Knowing the mind of God

[Cornish Steve]

It's funny, but it's also sad. What's even sadder, in fact sickening, are the tales of abuse on children by so-called priests. That's what comes of largely man-made rituals and practices - they are revealed for what they really are. This is a far cry from genuine faith.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Dave wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had to keep a note book on me at all times so I could jot down the sins as I deliberately committed them. Then on Saturday evening I could read them off to the priest and ensure that my dirty little soul was fully cleansed!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was a bit like having a bank account with an unlimited overdraft for sins! The penances I received were really lenient and definitely not in proportion to the debts I incurred!

When I think back now, I'm surprised that I even did the penances. I should have skipped them and just run them up on the sins account overdraft! Can you imagine it; "Dear father, for I have sinned; No. 1, I didn't do my penance last week!"

Then at age 13, when I decided that this God malarky wasn't for me, I could have simply written the sin-debt off and not done any penances at all!

Dave

 

[PI Guy]

They tried to cane me once at school (a catholic one of course) and i refused so they sent for my parents and my mum showed up and gave them hell for daring to lay a strap to me. She made an official complaint and removed me from the school.

I mean who the hell do they think they are? Was i guilty of the crime?

 

[cjd]

Ok Steve, you've hinted long enough, what are these prophecies you're hanging such a big part of your belief structure on? It's time we had a fair shot at them. My google fingure is twitching.

 

[cjd]

Evolution doesn't say how everything started (for me it goes as far back as big bang) - maybe cjd you can tell me what banged to make big bang and the origins of the thing that made big bang then work back detailing the origin of the origin of the origin etc etc - until we go right back to the beginning (or even tell me if this is possible and if so what the answer is - and if theres no answer then I'd like to know at what point you have to make an assumption and trust that assumption)

Correct, evolution doesn't say how eveything started.

That's why I say repeatedly that it is possible to both believe in a god AND accept evolution as a fact. (I don't believe in a god but I accept that a non interventionist god is possible - which is how this thread started.)

I have absolutley no idea how the universe came into existance; literally none. I read the theories every so often but I don't have the mathematics to begin to understand them and only a handful of lucky (or blighted?) individuals do.

The idea that a god did it is superficially attractive and has the benefit of removing any further need to worry about it. Unfortunately the logical mind then asks 'who made god?' and then you're f***ed again.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Ok Steve, you've hinted long enough, what are these prophecies you're hanging such a big part of your belief structure on? It's time we had a fair shot at them. My google fingure is twitching.

How can I not quote an example after such a plea? I hope the mods don't mind us going down a bunny trail that is so far from business!

Here's the prophecy I find most impressive. It was noted by Jewish scholars for centuries, was a source of fascination to Isaac Newton (who tried to explain it using planetary cycles), was explained in careful detail around 1900 by John Anderson, a former head of Scotland Yard, and remains as intriguing as ever today.

To set the stage, the verse comes from a book called Daniel (ch 9, v25), which was known to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek (under orders of Ptolemy II) before 270 BC; hence its authenticity and the fact that it pre-dates events by almost three centuries are not in doubt.

"Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler - Messiah the king - comes."

This is a precise mathematical statement, so let's do the maths.

(1) The word translated here as a 'seven' is used elsewhere to mean seven years. (7x7) + (62x7) = 483 years. In the Babylonian calendar (the context of the writer), there were 360 days in a year. 483x360 = 173,880 days.

(2) The command to restore the city of Jerusalem was given by the Persian king Artaxerxes on a known and documented date in history. According to our current form of calendar, that is March 14, 445BC.

(3) Another date in history is well documented, the date we call Palm Sunday. This is the day that the historical Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey and the crowds cheered him as a king. That date is April 6, 32AD.

(4) From March 14, 445BC to March 14, 32AD is 476 years (in our calendar). That's 476x365 = 173,740 days.

(5) This number has to be corrected for leap years. Over a period of 476 years, there are 119 years divisible by 4. Of these, 4 are divisible by 100 and must be subtracted. One year is divisible by 400 and must be added. In other words, we must add 116 days for leap years.

(6) March 14 to April 6 (inclusive) is 24 days.

(5) So, the number of days from March 14, 445 BC to April 6, 32AD is 173,740+116+24 = 173,880 days.

Q.E.D.

 

[SillyJokes]

Seems like it takes as long to restore Jerusalem as it does to build the new Wembley stadium.

