat their enemies?

[FriarTed]

But Paul comes across as a racist, homophobic misogynist.
...

Come to think, the Bible also condones slavery, incest, child abuse, pagan rituals and genocide. Can't say I'm big on those parts.



Cite on Paul's racism (the homophobia & misogyny are matters of opinion, but you have no basis to charge him with racism)?

Also, cite on the Bible condoning pagan rituals and incest since the Mosaic Law was written (the condoning of sibling mating from Adam to Abraham is debatable)?

[FriarTed]

Cite on Paul's racism (the homophobia & misogyny are matters of opinion, but you have no basis to charge him with racism)?

Also, cite on the Bible condoning pagan rituals and incest since the Mosaic Law was written (the condoning of sibling mating from Adam to Abraham is debatable)?


Btw, while I probably agree with many of the guest's positions, I don't like drive-bys.

[FriarTed]

Since Jesus is quoted as saying that that generation would not pass away until all things had been accomplished,if the stars were to fall etc. for the end of the world than there would be no meek to inherit the earth as the earth itself would be destroyed. The church then decided that Jesus didn't mean that generation.

Monavis

Jesus never predicted the end of the earth; he predicted the end of the aion/age (badly translated in the KJV as "world"). The Old Covenant Priestly-Sacrificial-Temple Age ended in 70 A.D., right on time. Jesus did indeed mean THAT generation.

[David Simmons]

The accuracy of biblical prophecy is amazing. Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance? http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

"I am the way, the truth and the life: no one can come to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)Why don't you list a few prophecies of future events for us?

It isn't all that hard to find some words in the bible that can be viewed as an allegorical reference to an event that has already happened.

[Chief Pedant]

Ok, the Book of Micah was written around 700 BC and Micah 5:2 says But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Then about 700 years later, Jesus was born in Bethlehem

Here is an interesting one http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ezekiel_4_3.htm

Also, Genesis 28 :14 says God will bless the world through Jacob's seed. It is interesting to note that the Jews are only 1% of the population of the world yet they hold 23% of Nobel Prize awards. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

Also, the Bible predicted that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, the Jews would be exiled, Israel would become a wasteland, the Jews would be scattered, persecuted, preserved, return to their homeland, reside with their enemies and that Israel would one day be restored (1948). http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/accuracy.htm

Psalms 22:16 speaks of someone whose hands and feet are pierced

Here are some about the Messiah. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/messianic.htm

If a prophecy comes from an Almighty who can see and shape the future, here is what it looks like:

"On the day which will be known as May 14, 1948, a man named David Ben Gurion will read a Declaration of Independence to establish a State of Israel that will take its place among the Nations of the World."

If a prophecy comes from a non-specific "sage" hoping to impress the polloi, here is what it looks like:

"Someday the Jews will return to their homeland."

Notice the difference? It's called wiggleroom and it's what separates thinking people from nitwits in terms of how amazed they are with "accuracy."

Not to mention the structure of Biblical prophecies. Your cites are scattered snippets taken from the middle of long rants and applied post-event to show in retrospect how they fit. Any decent real prophetic book would have the list of detailed specific events and fulfillment dates in a chapter called "These are the Biblical prophecies."

ETA: Jesus was never Ruler in Israel so I am underwhelmed by your Micah reference.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

How do you explain the manifest contradictions in the bible? For example, Matthew 1:6-7 traces Jesus' lineage through David's son Solomon, whereas Luke chapter 23 traces it through David's son Nathan. Plus, the two lineages have a different number of generations. If the Bible is supposed to be the word of God, how do you explain things like that?

[KGS]

Also, cite on the Bible condoning pagan rituals and incest since the Mosaic Law was written (the condoning of sibling mating from Adam to Abraham is debatable)? Genesis 19:31-36: (http://www.bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=19) The older girl said to the younger, 'Our father is growing old, and there is no other man left in the world to marry us in a normal manner.
Come, let's get our father drunk with wine, and sleep with him. We will then survive through children from our father.'
That night, they got their father drunk with wine, and the older girl went and slept with her father. He was not aware that she had lain down or gotten up.
The next day, the older girl said to the younger, 'Last night it was I who slept with my father. Tonight, let's get him drunk with wine again. You go sleep with him, and we will survive through children from our father.'
That night, they again made their father drunk with wine. The younger girl got up and she slept with him. He was not aware that she had lain down or gotten up.
Lot's two daughters became pregnant from their father.Christmas (while not specifically biblical) was taken from the pagan holiday of Saturnalia. (http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p235.html) Easter was originally a fertility rite celebrating the spring equinox. (How come Easter changes from year to year, if Jesus was crucified & supposedly resurrected on a specific day?)

[KGS]

Cite on Paul's racism (the homophobia & misogyny are matters of opinion, but you have no basis to charge him with racism)? Titus 1:12-13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit001.htm) -- One of them a prophet of their own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies. This testimony is true. Wherefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. [emphasis mine]

[FriarTed]

Titus 1:12-13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit001.htm) --

Racist if you don't see the irony in there :rolleyes: ' the anti-JC folk who charge Him with racism for referring to the Canaanite woman and her demonized daughter as dogs have a better case.

[FriarTed]

Genesis 19:31-36: (http://www.bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=19) Christmas (while not specifically biblical) was taken from the pagan holiday of Saturnalia. (http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p235.html) Easter was originally a fertility rite celebrating the spring equinox. (How come Easter changes from year to year, if Jesus was crucified & supposedly resurrected on a specific day?)

Incest isn't condoned; it's just described.

The festivals of Christmas and Easter (and it's odd dating) were developed centuries after the NT was written. This is just sad.

[KGS]

Incest isn't condoned; it's just described. Then why didn't God punish Lot's daughters for committing incest? Or is that not so bad a crime as Ham seeing is father drunk & naked? (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9:20-27)

God seems awfully capricious when it comes to handing out punishment. Maybe he really does have bipolar disorder. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484)

[FriarTed]

Then why didn't God punish Lot's daughters for committing incest? Or is that not so bad a crime as Ham seeing is father drunk & naked? (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9:20-27)

God seems awfully capricious when it comes to handing out punishment. Maybe he really does have bipolar disorder. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28484)

God just nuked two cities full of gang-rapists & other degenerates; He was mellowed out. The two girls were traumatized and kinda desperate about keeping the family going. God was feeling charitable.

Ham's offense wasn't seeing Noah drunk & naked but in gossiping about him. There are interpretations ranging from Ham disgracing Noah so as to grab his patriarchal authority for himself (the most likely one IMO), to Ham sodomizing Noah, to Ham forcing himself on Noah's wife (his step-mom).

[Annie-Xmas]

Speaking of Lot: How righteous is it to offer your virgin daughters for rape?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ok, the Book of Micah was written around 700 BC and Micah 5:2 says But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Then about 700 years later, Jesus was born in Bethlehem
Bethlehem was the birthplace of David and therefore the presumptive birthplace of the Messiah (David's heir). There are two major problems with trying to claim Jesus as a fulfillment of this prophecy. One is that he was never a ruler in Israel. Two is that it's highly unlikely he was born in Bethlehem. There is no real evidence for it. John and Mark didn't think he was born in Bethlehem. Neither did Paul. Matthew and Luke both placed the birth in bethlehem to force it o fit expectations but both were forced to invent (wildly contradictory) fictional narratives to get him there and their births are set ten years apart. Even if it could be proven that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (which it can't), the fact that he was never a ruler in Israel makes this a non-starter.
Here is an interesting one http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ezekiel_4_3.htm
I said I don't want to debate links, but I will just say that the author you link to invents a fictional 360 day ancient Jewish calendar to make his convoluted math work out for him. There was never any such calendar. That's not the only fact-challenged claim on the page but it's probably the most glaring.
Also, Genesis 28 :14 says God will bless the world through Jacob's seed. It is interesting to note that the Jews are only 1% of the population of the world yet they hold 23% of Nobel Prize awards. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html
Lame.
Also, the Bible predicted that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, the Jews would be exiled, Israel would become a wasteland, the Jews would be scattered, persecuted, preserved, return to their homeland, reside with their enemies and that Israel would one day be restored (1948). http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/accuracy.htm
Israel was always getting invaded and razed and scattered in ancient times. Predicting that was like predicting it would rain. A lot of those prophecies were also written after the fact.
Psalms 22:16 speaks of someone whose hands and feet are pierced
It doesn't say "pierced." That's a mistranslation from the Hebrew. It's also not about the Messiah.
Here are some about the Messiah. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/messianic.htm
Please don't try to debate with nothing but links. Say it yourself, in your own words.

