Reason and Religion

[Bet51987]

Here are a few scientific statements from the bible long before secular scientists made these discoveries.

A. "He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7. This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.
B. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out.

Hi Ted...

Sorry, but I could believe or refute these one by one depending if I was a theist or atheist. The first two for example...

A.. All that means is that God supported the flat earth below the dome without any visible support.

B.. If you were on an island and were contemplating the earths shape, you would say by looking at the horizon for the full 360 degress, that the earth was circular and flat. The sky however looks like a half sphere or half dome....a canopy.

Reason does not need religion so there is nothing unique about the bible at all. Every phrase or meaning can be interpreted to fit the person.

Bee

[Aggressor Prime]

The papacy has only made 1 proven infallible statement. Please read my whole post in detail. Your claims are flawed...

[Jeff250]

First off in 3 diffrent Bibles i have NKJV, KJV,NIV there is a BIG heading on the top of chapter 11 "rejection of the Messiah"Rolling Eyes

Sure, in Christian bibles, but I haven't seen that heading in any online versions of the Tanakh, and you would think the Jews would know the Tanakh best. Besides, headings didn't appear in the original writings anyways, and the word Messiah doesn't appear anywhere in the chapter. It doesn't even appear at all in Zechariah. I checked with a Hebrew concordance too. So the heading cannot really be textually justified.

12, then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So the weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.

ok, first off, when Judas betrayed Jesus... was he working for someone? yes he was and I'm sure there had to be some negotion on the price Judas set on turning Jesus over....

I don't need a rundown. I'm familiar with the basics of the trial and death of Jesus. But my objections are the same as before ... if that's Judas, then why is he serving God, taking commands from him, etc.?

If this is supposed to "prove" any New Testament book, it would have to be the Gospel of Judas.

Besides, like I said before, before you can use a New Testament "fulfillment" to give credence to an Old Testament messianic prophecy, I ask that the OT prophecy have a few characteristics:

1. It must beyond reasonable doubt purport to be a prophecy.

2. It must beyond reasonable doubt purport to be messianic.

3. It must make an obvious, testable claim.

I think that these are fairly reasonable criteria, although please object if you disagree or think that they need tinkering.

Zech. 11 (and most of your other pasted examples) fail all three.

Zech. 11 has no purport to be a prophecy. The word prophecy isn't in the chapter, and it doesn't seem to be talking about the future at all. In fact, it's written first-person past-tense. Even if it could somehow be demonstrated that the Israelites always wrote their prophecies first-person past-tense, I still don't see any easy way to distinguish this chapter from chapters about people actually talking about themselves and things that happened in the past.

Zech. 11 has no purport to be messianic. I think that this speaks for itself.

Zech. 11 can't easily be made into a testable claim. In a sense, this point encapsulates both (1) and (2) as well, but even if you assumed that it's a prophecy and that it's messianic, it's still unclear what the test is. Can we expect someone breaking a staff a la verse 10? Are people going to be saying those quotes verbatim?

how do you get this? My whole point was in saying there was something unique with the Bible. here we have prophecys written somewhere between 1000-400 years before the events happened. These events are not vague but point out very specific events.

The basis of my question goes something like this: The Bible cannot be used to verify the Bible when biblical credibility is the very thing in question.

So, for redundancy's sake, here's the question again: "[H]ow exactly does the NT validate the OT when the NT could be just as dubious as the OT?"

[Admiral Thrawn]

As Teddy brought out, there are MANY scriptures that foretell the coming of the christ, his place of birth, and his method of death, among other things. For right now though, I'll concentrate on the prophesy of time of his arrival. This is quoted out of a book, \"The Bible - God's Word of Man's.\" that pretty much laid this out in an easy to understand way. A bit more understandable and concise from how I would have explained it.

This prophecy is recorded in Daniel, chapter 9, and reads as follows: “Seventy weeks [of years, or four hundred and ninety years] are decreed upon your people and upon your holy city.” (Daniel 9:24, The Amplified Bible) What was to happen during these 490 years? We read: “From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem until [the coming of] the anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks [of years], and sixty-two weeks [of years].” (Daniel 9:25, AB) So this is a prophecy about the time of the coming of “the anointed one,” the Messiah. How was it fulfilled?