 

[dagr]

On a side note, did anyone see that programe on the BBC last night about the three gospels that didn't make it into the Bible. Quite interesting.

 

[creospace]

No what was it called? although I've seen similar ones on nat geo regarding the gnostic gospels. The main difference is in the time they were written ie 200-300 ad rather than 50-70 ad. Also the gnostic gospels were politically motivated for that period of time (200-300 ad).

Still worth a read but take with pinch of salt.

 

[dagr]

Here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/prog_parse.cgi?FILENAME=20061204/20061204_2100_4544_2616_90

 

[Top Hat]

Here's the prophecy I find most impressive. It was noted by Jewish scholars for centuries, was a source of fascination to Isaac Newton (who tried to explain it using planetary cycles), was explained in careful detail around 1900 by John Anderson, a former head of Scotland Yard, and remains as intriguing as ever today.

To set the stage, the verse comes from a book called Daniel (ch 9, v25), which was known to have been translated from Hebrew into Greek (under orders of Ptolemy II) before 270 BC; hence its authenticity and the fact that it pre-dates events by almost three centuries are not in doubt.

"Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler - Messiah the king - comes."

This is a precise mathematical statement, so let's do the maths.

(1) The word translated here as a 'seven' is used elsewhere to mean seven years. (7x7) + (62x7) = 483 years. In the Babylonian calendar (the context of the writer), there were 360 days in a year. 483x360 = 173,880 days.

(2) The command to restore the city of Jerusalem was given by the Persian king Artaxerxes on a known and documented date in history. According to our current form of calendar, that is March 14, 445BC.

(3) Another date in history is well documented, the date we call Palm Sunday. This is the day that the historical Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey and the crowds cheered him as a king. That date is April 6, 32AD.

(4) From March 14, 445BC to March 14, 32AD is 476 years (in our calendar). That's 476x365 = 173,740 days.

(5) This number has to be corrected for leap years. Over a period of 476 years, there are 119 years divisible by 4. Of these, 4 are divisible by 100 and must be subtracted. One year is divisible by 400 and must be added. In other words, we must add 116 days for leap years.

(6) March 14 to April 6 (inclusive) is 24 days.

(5) So, the number of days from March 14, 445 BC to April 6, 32AD is 173,740+116+24 = 173,880 days.

That certainly seems impressive (at first reading), but in your own words Challenge Everything.

So firstly, how have you challenged this?

I have not googled, but this is how I would challenge this statement:

First I'd look at the translation has it been accurately translated.

Then I'd look at the start date, how verifiable is it, how accurate is it, it was a long time ago.

Next the end date, Jesus entering Jerusalem, how accurate is this, where do the sources come from are there any contemporary writing that are not from Jesus disciples?

Did the disciples know about the prophecy before writing the bible? was it common knowledge were the people looking for the messiah at this time? and hence, was it a self fulfilling prophecy?

Then I'd look at the math, did 7x7 + 62x7 mean years, months or something else, are there any other interpretations.

I'd also look at other prophecies (particularly from the same source), how many have come true, all, none.

After I'd done all that I'd have a better feeling of just how impressed I am.

 

[Top Hat]

Ken Miller on Apes and Humans (YouTube 4 mins)

Remember the science is open (like open source software) any scientist who could come up with a different realistic interpretation of the evidence would immediately become a famous scientist and a hero of creationists, creationist scientist will of looked at this evidence to.

Anybody care to explain why Ken is wrong?

 

[Cornish Steve]

That certainly seems impressive (at first reading), but in your own words Challenge Everything.

Agreed! Time for a dose of my own medicine.

Some commentators do interpret the passage to mean 70 weeks of years, not 69. If you compare with other passages, though, it's clear that the calculation should involve 69. Also, there were four edicts to rebuild the city, so it's important to understand the context to pick the right one. Also, some people arrive at different start and end dates, but that's usually because of how we interpret calendars - the writer used one while today we use another. I'm confident that the calculation I quoted is accurate, although I agree that we should never accept anything at face value.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Anybody care to explain why Ken is wrong?

I don't think there's any need to. In fact, as I watched the video, I was hoping that the link would be there, not the opposite. A designer of any type - of watches, of paintings, whatever - is always consistent. This has nothing really to do with 'proving' one approach over another. While I agree that it's really interesting (and I'd love to hear more), it's unfortunate that both camps feel compelled to fit data to their model (we all do it) instead of actually considering the data as independent evidence. My first question is why such fusion occurred and is the process found elsewhere?