[glee]

The accuracy of biblical prophecy is amazing. Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance? http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/


I looked at the first one on the website:

"In Genesis 15:5, the Bible said that Abraham would have many descendants and that counting them would be like counting the stars. The fulfillment of this prophecy is obvious. In fact it is so obvious that it can be easily overlooked:

Abraham is the only person revered by large numbers of people throughout world as being their ancestor.

He is the father of the Jewish people, as explained in the book of Genesis, through his son Isaac, and through Isaac's son Israel.

Christians become descendants of Abraham through faith (Galatians 3:29), just as Abraham became the father of many nations through faith (Genesis chapters 12-17; Romans 4:18)."

1. There are more stars than descendants. We also don't count people using radio telescopes.

2. Adam is revered by large numbers of people throughout world as being their ancestor.

3. Sharing a faith does not make you a descendant.

It would have been trivially easy for God to come up with a true prophecy.

"You shall discover that the ratio of a circle begins 3.14159 and defining its accuracy continues forever."
"The Nation of Israel shall be formed shortly after the second global war."
"I have left a black obelisk on the Moon, which shall be discovered nearly 2000 years after my Son is crucified."

But He couldn't manage any of that.

Please rely on your faith for your religious belief. There is no scientific evidence of God, and your 'predictions' are a sign of desperation.

[Cervaise]

Ok, the Book of Micah was written around 700 BC and Micah 5:2 says But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.Big deal. My Counter of Formica was laid in 1998 and except for that one place where I accidentally left part of a cut beet for too long, it's proved to be pretty everlasting too.

[FriarTed]

Speaking of Lot: How righteous is it to offer your virgin daughters for rape?

It's pretty damned wretched, which shows by contrast how depraved the Sodom-folk were as he was the most righteous one in the bunch. However, we don't know how serious he was in the offer or how much he was trying to buy time.

[Revenant Threshold]

It's pretty damned wretched, which shows by contrast how depraved the Sodom-folk were as he was the most righteous one in the bunch. However, we don't know how serious he was in the offer or how much he was trying to buy time. What had the daughters done?

[dropzone]

Titus 1:12-13 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit001.htm) -- Have you ever MET a Cretan? Maybe they ARE "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies," and any one that isn't is no true Cretan.

land185, you aren't even impressing the Christians here. If you can't "preach to the choir" successfully, maybe you should consider another method of demonstrating your love of God. Deliver lunch to shut-ins. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Write letters to prisoners. Y'know, the whole feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted stuff Jesus TOLD you to do.

[Revenant Threshold]

I'm pretty sure Jesus said "spread the word" too, to be fair.

[Lemur866]

Wait, isn't that "Cretans" passage in the Bible simply an allusion to the famous Greek "All Cretans are liars" logic puzzle?

[FriarTed]

What had the daughters done?

To rephrase it, "as he was among the most righteous people in the city along with his daughters". That better?

[dropzone]

I'm pretty sure Jesus said "spread the word" too, to be fair.Well, our guest has blown that one STRAIGHT to Hell. I suggested some options that he may be more qualified for.

[Lobohan]

What had the daughters done?

Coveted the paternal weiner.

[Revenant Threshold]

To rephrase it, "as he was among the most righteous people in the city along with his daughters". That better? Yup. Sorry, I don't mean to be nitpicky - it was an honest question and I don't know the Bible like you do.

[raindog]

Well, our guest has blown that one STRAIGHT to Hell. I suggested some options that he may be more qualified for.
bolding mine

How so?

[dropzone]

Wait, isn't that "Cretans" passage in the Bible simply an allusion to the famous Greek "All Cretans are liars" logic puzzle?Nope. Completely separate and no scribe messed it up when copying Paul's letter to Titus. And it's further support for my suggestion that you can't trust a Cretan as far as you can throw him.

There isn't anybody from Crete here, is there? :eek:

[FordPrefect]

Ham's offense wasn't seeing Noah drunk & naked but in gossiping about him. There are interpretations ranging from Ham disgracing Noah so as to grab his patriarchal authority for himself (the most likely one IMO), to Ham sodomizing Noah, to Ham forcing himself on Noah's wife (his step-mom).
So... just make up the worst sounding shit one can to keep God looking like the good guy?

[dropzone]

How so?Well, it depends on your definition of "spreading," I suppose. I assume Jesus meant he wanted his followers to not just cast the seeds on rocks, and I also assume he was against them wasting their time casting seeds on soil where there is plenty of wheat already growing. This place is not fertile soil for land185's style of evangelizing, where there is mostly rocks and wheat and what open fertile soil left is only watered by indifference.

I can beat a metaphor until it's begging for mercy.

[dropzone]

So... just make up the worst sounding shit one can to keep God looking like the good guy?And do it by completely ditching the very plain words in the Bible. I mean, the meaning of that section wasn't the slightest bit in question until people tried to make God look good.

[Thudlow Boink]

Ham's offense wasn't seeing Noah drunk & naked but in gossiping about him. There are interpretations ranging from Ham disgracing Noah so as to grab his patriarchal authority for himself (the most likely one IMO), to Ham sodomizing Noah, to Ham forcing himself on Noah's wife (his step-mom).This was the subject of a two (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah.html)-part (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah2.html) Staff Report!

[raindog]

Well, it depends on your definition of "spreading," I suppose. I assume Jesus meant he wanted his followers to not just cast the seeds on rocks, and I also assume he was against them wasting their time casting seeds on soil where there is plenty of wheat already growing. This place is not fertile soil for land185's style of evangelizing, where there is mostly rocks and wheat and what open fertile soil left is only watered by indifference.

I can beat a metaphor until it's begging for mercy.
Actually, the field Jesus himself tilled, while fertile for his message, got him killed, right?

Further, virtually all his disciples met resistance and suffered beatings, mob action, and jailings etc. Jesus himself forewarned his followers that they would meet with resistance. (including being "delivered up" by family members, death etc)

He did say that if someone was unreceptive to his message they should "shake the dust off their feet" and move on. (Matt 10:14)

Nonetheless land185 is doing exactly what Jesus commanded his followers to do.

The fact that this particular environment is hostile, or whether an internet message board is an effective (or appropriate) venue for witnessing, or whether land185's skills are suited for this type of witnessing, is all irrelevent to the command to witness.

Whatever issues I [we] have with his methodology, skills, knowledge or experience I applaud him for acting on his convictions.

[FriarTed]

So... just make up the worst sounding shit one can to keep God looking like the good guy?

...

[dropzone]

Whatever issues I [we] have with his methodology, skills, knowledge or experience I applaud him for acting on his convictions.Far be it from me to not applaud his gallantry. I'm a sucker for underdogs. I was merely suggesting there were ways he might make more impact. Christians LOVE their martyrs, but even Jesus might see that it isn't always the best way to gain followers; his own execution having been more of a sacrifice.

[raindog]

Far be it from me to not applaud his gallantry. I'm a sucker for underdogs. I was merely suggesting there were ways he might make more impact. Christians LOVE their martyrs, but even Jesus might see that it isn't always the best way to gain followers; his own execution having been more of a sacrifice.
Point well taken.

[FordPrefect]

...
I am not sure what ... means, but fwiw, I wasn't accusing you of making up shit, but that those that interpreted the very short passage to mean many possible variants as possibly making up shit.

[monavis]

This does not prove anything about Jesus. There is a quote in the Bible when Jesus was on the cross and it states Jesus garments were being fought over so that prophecy would be fullfilled.Same with" they have pierced my hands and feet they have numbered all my bones" This could well be that they did all they could to make it look like Prophecy would be fullfilled as the Gospel of Judus suggests.

Since Jesus is quoted as saying that that generation would not pass away until all things had been accomplished,if the stars were to fall etc. for the end of the world than there would be no meek to inherit the earth as the earth itself would be destroyed. The church then decided that Jesus didn't mean that generation.

Monavis

I suggest you read Matthew chapte 24 verses 23 t0 31 and Mark ch 8 verse 38 and 39.

Monavis

[monavis]

Jesus never predicted the end of the earth; he predicted the end of the aion/age (badly translated in the KJV as "world"). The Old Covenant Priestly-Sacrificial-Temple Age ended in 70 A.D., right on time. Jesus did indeed mean THAT generation.

I suggest you read Matthew 8 Verses 38 and 39. also Matthew chapter 24, verses 23-31.

