The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

As such I think it is a cop out to dismiss the whole scheme of Messianic prophesy because you find some Messianic prophesy aren't very specific. The point is when you look through all the Messianic prophesies, you get a very very full image of who the Messiah was to be, and you also notice that Jesus' character seems to match it very closely.

Not really.

Ask a Jew if the New Testament got the prophecies correct. You can find plenty of websites online explaining why it didn't.

According to the Jews they were either incorrect or based on misunderstandings of what the prophecies were saying and the context they were saying them in.

Of course Christians can make excuses for this, which is the wonderful thing about non-specific prophecies that talk in prose or abstract, if you have already concluded that something has fulfilled a prophecy it is easy to make it so

The discussion about Jesus fulfilling Jewish prophecy always reminds me of the dismissive nature a lot of Christians take to Mormons. If you wanted to know if Mormon faith was a valid follow on from Christianity would you talk a Mormon or a Christian. I would imagine most here would say talk to a Christian to see if the Mormons got it right (and the view seems to be they didn't). So why would someone not talk to the Jews to see if Christianity got it right? (with the view being they didn't)

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Ask a Jew if the New Testament got the prophecies correct. You can find plenty of websites online explaining why it didn't.

Indeed, lets:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy

However on a more full note, many Messianic prophesies are not considered to the Jews to be Messianic prophesies due to the very advent of Jesus Christ. Jewish scholars have attempted to say that certain prophesies were not prophesies at all even though they certainly were held to be Messianic prophesies in the years before Christ.

I'm sure you could find a lot of websites, but whether or not they are accurate is the question.

Wicknight wrote: »

According to the Jews they were either incorrect or based on misunderstandings of what the prophecies were saying and the context they were saying them in.

I'm aware of the mainline Jewish view of Jesus.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course Christians can make excuses for this, which is the wonderful thing about non-specific prophecies that talk in prose or abstract, if you have already concluded that something has fulfilled a prophecy it is easy to make it so

You go on like robindch about non-specific. However you avoid the fact that many of the prophesies are very specific.

Wicknight wrote: »

The discussion about Jesus fulfilling Jewish prophecy always reminds me of the dismissive nature a lot of Christians take to Mormons. If you wanted to know if Mormon faith was a valid follow on from Christianity would you talk a Mormon or a Christian. I would imagine most here would say talk to a Christian to see if the Mormons got it right (and the view seems to be they didn't). So why would someone not talk to the Jews to see if Christianity got it right? (with the view being they didn't)

We've been through this subject enough before.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, lets:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy

When I said talk to Jews I didn't mean Jews for Jesus, which as far as I can tell is a Christian group, made up of Christians or converted Jews, trying to convert Jewish people to Christianity.

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

After all Mormons are Christians according to themselves, they see Mormon as an extension of Christianity. When someone says talk to Christians rather than Mormons to find out if Mormon is a valid extension of Christian belief and comparable with the New Testament they obviously don't mean Mormons who consider themselves Christians.

Jakkass wrote: »

However on a more full note, many Messianic prophesies are not considered to the Jews to be Messianic prophesies due to the very advent of Jesus Christ. Jewish scholars have attempted to say that certain prophesies were not prophesies at all even though they certainly were held to be Messianic prophesies in the years before Christ.

Some what beside the point (there are plenty of Messianic prophesies that Jews hold as prophesies but say that Jesus did not fulfil correct), but and interest idea. Do you have any historical links?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a lot of websites, but whether or not they are accurate is the question.

Well depends on your definition of "accurate".

Do you consider Christian sources or Jewish sources to be more accurate as to whether Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies?

Jakkass wrote: »

You go on like robindch about non-specific. However you avoid the fact that many of the prophesies are very specific.

Not really. They may appear specific if you already have an interpretation to fit with them.

For example you state that Isaiah 42 is specifically referencing Jesus not objecting to his execution. But if you look at it it isn't specifically referencing any particular event. It is a remark about how the servant of god will behave in a quite general sense.

Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry or lift up His voice; or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench; He will faithfully bring forth justice

It is general wording about the servant of god not being aggressive or forceful when spreading his word. That could really be applied to a huge amount of behaviour. After the fact you can take an example of where Jesus did not become aggressive or angry and say that he acted in a manner that fits Isaiah 42, but that is not the same as the prophecy specifically predicting Jesus or his behaviour.

The most you could say is that Jesus acted in a manner that matches how the Old Testament says he would act (but then sure so do lots of people, particularly religious leaders), and that if he hadn't acted this way one could probably rule him out for being a Messiah (assuming of course we have got the accurate version of how he did act, but that is a whole other issue).

And that is the argument Jews have, that there are things that Jesus should have done that he didn't do or did in a manner that doesn't fit prophecy.

Or take Isaiah 9

Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-

The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.

You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as men rejoice
when dividing the plunder.

For as in the day of Midian's defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.


Ok, so did Jesus do that? Possibly, depending on how you interpret what Jesus actually did. Did he increase their joy or enlarge the nation? Did he show them the light? Maybe, again depending on how you interpret what any of that actually means.

What it doesn't say is what Jesus is specifically supposed to have done.

Likewise with Jesus being buried in a rich mans tomb. Now leaving aside the issue that any prophecy in control of the early Christians themselves is some what pointless as they would no doubt have been aware of them (and thus they can become self fulfilling), again the prophecy does not actually say that the servant of God will be buried in a rich man's tomb. It says he will be buried with the wicked and the rich.

So you really can't say these are specific prophecies unless you have an interpretation you wish to assign to them.

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Once again you are confusing AiG's religious standards with their scientific arguments. They do not suggest their scientific defence of creationism incorporates their religious views in its argument.
Ahem ...

Quote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-...on-compromises

Editor’s note: AiG stands firmly on the authority of Scripture. From our study of the Bible, we are persuaded that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago, and that God destroyed the earth with a global Flood about 1600 years later. Many Christians who profess to believe that the Bible is God’s Word do not accept the straightforward interpretation of Genesis and accept millions of years (and sometimes evolution also). They often admit that their interpretation of Scripture is controlled by the findings of “science,” which, in reality, are the naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of scientific data.

Some young-earth creationists are persuaded by Bible-based arguments that there are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. They therefore believe the creation is up to 10,000–12,000 years old. While AiG does not agree with this view, we do not break fellowship with such creationists but stand shoulder to shoulder with them in opposing the evolutionary idea of millions of years.
Can't get much clearer than that

Indeed. That is a clear statement of their religious views. As was their Statement of Faith.

But it is not part of their scientific argumentation.

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

As to ignoring and deriding evidence that disagrees with the conclusion you want to reach, evolutionists are the No.1 seed.
You have the floor sir, examples please.

Three of the top of my head - The Law of Entropy; Polystrate fossils; Soft tissues in dinosaur fossils.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it is not part of their scientific argumentation.

How could that not be part of their scientific argumentation? They are saying that any interpretation of evidence that does not match their interpretation of the Bible must be wrong.

The idea that this would not effect any science the members who subscribe to this statement carry out is ridiculous.

It would be like Einstein saying that, based on his religious views, that the universe is eternal and any theory or evidence that states that the universe had a start must be wrong, but that this won't effect the science he does.

Of course it would, he would have disregarded all the evidence from for example Hubble that demonstrated that the universe expanded from a single point and would never have formed his later theories.

How you can say such a ridiculously unscientific statement of belief would not effect any scientists subscribing to it is beyond me

wolfsbane

darjeeling said:

Wood was stumped, and remains so as far as I know. The data is telling him that either (a) apparently closely-related species don't actually share a common ancestor after all, or (b) humans and chimps do share a common ancestor. Wood prefers option (c) - he hasn't got a clue. Still, at least he's honest, up to a point.