 

[Top Hat]

....and I'd love to hear more...

I'm listening to the whole lecture now here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
It about 2 hours

 

[cjd]

So in the spirit of challenging everything.

I start from the point of view that if prophecy is a real phenomenon we should be able to use it to predict events - but of course we never can, you can only force-fit events retrospectively. It's called shoehorning.

After the Challenger space shuttle blew up, the Nostradamus freaks were suddenly able to shoehorn it into his verses, similarly with JFK's death. If they had predicted the events before it happened it would have been more interesting.

In this respect prophecies are like miracles, Hedge claims to have witnessed many but I have witnessed none. I would guess he is seeing what he wants to see. A real miracle would be a double amputee suddenly re-growing legs or dead man stiff with rigor mortis getting onto his knees and praising the Lord. I'd even settle for an old fashioned ascension into the clouds. But of course definitive miracles never ever happen, we only have questionable ones which believers can choose to believe and non-believers can put down to other causes.

This trait is called confirmation bias - where you notice what confirms your beliefs, and ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts your beliefs.

It would be so easy to be specific and beyond doubt with a miracle or a prophecy- so why are they always open to interpretation and dispute? The sceptics answer is because both prophecies and miracles are bunkum until proven otherwise; and we're still waiting.

Prophecy works for those that believe it and not for those that don't - that's only possible because it is never conclusive.

I'm off to google the Daniel story. Betcha it's a load of old tosh.

 

[cjd]

Well that was almost no fun at all.

It turns out that just about everything in the prophecy, from what it actually means, through what is the start date to whether the prophet means weeks or even years or is speaking metaphorically to even whether the whole thing is just a forgery.

It can be, and has been, interpreted in many different ways by religious scholars (not scientists or even sceptics). So the whole thing is meaningless because you can choose the particular set of circumstances that give you the answer you want to see.

In otherwords it's been shoehorned. hohum.

Just for fun here's an outlier that calculates that the messiah arrives next year; I can hardly wait.

Michael Travesser, spiritual leader of the self-proclaimed cult, Strong City, calculated 490 years, or 70 "weeks of years" from October 31, 1517, the date traditionally given for Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Castle Church. Thus he predicts the fulfillment of Daniel's prophesy for late 2007!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks
http://www.parkstreet.org/pulpit/70weekspaper.pdf

 

[Cornish Steve]

It turns out that just about everything in the prophecy, from what it actually means, through what is the start date to whether the prophet means weeks or even years or is speaking metaphorically to even whether the whole thing is just a forgery.

1) It's proven not to be a forgery. One of the amazing things about the Jews is how accurately they kept their 'scriptures'. There's no doubt that the words were penned centuries before the event took place.

2) I agree that it's important to know when a person is speaking literally and when metaphorically. This requires understanding the context. In this case, the statement is pretty clear.

3) I agree that many just love to back-fit world events into prophetic writings just to say "I told you so", when they had no clue ahead of time. In this example, though, it's not the case. There's evidence that people in advance knew exactly what was being predicted.

4) I challenge you to come up with an alternative meaning of the original words. They appear straightforward and obvious to me.

5) I quoted just one part of just one prophecy. There are hundreds of examples. Taken together, I find them compelling.

In this realm too, the scientific method is important. It's a big mistake to read something when you already have an opinion. Instead, look at the original text, understand the context, determine the form of writing, and figure out what is actually meant. I try very hard to do this.

As for charlatans who like to grab headlines by making stupid baseless predictions, my view on them is similar to yours.

 

[Top Hat]

I've listened to the lecture now
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

It is long 2 hours but if you are interested in the debate Evolution v ID its a must see/listen. Ken Miller was one of the science witnesses in the Dover Area School Board ID case.

As an aside, how bloody brilliant is the Internet, in the olden days I could never of got access to interesting stuff like this.

 

[cjd]

4) I challenge you to come up with an alternative meaning of the original words. They appear straightforward and obvious to me.

Luckily I don't need to it's all be done for me in the wiki - lots of scholars with lots of opinions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

Here's an extract discussing the various meanings of '70 years'

There are several interpretations which could constitute the 70 years period mentioned in Jeremiah 25 & 29. There are several events that may signify the beginning of "desolation" as well.
The following are three separate starting points in the captivities of Judah.