Monavis

[KGS]

I suggest you read Matthew chapte 24 verses 23 t0 31 and Mark ch 8 verse 38 and 39.

I suggest you read Matthew 8 Verses 38 and 39. also Matthew chapter 24, verses 23-31. Matthew 24:23-31 is all about false prophets & such plus some trippy apocalyptic nonsense about the end of the world. If I were to take Jesus' word on faith, that would mean I should not believe ANYBODY who claims to be Jesus or claims to know who Jesus is. It's sort of like he's denying his own divinity and his own existence. (Kinda freaky how that passage is underlined in my Bible...they must teach that ch/verse in Sunday School class!)

Matthew 8:38-39...does not exist. Neither does Mark. :dubious:

[tomndebb]

Well, there is a ]Mark 8:38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mk%208:38;&version=9;) (although I have no idea what Mark 8:39 was supposed to say).

[FriarTed]

I am not sure what ... means, but fwiw, I wasn't accusing you of making up shit, but that those that interpreted the very short passage to mean many possible variants as possibly making up shit.

Sorry- I had originally posted saying that we needed one of our Jewish dopers to give a take on the curse of Ham story- then I saw that Thudlow had linked to the SD report, so I deleted the post, but I had to type it something to show I'd deleted it because of Thudlow's post.

[FriarTed]

I suggest you read Matthew 8 Verses 38 and 39. also Matthew chapter 24, verses 23-31.

Monavis

I've read it more times that you can imagine. I suggest you read the works of David Chilton on the Net to see what "stars falling", etc. means in Hebraic prophetic imagery.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Cite on Paul's racism (the homophobia & misogyny are matters of opinion, but you have no basis to charge him with racism)?[I'm not familiar enough to offer chapter and verse, but Paul's comments about the Jews would pretty much be classified as racist by any reasonable standard... not to mention, the cause of 2000 years (and ongoing) persecution and intolerance in the name of "Christianity."

On biblical prophecy, from the Staff Report Who wrote the Bible? Part 3 (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html): The prophets arose mostly at times of crisis in Israel. Each prophet's primary message was directed to the people of his own day, calling on them to turn from wickedness and return to the faith. The prophets were reformers, religious teachers, and political advisors. They held up the ideals of moral duty, adherence to religious truth, and national renewal. Notwithstanding our modern notion of a prophet as someone who foretells the future, long-term predictions were not the primary concern, although sometimes messages about the Messianic Era were important.

Nonetheless, the fact that the prophets sometimes did make oracular pronouncements sharpens the disagreement between tradition and scholarship in matters of dating. As we mentioned earlier, if a prophet says, "the walls are fallen," and we know the walls fell in year X, then scholars tend to date the prophet's words after the year X. On the other hand, if this was prophecy, then traditionalists have no problem in dating the passage before the year X.
I see that someone has already given the link to my Staff Reports on drunken Noah and the curse on Ham. P'raps it's time for a Staff Report on Lot's daughters. Traditional interpretation is that the sins of Sodom included lack of hospitality, and aggressiveness/threats to strangers. For that time and desert region, being hospitable to travelers was considered a necessity. Mistreating travelers was pretty much condemning them to death in the desert. Hence, offering marriagable daughters to the crowd (remember that whoever raped them could still marry them) was considered less immoral than murdering strangers who were travelling by.

Since it's Saturday, you'll probably not be getting much commentary from very traditionalist Jews today...

[raindog]

post rescinded. seemed too snarky upon review.

[tomndebb]

I'm not familiar enough to offer chapter and verse, but Paul's comments about the Jews would pretty much be classified as racist by any reasonable standard... not to mention, the cause of 2000 years (and ongoing) persecution and intolerance in the name of "Christianity."I suspect that you may be confusing several statements in the gospels of Matthew and John with the epistles of Paul. I do not recall any comment by Paul that could be considered racist and only two (both requiring some squinting) that might be considered uncomplimentary.

Matthew, trying to proselytize a Jewish audience, has several passages in which the Jews call down punishment on themselves for not embracing Christianity and John, writing after the Jewish-Christian disagreement had broken into open hostility, several times used the word "Jews" to indicate the leaders of either the Jewish faith or the Jewish nation.
I recall no similar statements in Paul.

[Zoe]

Diogenes the Cynic: Diogenes the Cynic: John and Mark didn't think he was born in Bethlehem.

Cite? Leaving it out of their accounts should not be construed as taking a position against his being born there. If they specified somewhere else, that would be an acceptable cite.

Also, please provide a cite where Matthew and Luke explain their motives in setting the birth in Bethlehem.

[monavis]

Matthew 24:23-31 is all about false prophets & such plus some trippy apocalyptic nonsense about the end of the world. If I were to take Jesus' word on faith, that would mean I should not believe ANYBODY who claims to be Jesus or claims to know who Jesus is. It's sort of like he's denying his own divinity and his own existence. (Kinda freaky how that passage is underlined in my Bible...they must teach that ch/verse in Sunday School class!)

Matthew 8:38-39...does not exist. Neither does Mark. :dubious:

IMatthew chapter 24-verses 29 -31" but immediatly after the tribulation of those days,the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light, and the stars will fall from heaven,and the powers of heaven will be shaken,and then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: then will all tribes of earth mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with great power and majesty, And he will send forth his angels with a trumpet and a great sound,and they will gather his elect from the four winds,from one end of the heavens to the other".

Hard to do if the stars have fallen and the sun has fallen (which is our closest star).

Mark 8- verses 38-39

For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes with the holy angels in the Glory of his father" and he said to them,"Amen I say to you,there are some sanding herewho will not taste death ,till they have seen the kingdom of God coming in power."

I notice that you do not believe the bible neither do I, It was reading the Bible that made me not believe in it,and what Jesus is quoted as saying doesn't make sense, if he were anything other than a normal human he would know if the stars fell, earth would nor could it survive.
I apologize for giving the wrong quotes.

Monavis

[monavis]

Matthew 24:23-31 is all about false prophets & such plus some trippy apocalyptic nonsense about the end of the world. If I were to take Jesus' word on faith, that would mean I should not believe ANYBODY who claims to be Jesus or claims to know who Jesus is. It's sort of like he's denying his own divinity and his own existence. (Kinda freaky how that passage is underlined in my Bible...they must teach that ch/verse in Sunday School class!)

Matthew 8:38-39...does not exist. Neither does Mark. :dubious:

Jesus when accused of blasphmey calling God his father He replied; "why do you say I blaspheme because I call God my father:when your fathers did?. Refering to Psalm either 81 or 82 depending on what Bible you use. The Psalmist say's in verse 6, "Don't you know you are gods, sons of the most high"?

Monavis

[tomndebb]

Mark 8- verses 38-39

For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes with the holy angels in the Glory of his father" and he said to them,"Amen I say to you,there are some sanding herewho will not taste death ,till they have seen the kingdom of God coming in power."Just to clear up some confusion, Mark 8:38 is the first quoted statement and the second quoted statement is Mark 9:1.

[DirkGntly]

And to address Paul's supposed "mysogyny," most of the commentary attributed to him that even comes close was in 1 Corinthians. Those statements were directed at the Corinthians, who had well-known issues with adultery, bigamy, and fornication (as understood at the time). Paul's commentary to the Corinthians was intended to be a set of recommendations the Corinthians (and ONLY the Corinthians) might try, in an effort to curb the sexual issues within the church at Corinth. He later went back, in 2 Corinthians, to correct the Corinthian church's over-zealous application of the suggestions he made in 1 Corinthians.

[Captain Amazing]

Also, please provide a cite where Matthew and Luke explain their motives in setting the birth in Bethlehem.

Well, Matthew's motive is in Matt 2:3-6 (NIV)

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'

[MEBuckner]

And to address Paul's supposed "mysogyny," most of the commentary attributed to him that even comes close was in 1 Corinthians. Those statements were directed at the Corinthians, who had well-known issues with adultery, bigamy, and fornication (as understood at the time). Paul's commentary to the Corinthians was intended to be a set of recommendations the Corinthians (and ONLY the Corinthians) might try, in an effort to curb the sexual issues within the church at Corinth. He later went back, in 2 Corinthians, to correct the Corinthian church's over-zealous application of the suggestions he made in 1 Corinthians.
Whatever local practices Paul may have been reacting to, here's what is recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:3-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011:3-15;&version=31;):
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
(There's also a variant text shown from verse seven, but it's not exactly feminist either.)

Another famous (or infamous) passage is 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:11-15;&version=31;):
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
What exactly does 2 Corinthians say that modifies or contradicts any of this?