So, leaving aside whether Wood is a real scientist doing any real original research, he comes down in favour of the evolutionary case for chimp-human co-ancestry - even if he can't finally bring himself to say so. I notice you omit this option from your list. I also notice that no creationists replied last time I highlighted Wood's 'findings'.

I see you put the words in his mouth. All I got from it was he is a scientist who is not persuaded by any of the theories on offer, and is working on finding a better one. That makes him suspect, eh?

Am I entitled to one of these ?

I'm sorry, I reserve :pac: only for the really deserving. But you may have a if you insist.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

How could that not be part of their scientific argumentation? They are saying that any interpretation of evidence that does not match their interpretation of the Bible must be wrong.

The idea that this would not effect any science the members who subscribe to this statement carry out is ridiculous.

It would be like Einstein saying that, based on his religious views, that the universe is eternal and any theory or evidence that states that the universe had a start must be wrong, but that this won't effect the science he does.

Of course it would, he would have disregarded all the evidence from for example Hubble that demonstrated that the universe expanded from a single point and would never have formed his later theories.

How you can say such a ridiculously unscientific statement of belief would not effect any scientists subscribing to it is beyond me

I'm not saying it does not effect the scientists. Quite the opposite. But I am saying it does not effect their scientific argument.

They use scientific argument to counter the opposing scientific argument. That is, a scientific case is made to support the creationist theology. That is quite different from the theological defence that is made of creationist theology. The Statement of Faith deals with the latter.

Creation scientists do not say to evolutionist scientists that their model fails because the Bible says different. Rather, they say it fails because it contradicts, for example, the Law of Entropy, and they point out in detail how that is so.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

That's not quite how it went. It was more like: they are creation scientists - OK, they are scientists who are creationists... or creation journalists... or people doing science that has nothing to do with creation even though they say it is. OK - but the fact that they don't believe in evolution proves that it is false, because why would they lie?

I would LOVE to see some of this bad science that is 'contrary to evolutionary dogma.' PLEASE show me some of this evidence, however bad those evil-illusionists will say it is! Data from a single experiment concerning creation will do. PLEEEEASE!!!!!!!!

Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

Enjoy!

wolfsbane

Lady Athame wrote: »

Okay guys sorry for just posting here out of the blue, I study religion in college (I've studied bout creationisms and prophecy as separate modules) alls I can say is I tend to lean more towards the creationist approach to life. Prophecy doesn't really explain much to us in terms of how we can to be. A prophet in Old Testament time is not what we believe they are today, they were people who revealed messages that were SUPPOSSED to happen, not that they actually did. Prophets didn't reveal the future they actually just proclaimed the word of God, like everyday priests today. I mean no disrepect here whats so ever its just my own opinion from what I've studied. Science explains how the world came to be perfectly and I can't explain how unless I go into the intelligent design argument (which is interesting). Really interesting thread guys!

Just to point out that God's prophets did foretell the future, as well as bringing His word on other things. The only prophecies that did not come true were those God relented on - for example, Nineveh repented when Jonah preached that God would destroy it 40 days, and God spared it.

Any prophecy that did not come true otherwise was proof that the prophet was not from God. A false prophet.

philologos

One could not be a prophet unless ones prophesies came true. By Jewish standards they would have to consider most of their prophets false by now:

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 wrote:

But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.’ You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?’ If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

However, many of the prophets were put to death. So that would make one question, why did the Jews put Isaiah, Jeremiah and others in the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Let's try this one word at a time.If you take out the bits that I've highlighted, you get thisAnd if you boil this further, you get:Are you able to see yet why this might not suggest an unbiased approach to evidence?

It sure will be biased as to what the evidence can mean. But that does not mean one is entitled to present a phoney scientific argument - if one can't find an argument that fits the evidence, one has to be silent and wait further data. Creationist scientists, however, have valid scientific explanations of the evidence - at least as much as the evolutionists do.