• The 1st captivity of Judah started around 605 - 604 BC, in the aftermath of the Battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar takes a party of Jews captive, signalling the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the captivity mentioned in Daniel 1:1 when Daniel and his companions were taken captive.

• The 2nd captivity of Judah started in 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem, but leaves it standing, taking only certain groups of people captive after the Judaeans refuse to pay taxes or tribute to Babylonia and then he appoints Zedekiah, the previous king's uncle, as the governor, signalling the beginning of Babylonian control over Judea. This 2nd captivity started the period of Ezekiels captivity. (Eze. 40:1)

• The 3rd captiviy of Judah started in about 587 BC, when Jerusalem and the Temple were burned down by Nebuchadrezzar's army, leaving them in complete desolation. Only a few of the poor were left in Jerusalem at this time. This destruction took place in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.(Jeremiah 52:12-16)

There are several periods of 70 years during this captivity time frame. Only one likely fulfilles the criteria of Jeremiah 25 & 29. That fulfilment is the 70 years period of time between the 1st captivity of Judah and the release of the Judean captives by Cyrus of Persia. (2 Chr. 36:22; Ezr. 1:1, 7; 3:7; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 17; 6:3, 14; Isa. 44:28; 45:1

• This 70 years counts from the Battle of Carchemish (1st captivity of Judah) until Jerusalem was allowed to be reconstructed by the Decree of Cyrus around 538 BC. To make up for the several years' difference (605 to 538 is 67 years) some propose adjusting of the chronology slightly, or count 70 lunar years (lunar years being slightly shorter than solar years), or propose that 70 was a rounded number under inclusive reckoning. Others shift the termination event until the rebuilding actually began, one or two years later.

It should be noted here that the date of 538 B.C. for the first year of Cyrus is based on the work of Ptolemy. Ptolemy does not give specific astronomical data to fix the date of the 1st year of Cyrus as he does with many of the other Babylonian and Persian kings. The Babylonian dynastic tablet gives 194.3 years from Yukin-Zira to the overthrow of Nabonidos. The 1st year of Yukin-Zira is astronomically fixed to the year 731 B.C. This then would make the overthrow of Nabonidos in the year 537 B.C. and the 1st year of Cyrus as ruler of Babylon in the year 536 B.C. Which would then would make the 2nd year of Cyrus (when the 2nd Temple foundation was laid-- Ezra 3:8) 70 years from the 1st captivity of Judah.

• Some other 70 year periods are as follows:

1. From the destruction of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar until the Temple was fully rebuilt in the sixth year of Darius I(Hystaspes), producing a time frame of 586-516 BC or 70 years.(Jer. 52;12-14; Ezra 6:15)
2. The 70 year period of Divine indignation mentioned in Zechariah 1:12. This period of 70 years ended in the 2nd year of Darius I (Hystaspes) 520 B.C. This Divine anger began when the glory of God left the Temple and Jerusalem. According to Ezekiel 8-10 this took place in the 6th year and 6th month of his captivity or the 2nd captivity of Judah, which would have been the year 590 B.C.

But I do not wish to put myself in the position of the creationist scientists and keep pulling bits of half understood (and half read) 'evidence' out of a hat. To get to grips with this totally would require a lot of work which I ain't going to do.

I am satisfied to know that those that really do understand the field do not share a unanimous view of it and there are a sufficient diversity of thought on it to make it possible to claim anything.

Haven't you got something less obviously controversial?

 

[cjd]

As an aside, how bloody brilliant is the Internet, in the olden days I could never of got access to interesting stuff like this.

And it's free; how cool is that!

 

[Ambriel]

Professor Hawking is a brilliant man, but that doesn't make him right about everything. By the way, thank goodness mankind has a conscience and that we don't euthanise the severely disabled at birth.

Is that a reference to Hawking? He wasn't disabled at birth and wasn't diagnosed with motor neurone disease until he was 21. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking)

ps Stunning photos, btw.

pps Just realised someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, but now I can't see how to delete my message. doh!

 

[Cornish Steve]

But I do not wish to put myself in the position of the creationist scientists and keep pulling bits of half understood (and half read) 'evidence' out of a hat. To get to grips with this totally would require a lot of work which I ain't going to do.

Good for you - although I don't think just one group lays claim to this label.

I am satisfied to know that those that really do understand the field do not share a unanimous view of it and there are a sufficient diversity of thought on it to make it possible to claim anything.

Well, for what it's worth, given the enormity of the implications, I have looked into it. While I'm only one person, I'm comfortable that the maths I laid out are accurate.