[DirkGntly]

Not so much contradicts, as much as, "Hey, tone it down a little."
The Corinthians started to make matters of dress and head-covering requirements for admission into the church and punishments could be rendered for such offenses. Paul basically came back in 2 Corinthians and said, "hey, we're under grace, not law, and I didn't intend you to take my suggestions and make them church law."
Now, Paul's commentary that you quoted, MEBuckner could possibly be taken as mysogynistic, but is probably more accurately described as patriarchal in nature. I can't find evidence that Paul found women INFERIOR, merely that to him, it was more appropriate for men to take a leadership position (which, given the times when this was written, and the intended audience, is not unusual).

[MEBuckner]

Diogenes the Cynic: Diogenes the Cynic: John and Mark didn't think he was born in Bethlehem.

Cite? Leaving it out of their accounts should not be construed as taking a position against his being born there. If they specified somewhere else, that would be an acceptable cite.
John 1:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:46&version=31): Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.
John 7:41-52 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:41-52;&version=31;):
Others said, "He is the Christ."

Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn't you bring him in?"

"No one ever spoke the way this man does," the guards declared.

"You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted. "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them."

Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?"

They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee."
You could say that John doesn't flat out say "Jesus was born in Nazareth"--John doesn't mention the birth of Jesus at all. Still, either John 1:46 or the last part of chapter 7 would have been an excellent place for John to have thrown in a quick parenthetical statement "(Of course Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, just as the prophets foretold; he only grew up in Galilee")--if in fact John had any such belief.

[MEBuckner]

Not so much contradicts, as much as, "Hey, tone it down a little."
The Corinthians started to make matters of dress and head-covering requirements for admission into the church and punishments could be rendered for such offenses. Paul basically came back in 2 Corinthians and said, "hey, we're under grace, not law, and I didn't intend you to take my suggestions and make them church law."
Now, Paul's commentary that you quoted, MEBuckner could possibly be taken as mysogynistic, but is probably more accurately described as patriarchal in nature. I can't find evidence that Paul found women INFERIOR, merely that to him, it was more appropriate for men to take a leadership position (which, given the times when this was written, and the intended audience, is not unusual).
To me at least, saying "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" implies inferiority. Also, for one group to be placed in authority over another group puts the second group in a, well, inferior position. It is true that Christian sexist attittudes have historically often been couched in terms not of hatred for women but "merely" subjection of them; patriarchal rather than misogynistic, as you say. For that matter, at times, some Christians have sought to relegate women to an inferior position (socially or politically speaking) by claiming women are better--the whole "Oh, women are purer and better than men, and so should stay ought of grubby old politics and business and devote themselves to the important stuff, like raising children and cooking and cleaning" line.

I'm curious though: You indicate a certain cultural relativism ("given the times when this was written, and the intended audience"). Do you also apply that to strictures against homosexuality or homosexual acts? Is the notion that gay sex is inherently wrong as opposed to straight sex merely a cultural artifact, or is it a permanent and timeless ethical principle?

[DirkGntly]

In my mind, the strictures against homosexual acts fall in line with the same strictures against fornication or adultery, which were based in the idea that sex should be reserved for those persons who are married. Since it was assumed that homosexual people could not be married, then that fell under the same set of "rules" as fornication or adultery.
I realize Paul had some pretty incendiary (by today's standards) things to say about homosexuality itself, but I'm not scholarly enough to debate those issues effectively.

[MEBuckner]

Well, what about gay marriage then?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Cite? Leaving it out of their accounts should not be construed as taking a position against his being born there. If they specified somewhere else, that would be an acceptable cite.

Also, please provide a cite where Matthew and Luke explain their motives in setting the birth in Bethlehem.
In addition to what MEB quoted from John (which includes the passage where Jesus' detractors say he can't be the Messiah because he wasn't born in Bethlehem...a point which is significantly left uncorrected and unrebutted by John), Mark 6:1-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%206&version=31) also says the following:
1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.

"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
An extended passage where Mark describes Jesus' small town Galilean roots in some detail without ever mentioning that he wasn't born there.

Mark was the first Gospel written. The Pauline Corpus was written even before that. Q was written before either Matthew or Luke and it's not there either. The birth in Bethlehem is not found in the earliest strata of Christian literature, even in spots where one should expect to find it emphasized. The first extant claim that Jesus as born in Bethlehem does not occur until Matthew's Gospel (c. 80 CE), 50 years after the crucifixion, written by a non-contemporary and a non-witness in a patently, demonstrably, fictional narrative in the which the author makes a habit throughout his Gospel of trying to force or invent events in the life of Jesus to fit what he believes are OT prophecies about the Messiah (many of which are not).

The motive is pretty clear in Luke as well, even if he doesn't say it explicitly. He has to jump through a number of hoops to get the Nativity to Bethlehem and his own account is, like Matthew's, a clear and demonstrable fiction, containing events which did not or could not have occurred (and I'm not just talking about miracles) and which are set 10-12 years later than Matthew's Nativity.

It is the uncontroversial consensus of mainstream historical and NT scholarship that Jesus was born in Galilee and that Matthew and Luke's Bethlehem narratives are both pious fictions engineered to address one of the critiques of Jesus' alleged Messiahship (a critique which the author of GJohn had no answer for).

[KGS]

Hard to do if the stars have fallen and the sun has fallen (which is our closest star) Since we live in an expanding universe (http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp), the stars aren't going to being falling on us for at least several billion years. Sinners, rejoice!

I notice that you do not believe the bible neither do I, It was reading the Bible that made me not believe in it,and what Jesus is quoted as saying doesn't make sense, if he were anything other than a normal human he would know if the stars fell, earth would nor could it survive. Thanks for clarifying that.

What's the name for that type of false logic where something is used to prove itself? For instance, how many Christians say, "The Bible says that it's written by God, therefore it's written by God. Q.E.D."

[Chief Pedant]

And to address Paul's supposed "mysogyny," most of the commentary attributed to him that even comes close was in 1 Corinthians. Those statements were directed at the Corinthians, who had well-known issues with adultery, bigamy, and fornication (as understood at the time). Paul's commentary to the Corinthians was intended to be a set of recommendations the Corinthians (and ONLY the Corinthians) might try, in an effort to curb the sexual issues within the church at Corinth. He later went back, in 2 Corinthians, to correct the Corinthian church's over-zealous application of the suggestions he made in 1 Corinthians.

It's profoundly unsatisfying to arbitrarily attribute certain statements as applying to a specific people, culture and time while applying others broadly across all time and all circumstances. This sort of wiggleroom leaves the whole thing suspect. At a bare minimum, a book directed by the Almighty would have a chapter specifically devoted to clarifying which Truths extend across all time and all civilizations.

[BrainGlutton]

The accuracy of the prophecies of Nostradamus is amazing. Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance?
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/nospast.htm

The accuracy of the prophecies of the Delphic Oracle is amazing . . .

[monavis]

Just to clear up some confusion, Mark 8:38 is the first quoted statement and the second quoted statement is Mark 9:1.

In My Bible which is quite old I wrote directly from it, I have an old version, I have I read it to pieces years ago so perhaps there are many new translations since that, I haven't read it in many years. I suppose that is why there is confusion as there are so many different translations.

Thanks for pointing it out to me though.

Monavis

[monavis]

Since we live in an expanding universe (http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp), the stars aren't going to being falling on us for at least several billion years. Sinners, rejoice!

Thanks for clarifying that.

What's the name for that type of false logic where something is used to prove itself? For instance, how many Christians say, "The Bible says that it's written by God, therefore it's written by God. Q.E.D."

As I understand it the stars etc. are in a constant state of what would be considered falling, as I read it, thinking that in those days people believed the stars could fall on the earth.as they believed the earth was the center of the universe. I think stars burn out not fall, of course I admit I am no scientist.

Monavis

[monavis]

The accuracy of the prophecies of Nostradamus is amazing. Take a look for yourself at all the prophecies that were fulfilled. How could it be by chance?
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/nospast.htm

The accuracy of the prophecies of the Delphic Oracle is amazing . . .

Nostradamus can be translated any way one wants as it is written like a bunch of gibberish as he writes Hister which some translate as Hitler. The prophecies are after the fact, like so many, and can be disregarded as a bunch of blather.

Monavis

[BrainGlutton]

Nostradamus can be translated any way one wants as it is written like a bunch of gibberish as he writes Hister which some translate as Hitler. The prophecies are after the fact, like so many, and can be disregarded as a bunch of blather.