Are you saying an atheist cannot do real science? Or those with any particular concept of origins?

marco_polo

You forgot to reply about the evidence supression.

I'll make it easy and just pick up on one point from the AIG website. AIG happen to mention that the Earth must come before the Sun because the Bible says it does. How is that research coming along? Care to show us the evidence for this that has been supressed or ignored by mainstream science?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

Enjoy!

And this supports creationism and/or refutes evolution how, exactly?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationist scientists, however, have valid scientific explanations of the evidence

Where?

wolfsbane

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Prophesied by Isaiah about 700 years before Jesus of Nazareth was born. It was recognised by the Rabbis as speaking of the Messiah.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Where?

In the sites I have posted many times.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Ask a Jew if the New Testament got the prophecies correct.

Weren't the first Christians Jews by birth? Wasn't Jesus Himself a Jew? It was they who first interpreted the Old Testament prophecies as being fulfilled in Christ, starting with Jesus Himself, He was always appealing to the Old Testament prophecies to support His claims. Good piece here

Wicknight wrote: »

You can find plenty of websites online explaining why it didn't.

Are you willing to accept as balanced and fair what a Jew will say about the New Testament? If so, then why not also accept as balanced and fair what a Christian will say about the Old Testament.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the sites I have posted many times.

Sorry, didn't see any scientific explanations on those sites. It's odd that can't even show me one, considering your absolute confidence that they are there.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Sorry, didn't see any scientific explanations on those sites. It's odd that can't even show me one, considering your absolute confidence that they are there.

I've showed you several, but you are in denial. Ah, well.:(

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've showed you several, but you are in denial. Ah, well.:(

Which ones did you show me? :pac: Is it possible that you're the one in denial, since, by your own admission, you don't understand science?

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Which ones did you show me? :pac: Is it possible that you're the one in denial, since, by your own admission, you don't understand science?

Check back on my posts - I'm sure you have as much time as I do.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

All I got from it was he is a scientist who is not persuaded by any of the theories on offer, and is working on finding a better one.

Not persuaded? He gives a load of evidence for the evolutionary one, then says he doesn't accept it but gives no reason why. No 'persuasion' there - looks like dogma to me.

Anyway, I hope you did read the article and get something from it, as Wood dismisses all the weak creationist arguments concerning genetic similarity and the tree of life that I've seen floating around this thread.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Check back on my posts - I'm sure you have as much time as I do.

I checked - there were no scientific explanations. :pac:

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I checked - there were no scientific explanations. :pac:

As I said, denial.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation scientists do not say to evolutionist scientists that their model fails because the Bible says different. Rather, they say it fails because it contradicts, for example, the Law of Entropy, and they point out in detail how that is so.

And in the example I gave you, does Wood show in detail that humans and chimps cannot have a common ancestor? No. As I said before, he just says - in defiance of the evidence he himself gives - that he 'does not accept' this. And then he goes on, on the basis of this dogmatic non-acceptance, to junk our well-founded understanding of genomics. Either that, or 'scrap baraminology' and 'revert to species fixity', which he won't do.

.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I said, denial.

You post a link to research carried out by a guy unscientifically. Darjeeling points out how the research is flawed in the eyes of science. You claim not to really understand science anyway.
And yet you have the audacity to say Darjeeling is in denial?

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote: »

You post a link to research carried out by a guy unscientifically. Darjeeling points out how the research is flawed in the eyes of science. You claim not to really understand science anyway.
And yet you have the audacity to say Darjeeling is in denial?

I'm the one he's referring to, not that it makes a difference.

I don't think wolfsbane is in denial, though. I think he is very sincerely, albeit willfully, ignorant of what science is.

Galvasean

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm the one he's referring to, not that it makes a difference.

Pardon me, you materialistic evolutionists all look the same to me.

philologos

Where did JC go?