Haven't you got something less obviously controversial?

If there was no controversy, we'd all believe the same thing! There's an element of faith in just about every aspect of life. In this case, it's faith in the integrity and honesty of ancient historians. Without faith in their ability to reconstruct dates accurately (based on available documentary sources), we can't conclude anything.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Is that a reference to Hawking? He wasn't disabled at birth and wasn't diagnosed with motor neurone disease until he was 21. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking)

ps Stunning photos, btw.

pps Just realised someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, but now I can't see how to delete my message. doh!

Yes, you're quite right. I admit I was mistaken on that point, although the principle remains the same.

 

[Cornish Steve]

That certainly seems impressive (at first reading), but in your own words Challenge Everything.

So firstly, how have you challenged this?

I have not googled, but this is how I would challenge this statement:

First I'd look at the translation has it been accurately translated.

Then I'd look at the start date, how verifiable is it, how accurate is it, it was a long time ago.

Next the end date, Jesus entering Jerusalem, how accurate is this, where do the sources come from are there any contemporary writing that are not from Jesus disciples?

Did the disciples know about the prophecy before writing the bible? was it common knowledge were the people looking for the messiah at this time? and hence, was it a self fulfilling prophecy?

Then I'd look at the math, did 7x7 + 62x7 mean years, months or something else, are there any other interpretations.

I'd also look at other prophecies (particularly from the same source), how many have come true, all, none.

After I'd done all that I'd have a better feeling of just how impressed I am.

The authenticity of documents seems to have been proved. The main point I would focus on is your statement "was it a self fulfilling prophecy?"

There's little doubt that the historical Jesus knew of the maths. Earlier in his life, the crowds tried to proclaim him as a king and he escaped from them claiming that "his time had not yet come". He also felt that the Jewish leaders at the time should have known, given his documented words (see the last phrase):

"The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

This in turn was a very detailed prophecy. Jerusalem was destroyed during the reign of Titus in 70AD. During the destruction of the city, gold melted and ran into the cracks between stones in the wall. The troops subsequently removed each stone in turn in order to access that gold. Literally, they did not leave one stone on another.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm comfortable that the maths I laid out are accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve. That's called "numerology", and it has absolutely no place in mathematics or science.

I always refuse to participate in discussions where some participants use numerology to try to prove their points because you can do just about anything with numerology - just like an astrologer can with tarot cards.

But to break my own rule for a minute, you still havn't addressed Top Hat's questions about this prophecy, in particular, his point about whether the profit meant "sets of years". You simply cannot just pluck things out of the air and assign them to what you want them to mean and call it mathematics. The prophet's words could be interpreted as meaning kings, tides, wars, months, or a squillion other different things, or even a combination of things which are abstract or real.

This is the reason I have since withdrawn from this debate. As soon as I saw that you had decided off your own bat to interpret that so-called prophets words specifically to "years", I just couldn't take any more!

Dave

 

[Ambriel]

Yes, you're quite right. I admit I was mistaken on that point, although the principle remains the same.

It does indeed, and I agree entirely. No-ones potential can be measured at birth.

 

[dagr]

No what was it called? although I've seen similar ones on nat geo regarding the gnostic gospels. The main difference is in the time they were written ie 200-300 ad rather than 50-70 ad. Also the gnostic gospels were politically motivated for that period of time (200-300 ad).

Still worth a read but take with pinch of salt.

I think the three "missing" gospels were written at the same time as the others, and it is strongly suggested that they were widely circulated up until the 5th or 6th century, where they were suddenly and actively discouraged. The programme's revelations were less spectacular than the blurb leads you to believe and it focused more on the politico-historical rationale rather than pure religious doctrine. Still, worth a watch if it comes round again.

(I was interrupted during the programme a lot, but a couple of minor facts/anecdotes stuck in my mind: The peasants that found the manuscripts in 1945 started to burn them as tinder before they realised what they were, and the priest who presented the programme seemed quite troubled when he realised, a few years back, that they existed yet hadn't even been told of their existence when studying full-time to become a priest).

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm comfortable that the maths I laid out are accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve. That's called "numerology", and it has absolutely no place in mathematics or science.

Really, Dave. It's not numerology! This is not playing with cards. This is taking the original author's words and taking the time to calculate actual dates using relatively straighforward maths. Nothing's open to interpretation and nothing's left to chance; the original statement is about as black and white as you can get!