Monavis

And that differs . . .

No. It's too easy.

[ralph124c]

Regarding the 3 "synoptic" Gospels: they are very similar, but contradict themslves in minor ways. If the early church fathers were so free with rewriting scripture (as has been alleed), then why didn't they "clean up" these Gospel contradictions? John is a big mystery to me-why was it written, and was it much later than the first three? It's message seems very strange-almost as if it came from a different tradition.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Regarding the 3 "synoptic" Gospels: they are very similar, but contradict themslves in minor ways.
They're really only similar where they're interdependent. Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke both copied independently from Mark and Q. Wherever Matthew and Luke do not share a common source they diverge wildly. Their nativities and their appearance narratives do not just contain "minor contradictions" but are entirely different stories with some major contradictions.
If the early church fathers were so free with rewriting scripture (as has been alleed), then why didn't they "clean up" these Gospel contradictions?
Who alleges that there was any Patristic tampering with the Gospels? This is not a claim made in NT scholarship. There is no scholarly contention that the Church Fathers re-wrote the Gospels, although that is a strawman I've seen apologists go after before.
the John is a big mystery to me-why was it written, and was it much later than the first three? It's message seems very strange-almost as if it came from a different tradition.
That is the general belief.

[TokyoBayer]

Evidence for the Bible? I was in a hotel room once, and opened the desk drawer, and there one was!

I'm a believer!Damn. I was in a hotel room once, and opened the desk drawer, and there was a book about Buddha. In English as well as Japanese.

I'm not a believer!

From the cite talking about revelations in Revelation 8.


7
The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.
8
The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood,
9
a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
10
The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water--
11
the name of the star is Wormwood.[1] A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.

Their commentary
Bible passage: Revelation 8:7-11
Prophet: Jesus
Written: sometime between 54 and 95 AD
To be fulfilled: End Times

In Revelation 8:7-11, the Bible describes an End Time event that sounds like a description of modern warfare or possibly a meteor shower. These Bible passages talk about objects from the sky striking the earth and causing the earth's waters to turn "bitter," which could mean "contaminated." It also says that many people will die when the waters become bitter. Some scholars have speculated that this could be a reference to a future radioactive contamination of the earth's waters.Common guys, how could we not be persuaded? This sounds exactly like modern warfare. The US Army has been working on the Huge Mountain Launcher (HML) for years now. The HML is extremely effective if it lands on you, although the effective range now is less than a millionth of a micrometer, so getting the enemy to come to the weapon seems more productive. The Army has been working on a clever PR campaign to try and get the insurgents in Iraq closer.

Other factions within the HML development team say that this will never happen and we need to concentrate our energies on increasing the range. To quote the leader of this team, "if Mohammed won't go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed."

[kanicbird]

The US Army has been working on the Huge Mountain Launcher (HML) for years now

The HML is classified - how did you find out about it? The Revelation passage could describe a nuclear explosion over or in water, or a very large meteor.

[hotflungwok]

The Revelation passage could describe a nuclear explosion over or in water, or a very large meteor.
Or it could describe a really bad acid trip. Or a cardboard cutout that the props guy set on fire. Or a bunch of other things. Or something no one has ever seen. Speculation is useless, and doesn't lead to any real information.

The waters turned bitter, and that could mean contamination? How? Does radioactive water change flavor? How would the writer have know anything about radiation? Maybe the mountain that falls into the sea is a really big tea bag, and it catches on fire during atmospheric entry, and that's the reason the water turns bitter. It's obviously the only explanation that makes sense.

[TokyoBayer]

The HML is classified - how did you find out about it? The Revelation passage could describe a nuclear explosion over or in water, or a very large meteor.I read Revelation closely, and then God fills in the blanks. It's like doing sudoko, but you don't need to use the eraser as much.

The Army part can be understood because of the reference to "green grass." If it weren't then there wouldn't be a need to stress "green." The 1/3 part talks about the disagreement and God moves in mysterious ways, which is the reason for the cryptic comment about Mohammad.

[cosmosdan]

They're really only similar where they're interdependent. Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke both copied independently from Mark and Q. Wherever Matthew and Luke do not share a common source they diverge wildly. Their nativities and their appearance narratives do not just contain "minor contradictions" but are entirely different stories with some major contradictions.

If it's not too much trouble I'd be interested is seeing an example or two of where they diverge wildly and where there are major contradictions. I'm not contending this isn't so. Just curious about your use of wildly and major.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If it's not too much trouble I'd be interested is seeing an example or two of where they diverge wildly and where there are major contradictions. I'm not contending this isn't so. Just curious about your use of wildly and major.
Ok. Some of this material is adapted from a piece I wrote for another website. My original piece addressed contradictions between all four Gospels but I've pared it down some to try to focus on the synoptics and the differences between Matthew and Luke where they lack a common source.


I'll start with the Nativities. Mark has no Nativity so Matthew and Luke had no common source for it and each created his own. As a result, their narratives are not just conflicted on details but are entirely different stories. Not every difference is a necess

To begin with, their genealogies for Joseph are different. Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.

Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that's that.


There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it. This particular contradiction is a thread in itself but the subject is addressed very thoroughly here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html) by historian, Richard Carrier who addresses every counterpoint decisively.

Now let's move on to the narratives themselves. I think it's helpful to examine them side by side.


Synopsis of Matthew's Nativity:

Joseph and Mary are engaged but they haven't had sex yet. Mary turns up pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph (understandably) wants to break up with her but then an angel comes to him in a dream and tells him that the Holy Ghost knocked her up and she's still a virgin and Joseph should marry her anyway. Somehow Joseph buys all this and agrees to stay with Mary.

Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew does not have anything about a census or an inn. He just says Jesus was born in Bethlehem with the implication that Joseph and Mary already lived there).

Some "astrologers (magoi) from the East" show up at Herod's court and ask him where the new king of Judea is because they "saw his star in the East." (note: Matthew does not call them kings and does not say how many there were. The "three kings" image is an extra Biblical popular tradition)Herod gets pissed and calls the priests to ask them where the "Annointed" is supposed to be born. The priests tell him Bethlehem and quote from Micah. Herod then tells the astrologers to go to Bethlehem and find the kid and then report back to him, ostensibly so he can "pay homage" to the kid but really so he can kill him.

The astrologers go to Bethlehem and then follow the star until it stops over a house (not a stable) with Jesus in it. The astrologers give mad props to Baby Jesus and give him gold and frankincense and myrhh. Then an angel comes to them in a dream and warns them not to go back to Herod so they secretly split back to their own countries instead.

Then an angel comes to Joseph in a dream (in Matthew's Nativity it seems like everybody is constantly getting hounded by angels in their dreams) and tells him to haul ass to Egypt and bring Jesus with him. Joseph packs up his family and blows.

When Herod gets stood up by the astrologers he loses his shit and orders all male children under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be killed.

Herod dies and Joseph gets the message (yep, you guessed it) from an angel in a dream and returns to Israel. He finds out that Herod's son, Archelaus is king of Judea so he's afraid. Joseph gets visited by an angel in yet another dream and is told to go to Galilee (which, incidentally was being ruled by another of Herod's sons, Herod Antipas, so it's not clear why Galilee would have been any safer....but to be fair, Archelaus sucked much harder than Antipas. He was so bad, in fact, that he was forcibly removed in 6 CE by the Romans, Judea was made part of the province of Syria and Quirinius was put in charge). So Joseph drags the family to Galilee and settles down in Nazareth.




Synopsis of Luke's Nativity

There is a long, boring story about the conception of John the Baptist. During the pregnancy of JBap's mother, Elizabeth, an angel come to Mary (who is already living in Nazareth) and tells her that she's going to get knocked up by the Holy Spirit. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and Elizabeth gets all excited and there's some more boring stuff and then JBap is born.

Jump to a pregnant Mary travelling to Bethlehem with Joseph to register for Quirinius' census. Jesus is born in a stable (and Luke actually intimates that it is for privacy, not because there was no room inside). Cut to a bunch of shepherds tending their flocks at night. An angel comes down and scares the crap out of them. The angel tells them to chill and informs them that the Messiah has been born and is lying in a manger in Bethlehem. then a whole bunch more angels come down and start singing at the shepherds. Then all the angels disappear and the shepherds rush off to Bethlehem and find Baby Jesus and give him mad props.

Then, eight days later, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Jerusalem to the Temple to be circumcised. While they're at the Temple an old guy named Simeon comes up to them because the holy spirit told him all about Jesus. Simeon gives Baby Jesus mad props and then predicts doom and gloom for Israel. Then an old lady "prophetess" named Anna happens by and sees this and she starts telling everybody else all about it.