As for interpreting a week of years to mean seven years, the term is used elsewhere in that sense. I can certainly quote examples if that helps. I can't claim to be an expert on ancient Hebrew, but I rely on the integrity of those who do claim to be.

Why do I suddenly feel like the roles are reversed? Here is a statement in an authentic document that is about as direct as you can get and you resort to 'numerology' to challenge it. This is like those religious nutters daring to challenge evolution.

 

[Ambriel]

This in turn was a very detailed prophecy. Jerusalem was destroyed during the reign of Titus in 70AD. During the destruction of the city, gold melted and ran into the cracks between stones in the wall. The troops subsequently removed each stone in turn in order to access that gold. Literally, they did not leave one stone on another.

Strictly speaking, that isn't true.

The 2nd Temple at Jerusalem was indeed destroyed in 70AD, at the end of the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome but part of the outer western wall remains to this day. It is generally referred to as "The Wailing Wall" and one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Strictly speaking, that isn't true.

The 2nd Temple at Jerusalem was indeed destroyed in 70AD, at the end of the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome but part of the outer western wall remains to this day. It is generally referred to as "The Wailing Wall" and one of the holiest sites in Judaism.

Yup, and I've been there a couple of times. It's a fascinating place. I don't remember the details now (I'll have to remind myself), but I don't believe this wall relates to that passage.

Thanks for challenging me. You have to keep me honest!

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is taking the original author's words and taking the time to calculate actual dates using relatively straighforward maths. Nothing's open to interpretation and nothing's left to chance; the original statement is about as black and white as you can get!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve. Please show me where the prophet mentions exactly what is contained in the sets. Specifically, where does he mention that the sets contain "years".

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for interpreting a week of years to mean seven years, the term is used elsewhere in that sense. I can certainly quote examples if that helps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not interested in examples from elsewhere because they would be guilty as you are of imposing their own meaning on the prophet's words. I want to see where the prophet himself stipulates a particular type of object, abstract or physical, which should be in the sets.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why do I suddenly feel like the roles are reversed? Here is a statement in an authentic document that is about as direct as you can get and you resort to 'numerology' to challenge it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I really like and respect you Steve, but I would appreciate it if you would try not to accuse me of using numerology. I find it highly insulting because it is such a ridiculous practice and I value truth very dearly. Here is a definition of numerology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Unless you can show me where the prophet himself specifies that "years" should be the elements of his sets, you, and anyone else similarly interpreting that author, are using numerology.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

I would appreciate it if you would try not to accuse me of using numerology.

First and foremost, let me clear up a misunderstanding. You got hold of the wrong end of the stick, my friend. I was joking that you suggested that I was using numerology. I'm not accusing you of anything, and sorry for my clumsy sentence construction.

As for the word in hand, it's shabua in Hebrew. I'm not a language scholar, but I understand that it literally means seven (although it's not the standard word for seven, which is sheva). It's rather like our English word decade, which means ten years. In Hebrew, though, there's often a little more ambiguity than that; it goes with the language. The word can mean seven days or seven years. It depends on the context. In this case, it's obvious that years and not days is meant.

Incidentally, I find Hebrew fascinating. While vowels are included for young children, they are omitted in regular writing. Imagine trying to read the following sentences:

GD SV R GRCS QN, GD SV R NBL QN, GD SV R QN. SND HR VCTRS, HPPY ND GLRS, LNG T RN VR S, GD SV R QN.

If you're used to reading and writing something familiar, it's no big deal. When reading something new, though, there's obvious ambiguity. Is RN reign or run or ran? I understand that Israelis often hesitate when reading something aloud because they're filling in the gaps, and resolving ambiguities, as they go along.

While Greek as a language is very logical, other languages are not. It's no surprise that words and sentence construction can sometimes have more than one meaning. (In fact, rather ironically, my clumsy sentence from a previous post provides a good example of that!) The key is understanding the context.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Okay sorry. I should have asked first if that's what you were doing. It's late and I was up too early this morning.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

Hey. Now I know that you really like and respect me.

 

[cjd]

I've listened to the lecture now
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

It is long 2 hours but if you are interested in the debate Evolution v ID its a must see/listen. Ken Miller was one of the science witnesses in the Dover Area School Board ID case.

As an aside, how bloody brilliant is the Internet, in the olden days I could never of got access to interesting stuff like this.

Just finished it. It really should be an entrance requirement into a debate like this.