Then after Jesus is properly snipped, Joseph and Mary and Jesus all go back to Nazareth. There is nothing about a flight to Egypt. They go straight to Nazareth and Jesus commences to growing up "strong and wise."





It's pretty easy to see that with the exception of the place of birth and the defense of Mary's virtue these stories have virtually no relationship to each other. as I said above, not every detail in Luke is necessarily in contradiction to Matthew but whatever is not directly contradicted is pretty much incidental in contrast to the details that clash. Let's add some of them up:

Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

Luke says nothing about Herod's slaughter of the innocents or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.

To recap the most intractable contradictions between the Nativities, we have

1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
3. Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
4. Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
5. Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.

Now for the resurrection.



The resurrection/appearance narratives are really a mess of contradictions so I'll just write a brief synopsis of each account and then pick out the contradictions. As with the Nativities, the divergence netween Matt and Luke (and John, for that matter), becomes completely wild at the exact point where Mark's narrative leaves off.


Synopsis of Mark's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Salome are walking to the tomb. As they're walking they're talking and worrying about how they can get somebody to help them move the rock. They get to the tomb and see the rock has been rolled away. They go inside and see an angel sitting in the tomb. The angel shows them that Jesus' body is gone and tells them to inform Cephas and the rest of the disciples that Jesus is risen and that they should all go to Galilee where they will be able to see him. The women run away from the tomb but they don't tell anybody because they're terrified.

Mark cuts off right there with no further visits to the tomb and no appearance narratives,


Synopsis of Matthew's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to the tomb (no mention of Salome this time). Right when they get to the tomb, there's an earthquake, an angel comes down from the sky, rolls away the rock and sits down on it. This time there are guards at the tomb and they get scared. The angel then tells the women pretty much the same thing the other angel said in Mark. he shows them that Jesus is gone and tells them to tell the disciples that Jesus wants to holler at them in Galilee. The women run away but this time they run bang into Jesus. They freak out some and Jesus tells them to chill and then tells the women to let the disciples know he would holler at them in Galilee.

Ata this point, there's an interjection in which the guards run to the priests and tell them what they saw, so then the priests bribe the guards to say that the disciples stole Jesus' body.

Back to the disciples. The eleven of them go to a mountain in Galilee and Jesus appears. They give Jesus mad props but some are still doubtful. Jesus tells them to go out and preach the message and baptize people and that he will always be with them.

And that's it for Matthew.



Synopsis of Luke's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, Joanna and "the rest of the women" go to the tomb. As in Mark, they find the stone already rolled away. They peep inside the tomb. What? No Jesus! As they're standing there trying to figure out what's going all of a sudden TWO angels appear out of thin air. The women freak, the angels tell them to chill and tell them that Jesus has risen. The women run to tell the disciples (but Luke's angels do not explicitly instruct them to do so this time). The disciples don't believe them but then Peter jumps up and runs to the tomb. He peeps in and sees that Jesus is gone. He goes home "marvelling."

Cut to "two of them" (one named Cleopas, the other unnamed) walking to Emmaus. They meet Jesus but they don't recognize him. They tell him all about Jesus and the women and the empty tomb. Jesus tells them how dumb they are for not knowing the prophecies (which didn't actually exist but that's another can of worms). They stop to have some grub and when they break bread, they recognize Jesus, then he vanishes.

Cleopas and the other dude run back to Jerusalem and find the rest of the disciples. The rets of the disciples tell them that Jesus had risen and appeared to "Simon" (who may or may not be the "Peter" who Luke says had seen the empty tomb but does not say had seen the risen Jesus. I mention this because Luke actually uses the name "Peter" in the former case and "Simon" in the latter, so this may indicate two different people).

Cleopas and the other dude start telling the disciples about seeing Jesus on the road to Emmaus and then Jesus suddenly appears while they're talking. (please note that they are still in Jerusalem and have not yet gone to Galilee) They freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he shows them all the rad holes in his hands and feet. Then Jesus asks them if they have anything to eat (I guess he hadn't eaten in three days). They give him some fish and he eats it. Then he preaches at them for a while before leading them to Bethany where he ascends into the sky. The disciples go happily back to Jerusalem, and that's the end for Luke.


Synopsis of John's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene (alone) goes to the tomb. The stone has already been rolled away. She runs and finds Simon Peter along with the "Beloved Disciple" (who will henceforth be referred to as "BD"). Mary Magdalene tells them that the body has been "taken." Peter and BD go running to the tomb. BD outruns Peter and gets there first and sees some strips of burial linens lying utside the tomb. Peter gets there and goes inside the tomb. Peter sees that Jesus is gone. BD then goes in and sees it too. Peter and BD go back home.

Mary Magdalene is left crying outside the tomb. She peeps inside the tomb and sees two angels. Then Jesus comes up behind her and she sees him but doesn't recognize him. She thinks he's the gardener and asks him if he moved the body and could he tell her where it was. Then Jesus says her name, "Mary," and she recognizes him. He tells her not to touch him but to go tell the disciples about him. She goes and finds the disciples and tells them (John doesn't say where they are). Later that night, Jesus appears to the disciples and shows them all his rad wounds. Then he breathes on them and says he's giving them some Holy Spirit and tells them that he's giving them the power to forgive sins.

Then we get the Doubting Thomas story. Thomas doubts. Thomas sticks fingers in rad nail holes. Thomas believes. Then Jesus says that people who believe without proof are more blessed than those annoying skeptics.

John really ends there. There's another emended chapter which I won't bring into the contradictions argument but just to be thorough, the emended chapter tells a weird story about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee and helping them catch some fish, then he keeps asking Peter if he loves him and gives him his evangelical marching order and hints that he's going to come to a rough end. Then Peter sees the BD following them and asks Jesus about him. Jesus tells Peter it's not his business if Jesus wants to BD to hang around until he returns. Then the author says there was a rumor that the BD wasn't supposed to die before Jesus came back but Jesus didn't actually say tthat he just said "what business is it of yours if I DO want him to stay?"

End of emended John.


So how many women went to the tomb? was it Mary Madalene by herself? was she with the other Mary? The other Mary and Salome? The other Mary and Joanna and the "rest of the women?"

Was the stone already rolled away when they got there or did they see an angel come down and do it?

How many angels were there, one or two? Where were they? Were they in the tomb or sitting on the stone or did they appear out of thin air or did they descend from the sky?

Who was the first person to see Jesus? was it Mary Magdalene? If so, when did she see him? Did she crash into Jesus on her way to tell the disciples or did he come up behind her after she had returned to the tomb and was peeping in at the angels?

Where and when did Jesus appear to the disciples? Was it in Jerusalem or was it Galilee.

As you can see, where there is no shared source, there is not just contradiction but the narratives become utterly unrelated. It's not the same story told from different points of view, it's totally different stories.

[mstupid3000]

Luke 21:24


Luke 21
24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

(New International Version translation)

Jesus said Jerusalem would be destroyed


This is a tough one to reconcile or call accurate. The book of Luke was written as early as 80 to 90 CE but the fall of Jerusalem was 70 CE. If you wish to call it a matter of faith that' is fine but I can' buy it as being factual or a "real" prophesy if the book was written after the event it predicted.

[Antinor01]

Luke 21:24


Luke 21
24
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

(New International Version translation)

Jesus said Jerusalem would be destroyed


This is a tough one to reconcile or call accurate. The book of Luke was written as early as 80 to 90 CE but the fall of Jerusalem was 70 CE. If you wish to call it a matter of faith that' is fine but I can' buy it as being factual or a "real" prophesy if the book was written after the event it predicted.


It's not like Jerusalem hadn't been destroyed and/or conquered before. For a capital that was conquered no less that six times since the Jewish people first took over the area and was currently under outside rule.....predicting that they would be conquered or destroyed again is a little like predicting that the sun will rise.

[CurtC]

It would be like finding a book that says some prophet predicted that the Twin Towers in New York would be destroyed. That would be a pretty good clue that the book was written after 9/11/2001. It would not be considered a prophecy.

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

And to address Paul's supposed "mysogyny," most of the commentary attributed to him that even comes close was in 1 Corinthians. Those statements were directed at the Corinthians, who had well-known issues with adultery, bigamy, and fornication (as understood at the time). Paul's commentary to the Corinthians was intended to be a set of recommendations the Corinthians (and ONLY the Corinthians) might try, in an effort to curb the sexual issues within the church at Corinth. He later went back, in 2 Corinthians, to correct the Corinthian church's over-zealous application of the suggestions he made in 1 Corinthians.

So are you saying christians don't have to follow anything in Corintians or just the parts that you don't agree with?

This is all very confusing- do you think it would be possible for you christians to get together and choose someone you can all agree upon, maybe Billy Graham, or the Pope, or Jim Baker, to go through the bible with a red pen and cross out the stuff that no longer applies?

[KGS]

It would be like finding a book that says some prophet predicted that the Twin Towers in New York would be destroyed. That would be a pretty good clue that the book was written after 9/11/2001. So you're saying that Revelation 11:4-13 (http://www.lwbc.co.uk/rev_11.htm) was written after Sept. 11? Because I clearly remember reading that passage before the incident happened.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So you're saying that Revelation 11:4-13 (http://www.lwbc.co.uk/rev_11.htm) was written after Sept. 11? Because I clearly remember reading that passage before the incident happened.
You don't actually think this passage has anything to do with 9/11, do you?

[KGS]

You don't actually think this passage has anything to do with 9/11, do you? Who knows for sure? But I can't think of any other historical event which closely matches that passage. Can you?

Besides, John lived 2,000 years ago. If he really did envision two skyscrapers collapsing, he wouldn't share the same frame of reference we modern humans do. He'd be more likely use terms like "two olive trees", and "two candlesticks standing before the God of the Earth." Not to mention the mere concept of being witnessed by EVERYBODY ON EARTH (Rev. 11:12, which was interpreted as "television" long before 9/11) -- how likely would someone living 2,000 years ago even think of that concept?

I'm not big on Biblical prophecy, but Revelation has always seemed...different.

[Indistinguishable]

Not to mention the mere concept of being witnessed by EVERYBODY ON EARTH (Rev. 11:12, which was interpreted as "television" long before 9/11) -- how likely would someone living 2,000 years ago even think of that concept?
Yes, what a bizarre and startling concept; surely none had the capability to dream of such a thing before the invention of television... well, none save John, of course.

I'm not big on Biblical prophecy, but Revelation has always seemed...different.
It's certainly different.

[Indistinguishable]

In fact, this is so silly it begs for further attack.

Who knows for sure? But I can't think of any other historical event which closely matches that passage. Can you?
It depends on your standard of "closely matches". I wouldn't say 9/11 closely matches it either. But, then, my position is that no historical event closely matches it, that it's incapable of closely matching anything given its vague overinterpretable nature, that it no better predicts anything than any of Nostradamus' surreal ramblings.

Besides, John lived 2,000 years ago. If he really did envision two skyscrapers collapsing, he wouldn't share the same frame of reference we modern humans do. He'd be more likely use terms like "two olive trees", and "two candlesticks standing before the God of the Earth."
John couldn't speak of two really tall buildings as two really tall buildings? Surely Biblical authors could at least on some occasions conceive of and speak directly about the concept of a really tall building... a building so tall it seems to scrape the sky, reaching into the very heavens.

Well, maybe some of of his gifted predecessors could, but not poor John. No, he could only reasonably be expected to attempt to communicate such a concept through the loose, rather odd metaphorical fit of olive trees or candlesticks, for while he has seen buildings and knows of tallness, he could not in any direct way bundle the concepts, for reasons similar to those preventing his contemporaries from moving from the idea that an event might be witnessed by a great many people at once to its natural generalization.

[Indistinguishable]

It's further interesting to note, in support of the passage's malleable semantics, that the site you linked to gives an interpretation that has nothing to do with September 11, wherein the olive trees and candlesticks are interpreted as God's preachers and profits (for they bring light to a spiritually darkened generation, of course, just like candlesticks!).

The passage also speaks of an immediately following earthquake killing 7000 in Jerusalem. I don't remember that happening. But I guess accuracy does go up if you only count the vague hits and forget the specific misses.

[Indistinguishable]

You know, on reading KGS's further posts in this thread, I think maybe I've been sort of ultra-whooshed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Who knows for sure?
Me. I know for sure. It doesn't have anything to do with 9/11.
But I can't think of any other historical event which closely matches that passage. Can you?
The line that you're fixated on is not a prediction of a historical event, it's a metaphor for two witnesses of God who will supposedly be martyred. As always with examing Bible verses, it's best to actually read it in context. Take a look:

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and one said, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 11:2And the court which is without the temple leave without, and measure it not; for it hath been given unto the nations: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 11:3And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 11:4[These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the earth. 11:5And if any man desireth to hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth and devoureth their enemies; and if any man shall desire to hurt them, in this manner must he be killed. 11:6These have the power to shut the heaven, that it rain not during the days of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they shall desire. 11:7And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that cometh up out of the abyss shall make war with them, and overcome them, and kill them. 11:8And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 11:9And from among the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations do men look upon their dead bodies three days and a half, and suffer not their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 11:10And they that dwell on the earth rejoice over them, and make merry; and they shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwell on the earth. 11:11And after the three days and a half the breath of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them that beheld them. 11:12And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they went up into heaven in the cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 11:13And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell; and there were killed in the earthquake seven thousand persons: and the rest were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. (Rev. 11:1-13, ASV)

I colored the relevant verse in red. As you can see, in the previous verse, the author is shown a vision of the Temple, the altar and the courtyard, then he is shown the two "witnesses," who God likens to the olive trees which held the lamps in front of the altar. It's not a prediction of a future event, it's a metaphor comparing these two witnesses to the lampstands in the Temple. They will "illuminate" the Lord. It doesn't say that these witnesses (or "olive trees") will be destroyed by people but by the Beast. It says that if any person tries to hurt them, fire will come out of the witnesses' mouths and burn them up.

It also says that these two "olive trees" will have the power to "...shut the heaven, that it rain not during the days of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they shall desire." Did the WTC have the power to stop the rain. smite the earth with plague and turn the waters into blood even in any figurative sense?

I think you're getting too caught up with one rather insignificant image --- a comparison of two human beings to a couple of Temple lampstands -- and you're reading way too much into it. Take a step back. It just isn't there.
Besides, John lived 2,000 years ago. If he really did envision two skyscrapers collapsing, he wouldn't share the same frame of reference we modern humans do. He'd be more likely use terms like "two olive trees", and "two candlesticks standing before the God of the Earth." Not to mention the mere concept of being witnessed by EVERYBODY ON EARTH (Rev. 11:12, which was interpreted as "television" long before 9/11) -- how likely would someone living 2,000 years ago even think of that concept?
The context of the passage makes it clear that the author was talking about two people, not two buildings and that he wasn't predicting their fiery destruction but was claiming that THEY would be spreading the fire and the plagues and the droughts (at least until the Beast killed them....which might not be such a bad thing, considering...).
I'm not big on Biblical prophecy, but Revelation has always seemed...different.
It isn't. It's just an unusual genre.

[KGS]

John couldn't speak of two really tall buildings as two really tall buildings? Of course not. In Biblical times, a typical "building" was no more than two or three stories tall. Larger structures like the Temple of Solomon were squat-shaped, NOT extremely thin like the WTC was. So ANY steel-framed skyscraper (which we 21st humans take for granted) would appear as anything BUT a building to ANY Israeli living 2,000 years ago, not just John.

It's all about frame of reference. Why is that so hard a concept to understand?

[Indistinguishable]

Of course not. In Biblical times, a typical "building" was no more than two or three stories tall. Larger structures like the Temple of Solomon were squat-shaped, NOT extremely thin like the WTC was. So ANY steel-framed skyscraper (which we 21st humans take for granted) would appear as anything BUT a building to ANY Israeli living 2,000 years ago, not just John.

It's all about frame of reference. Why is that so hard a concept to understand?
Because it's absolutely silly in this case. I've never seen a cockroach large enough to eat New York, but I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the concept of "giant cockroach". And the Biblical authors were perfectly capable of recognizing the concept of "really tall building". No one had to use olive trees or candlesticks to talk about the Tower of Babel.

Not that any of it matters, given that the reference in the passage is to men and not to buildings, as Diogenes, and your own link, pointed out.

[KGS]

As you can see, in the previous verse, the author is shown a vision of the Temple, the altar and the courtyard, then he is shown the two "witnesses," who God likens to the olive trees which held the lamps in front of the altar. It's not a prediction of a future event, it's a metaphor comparing these two witnesses to the lampstands in the Temple. If John described the metaphor as "two beanbag chairs", yeah, I'd agree with you -- the two events don't match.