If anyone has a similar treatice from the creationist side I'd love to see it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Even though I work 100+ hour weeks and have a bunch of stuff to do (!), it would be disingenuous of me not to take the time to watch this video. I did so (and I'll now blame you for missing deadlines!) and I'm glad that I did. Thank you for posting the link. Prof. Miller is a brilliant speaker, is credible, makes his case well, and points out the dishonesty of many who promote Intelligent Design (which is rather ironic given their perspective!).

My first thought is how I wish I had continued to be a scientist after completing my PhD in physics because you really have to know this stuff to be credible. In fact, that's a big part of the problem here. We have people on both sides who are instant experts, as Dave mentioned before. They listen to someone, latch on to a view, and then they're die-hards for a cause. That's so sad. I know my limitations, and Prof. Miller revealed his scientific integrity by admitting some of his too. But I'm no longer a scientist, so I am not current in my knowledge. I have no choice but to acknowledge superior expertise.

However....

(1) I'm very depressed by the us versus them mentality here. "We are pro-science; they are anti-science", "we must do this to stop them doing that". It's so destructive to the scientific process. True scientists view the world as a wild adventure. Of course we're influenced and guided by our beliefs, but we can all be intellectually honest. I found the female host in the video to be very political in this regard. If evidence came up that contradicted her view, I suspect she'd dismiss it like ID proponents dismiss some things. It's such a shame to cast everyone as either/or. In fact, the Muslim commentator who was quoted on the video is in some ways correct: It's no accident that modern science thrived, and continues to thrive, in Christian countries.

(2) I still support what the school board did in my county of Georgia, although (if I'm honest) I believe they did have ulterior motives. From a purely scientific viewpoint, evolution is fundamentally different from gravity, though the good professor linked them in his ridicule. Maybe my fault here is that I'm a physicist and not a biologist, so my standard for a theory is far higher. Thermodynamic theory can predict with absolute certainty; evolutionary theory cannot - which is why I call it a hypothesis. I'm beginning to think that the problem is that I'm just one of those darned physicists! Still, it's fair to state in a preface that evolutionary theory and models about the creation of the universe remain fluid and open to discussion in ways that gravity and other physical theories are not.

(3) I agree with his statement that scientists make rotten popularists. Feynmann tried to change that and was respected for it; others have been looked down on. Still, because scientists don't popularize well, scientifically-oriented populists take their place. These are the people who learn that an obscure scientist might have found evidence that might mean rocks found in the Arctic might have come from Mars and might have evidence that bacteria might have once lived in them - and concluded that there's life on Mars! This was the headline the next day, and we were all supposed to just believe it! Science is cheated, the general population (since we don't all have time to spend years in scientific training) are duped, and those who object are classified as religious nuts.

(4) Christian politicians in the US have done a huge amount of harm. To me, even though I was once a parliamentary candidate in Britain, the Christian faith and politics should be kept very separate. I agree with the separation of church and state that exists in the US, and I think it should be instituted in the UK (it would have really helped in Northern Ireland, for example). Pat Robertson, to be frank, can be a buffoon who sometimes opens his mouth before putting his brain in gear. Politics boosts the ego and our sense of self-importance, and this contradicts Christian character. While a die-hard Christian, I have little sympathy for the Christian right (or left for that matter) in politics.

More than anything, I would love to engage this guy in meaningful conversation because he'd have no hesitation admitting the flaws in current theories with the same incisive intelligence he applied against ID in the legal case. I try to be open and teachable, and I wish I had more time to learn the details of this stuff. The rebuffs he gave against irreducible complexity are not compelling to me, and I'd love to challenge him on this. What he did point out is the danger of making absolute statements on either side (that horrible word again!). Stating with certainty that Earth is 10,000 years old (from the perspective of science) is as stupid as stating with certainty that Earth is billions of years old. Without irrefutable evidence for either claim, someone (or both) may be proved wrong. Newton will always be right on this one: "I don't know".

In the end, I am not afraid of science; in fact, I'm a scientist to the core. If we go out there and look, we will find the truth. Any faith that cannot accept facts is missing a fundamental point: If God really did design this universe, it's our duty to learn all about it openly and honestly.

So, thanks again for prompting me to spend an evening of learning. It was most enjoyable - but now I'm going to be up until 3am!

 

[cjd]

More than anything, I would love to engage this guy in meaningful conversation because he'd have no hesitation admitting the flaws in current theories with the same incisive intelligence he applied against ID in the legal case. I try to be open and teachable, and I wish I had more time to learn the details of this stuff. The rebuffs he gave against irreducible complexity are not compelling to me, and I'd love to challenge him on this.

You can challenge him on the detail of the ID debate but to do so you have to do the work, which in the case of irreduceable complexity means understanding the base science of both bacterial structures and cell biology. I have an degree in some of this stuff but it's way way beyond me now and well outside almost everybodies capabilities.

So, in the absence of being able to refute or confirm the evidence presented personally we have to allow the scientific peer review process to do it for us. It has unanimously condemned those arguments as wrong.

Science is sceptical - that's its job - but when I first heard the the irriduceable complexity arguments I was very excited and read all the original papers hoping for it to be true because it would cause such an uproar in the scientific world if it was. (Remember what happened when the guys published their paper on cold fusion - it seemed to break known physics and thousands of scientists tried to prove it).
Everyone would love it and I can assure you that hundreds of specialists would have piled into it to make a name for themselves if there was anything in it. But there simply isn't.

What he did point out is the danger of making absolute statements on either side (that horrible word again!). Stating with certainty that Earth is 10,000 years old (from the perspective of science) is as stupid as stating with certainty that Earth is billions of years old. Without irrefutable evidence for either claim, someone (or both) may be proved wrong. Newton will always be right on this one: "I don't know".

Well we get back to the standard of proof you personally require and I respectfully suggest you require very little objective evidence to support a claim that confirms your religious beliefs and an impossible amount when it doesn't.

You appear to be happy to accept the Daniel prophecy as good enough proof for you even though the historians and biblical studies experts that have spent their lifetime studying them can barely agree on anything factually based about what they mean - your calculations don't stand up to any objective analysis at all, it would be possible to derive many different conclusions using that 'data'. It's as good an example of shoehorning as a sceptic could hope to find.

But on the otherhand you are prepared to accept and defend the creationist's scientist's ideas even though the scientific community has dismissed them as simply wrong.

And even now you are trying to throw some doubt in areas where there really isn't any - the earth's age has been shown by several established methods to be approximately 4bn years and there is little controversy about it. Scientists don't talk too often of certainties - a creationist is certain that the earth is 6,000 years old but a scientist says that it's approximately 4.5bn +/-1% to allow for known errors in the measurement methods. They also adjust their estimate everytime more is know.

Time to stop protesting mate and get with the programme!

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the word in hand, it's shabua in Hebrew. I'm not a language scholar, but I understand that it literally means seven (although it's not the standard word for seven, which is sheva). It's rather like our English word decade, which means ten years. In Hebrew, though, there's often a little more ambiguity than that; it goes with the language. The word can mean seven days or seven years. It depends on the context. In this case, it's obvious that years and not days is meant.

Incidentally, I find Hebrew fascinating. While vowels are included for young children, they are omitted in regular writing. Imagine trying to read the following sentences:

GD SV R GRCS QN, GD SV R NBL QN, GD SV R QN. SND HR VCTRS, HPPY ND GLRS, LNG T RN VR S, GD SV R QN.

If you're used to reading and writing something familiar, it's no big deal. When reading something new, though, there's obvious ambiguity. Is RN reign or run or ran? I understand that Israelis often hesitate when reading something aloud because they're filling in the gaps, and resolving ambiguities, as they go along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, since vowels are skipped in Hebrew, does this mean that the prophet wrote something equivalent to SHB and not SHABUA? If so, how many other words in the hebrew language can be constructed around the consonants SHB?

Dave

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve. Please don't take this as though I'm trying to derogate you, I'm not, but didn't you say a while ago that your degree was in "physics philosophy"? It's just that recently you now say your degree is in "physics", which is quite different. I ask because the following statement doesn't seem right from a physiscist:

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe my fault here is that I'm a physicist and not a biologist, so my standard for a theory is far higher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with you that some theories are so strong that you can almost regard them as facts. That's because the subject matter is amenable to such certainty. But I cannot understand how you can assert that evolutionists and biologists do not respect scientific methods as much as physicists do. I only have A-level in biology, but I studied hard enough to understand that a typical biologist (and evolutionist) tries to be as truthful as even a mathematician tries to be. Scientific truth is emphasised as strongly in biology as it is in any other science, and proper biologists realise that it is impossible to be 100% certain of everything. This is why such scientists have to use statistical analysis to assign confidence levels to their findings.

Dave