However, I contend that the entire vision about The Two Witnesses is, in itself, a metaphor.

It doesn't say that these witnesses (or "olive trees") will be destroyed by people but by the Beast. Beast = Anti-Christ, right? Or at least a servant of the Anti-Christ? Isn't al-Qaeda inherently anti-Christian? I don't see any discrepancy with that passage (unless you believe in one of those wild 9/11 conspiracy theories...which I don't.)

It says that if any person tries to hurt them, fire will come out of the witnesses' mouths and burn them up. Well, someone tried to hurt the towers, and fire came out of them, all right. :( I have the documentaries to prove it.

It also says that these two "olive trees" will have the power to "...shut the heaven, that it rain not during the days of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they shall desire." Did the WTC have the power to stop the rain. smite the earth with plague and turn the waters into blood even in any figurative sense? The entire Bible is filled with gobbledygook like this (including events that supposedly happened, like the 10 Egyptian plagues.) But if I were forced to wrap a metaphor around it, I'd interpret the passage as the WTC being a symbol of the Corporate, Capitalist World and its effect on the environment (global warming, etc.)

[MEBuckner]

John couldn't speak of two really tall buildings as two really tall buildings? Of course not. In Biblical times, a typical "building" was no more than two or three stories tall. Larger structures like the Temple of Solomon were squat-shaped, NOT extremely thin like the WTC was. So ANY steel-framed skyscraper (which we 21st humans take for granted) would appear as anything BUT a building to ANY Israeli living 2,000 years ago, not just John.

It's all about frame of reference. Why is that so hard a concept to understand?
Yeah, no one in Biblical times could have even conceived of a tower whose top reached up to the very heavens (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen011.html#top). Why such a thing would have confounded their very language!

[Indistinguishable]

Nicely put with the last line, MEBuckner, but it's no use. I already tried subtlety in post #99 and directness in post #104.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If John described the metaphor as "two beanbag chairs", yeah, I'd agree with you -- the two events don't match.

However, I contend that the entire vision about The Two Witnesses is, in itself, a metaphor.
Let me try one more time. In the passage, God says, this is the Temple. These are my two witnesss. My witnesses are like the two olive trees which hold the candles in front of the altar. If anyone tries to hurt my witnesses, the witnesses will kill them with fire. The witnesses will hav the power to stop the rain, bring plagues and change the oceans into blood. The Beast will eventually make war on them and kill them.

The "witnesses" are PEOPLE, not buildings.
Beast = Anti-Christ, right? Or at least a servant of the Anti-Christ?
No. The "Beast" was a coded allegory for the Emperor of Rome. There is no "antichrist" in Revelation. Antichrists (plural) are referred to only in the Epistles of John and they refer to apostate Christians (namely Gnostics). The conflation of the word "antichrist" with the Beast of Revelation is a modern, pop culture phenomenon with no real Biblical basis.
Isn't al-Qaeda inherently anti-Christian?
No, al Qaeda is inherently anti-west.
Well, someone tried to hurt the towers, and fire came out of them, all right. :( I have the documentaries to prove it.
No, actually, fire did not come out of the buildings. The fire came out of airplanes that hit them.
The entire Bible is filled with gobbledygook like this (including events that supposedly happened, like the 10 Egyptian plagues.) But if I were forced to wrap a metaphor around it, I'd interpret the passage as the WTC being a symbol of the Corporate, Capitalist World and its effect on the environment (global warming, etc.)
It's fun to make stuff up, but forunately the author tells us straight up what the olive trees are a metaphor for so we don't have to speculate.

[KGS]

Yeah, no one in Biblical times could have even conceived of a tower whose top reached up to the very heavens (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen011.html#top). Why such a thing would have confounded their very language! There is no direct archaeological evidence that the Tower of Babel even existed. Certainly, there were no photographs for people like John to look at -- they would have to imagine what the ToB looked like, assuming they considered that myth important at all.

It's fun to make stuff up, but forunately the author tells us straight up what the olive trees are a metaphor for so we don't have to speculate. Well, if you insist on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, obviously we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this.

In which case, let me ask you this...who are the Two Witnesses? Has this prophecy already come to pass, or are we still waiting for them to appear?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, if you insist on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, obviously we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this.
Did I say the olive trees should be taken literally? No. I said they're metaphors. It's a long passage about two people who the author says will be martyred and them raised up to heaven after three days. Read it. That's what it says. Your interpretation is baseless even if you insist on making the equally baseless claim that the witnesses themselves are metaphors. Nothing in these passages matches anything about 9/11 execept that there are two of something.
Also (although it shouldn't have to be said) it can't be about 9/11 because it would have been impossible for the author to predict that.
In which case, let me ask you this...who are the Two Witnesses?
You'd have to dig up the author and ask him that. No one really knows. It's probably a reference to Zechariah 4 (Where the author sees a vision of two olive trees on either side of a golden menorah which an angel tells him are "two anointed ones which will stand by the Lord") but Moses and Joshua are also suggested by some.
Has this prophecy already come to pass
Of course not.

[Miller]

There is no direct archaeological evidence that the Tower of Babel even existed. Certainly, there were no photographs for people like John to look at -- they would have to imagine what the ToB looked like, assuming they considered that myth important at all.

Yeah, you're pretty much entirely missing the point, there. People, even back in 0 AD, knew what a tower was. They did have them, even back then. The story of the tower of Babel shows that they were capable of imagining the concept of a tower that was bigger than anything they'd ever seen before. So if John really had a vision of the WTC, there's no reason why he wouldn't have immediately made the connection between what he was "seeing," and the story of the tower of Babel, with which he was doubtlessly familiar. See, people two thousand years ago weren't stupid. Even though they'd never seen a skyscraper before, if you showed them a picture, they'd recognize it as an artificial structure. It's clearly made out of stone, it's covered in windows, there are doors in it. Pretty much all the familiar characteristics of a building, except larger than any they had seen before. I mean, they'd seen things like Roman aqueducts (http://www.atpm.com/12.12/europe/images/Roman%20Aqueduct,%20Segovia,%20Spain.jpg), and were familiar with famous structures like the great lighthouse of Alexandria, (http://www.pilotfriend.com/world_facts/world/images2/23.jpg) or the massive pillars (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/802/tr41.htm) that were popular as war memorials, or the great obelisks of the ancient Egyptians (http://www.romanvirdi.com/nile/luxor_obelisks.JPG). The concept of a tall, narrow structure was hardly outside the realm of their experience. There's absolutely no reason they'd be unable to comprehend an image of the WTC as an extremely tall building.

It's all about frame of reference. Why is that so hard a concept to understand?

It seems the only person here having any trouble understanding the frame of reference of is yourself. The inhabitants of the middle East of 2000 years ago were a cosmopolitan people with a fairly advanced knowledge of architecture. You seem to have them confused with these gentlemen. (http://www.hanulak.com/cavemen/cavemen.jpg) They were, in fact, considerably more advanced.

[Sampiro]

Pardon the bump, but I just found this thread and wanted to mention something about towers.

The entrance to Herod the Great's palace in Jerusalem was flanked by two great towers that he named after his brother and his (second) wife, Phasael and Mariamne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasael_tower). Not only would they have understood towers at the time, they would have understood "twin towers" (triplet even, for there was a third tower farther away called Hippicus Tower after a friend who saved Herod's life in battle). Since the structure was razed by the Romans, they even would have been familiar with the notion of Twin Towers falling due to an act of war.

Herod's Temple was part of a massive structure that had it been built during the life of Antipater of Sidon would easily have made the 7 Wonders of the World- it was a masterpiece of engineering that would have made the most arrogant Roman stand impressed- and it had towers throughout while the temple itself was 100 cubits high (that's about 150 feet or 15 stories by the most conservative measurement), and every Jew who lived in Israel and was able bodied would have seen the Temple while those who hadn't would likely had have seen depictions of it.

[dmatsch]

Evidence for the Bible? I was in a hotel room once, and opened the desk drawer, and there one was!

I'm a believer!

HALLELUJAH!!!!

Now start tithing 20% of your salary to the church so we can begin construction on that new $20 million dollar tax free building.

[dropzone]

Yeah, you're pretty much entirely missing the point, there. People, even back in 0 AD, knew what a tower was. Not to ignore the fact that an olive tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Olive_tree.jpg) looks nothing like the WTC. Had he been going for a tree that was tall and straight he'd've used the cedar of Lebanon, like every other person in the Bible who was using a tree as a metaphor for tall and straight.