The command to restore and to build Jerusalem ‘went forth’ in “the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king” of Persia, that is, in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-9) By the end of 49 years (7 weeks of years), much of Jerusalem’s glory had been restored. And then, counting the full 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks of years) from 455 B.C.E., we arrive at 29 C.E. This was, in fact, “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” the year when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer. (Luke 3:1) At that time, Jesus was publicly identified as God’s Son and began his ministry of preaching the good news to the Jewish nation. (Matthew 3:13-17; 4:23) He became the “anointed one,” or Messiah.

The prophecy adds: “And after the sixty-two weeks [of years] shall the anointed one be cut off.” It also says: “And he shall enter into a strong and firm covenant with the many for one week [seven years]; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease.” (Daniel 9:26, 27, AB) In harmony with this, Jesus went exclusively to “the many,” the fleshly Jews. On occasion, he also preached to the Samaritans, who believed some of the Scriptures but had formed a sect separate from mainstream Judaism. Then, “in the midst of the week,” after three and a half years of preaching, he gave up his life as a sacrifice and was thus “cut off.” This spelled the end of the Mosaic Law with its sacrifices and gift offerings. (Galatians 3:13, 24, 25) Hence, by his death, Jesus caused “the sacrifice and offering to cease.”

Nevertheless, for another three and a half years the newborn Christian congregation witnessed solely to Jews and, later, to the related Samaritans. In 36 C.E., however, at the end of the 70 weeks of years, the apostle Peter was guided to preach to a Gentile, Cornelius. (Acts 10:1-48) Now, the “covenant with the many” was no longer limited to the Jews. Salvation was preached also to the uncircumcised Gentiles.

Because the Jewish nation rejected Jesus and conspired to have him executed, Jehovah did not protect them when the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Thus, Daniel’s further words were fulfilled: “And the people of the other prince who shall come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and even to the end there shall be war.” (Daniel 9:26b, AB) This second “prince” was Titus, the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

[Jeff250]

Now this is an interesting one. It seems to satisfy my three criteria for being an OT messianic prophecy. Unfortunately, after taking a look at it myself, I cannot come to the same conclusions that are in your excerpt. Here is how I understand it, and point out where you think I'm wrong:

First off, it seems that the \"Amplified Bible,\" which your excerpt uses, adds a lot of non-textual meaning. I don't really like that if we're going to be analyzing the text. I used the NIV from here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=31; , which says:

25 \"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [d] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [e] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. [f] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [g] In the middle of the 'seven' [h] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. \" [j]

I then broke it down into the time periods:

455 B.C.E.
[7 weeks = 49 years]
406 B.C.E.
[62 weeks = 434 years]
29 C.E.
[0.5 weeks = 3.5 years]
32.5 C.E.
[0.5 weeks = 3.5 years]
37 C.E.

And then matched sentences up with their respected time period on the timeline and evaluated them:

Up until 7 weeks 406 (B.C.E.)
\"[Jerusalem] will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.\"

This part is a little too early to evaluate for prophetic accuracy. We don't really know exactly when Daniel was written, so it could have been after this occurred, and I'm also not sure if we even have a way of knowing whether or not the building actually finished in time, in this exact manner, etc. Fortunately, it's not the subject of this discussion.

After another 62 weeks (29 C.E.):
(A)\"After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.\"
(B)\"The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.\"
(C)\"The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.\"
(D)\"He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'\"

A and D suffer from a problem already mentioned - the Bible cannot be used to verify the Bible when biblical credibility is the very thing in question.

B and C are claims that are historically verifiable. But the supposed fulfillments of them don't seem to match up with the timeline. Even if I put it under the wrong section, B and C happened in 70 C.E., which does not occur anywhere in this timeline. Am I supposed to allow God about half a century leeway here?

Also, I'm not really sure if I understand how the NT even would fulfill D. Your excerpt indicated that this covenant was between Jesus and the gentiles and occurred after the week, but it actually seems to say that the covenant will BE FOR one week.

And that also brings up another note. In the good old-fashioned non-Amplified Bible, it says that \"he\" will confirm a covenant with the many. And yet when I scroll up, the most recent antedecent that \"he\" could be referring to is the ruler that destroys Jerusalem, which occurs in B, not the Messiah, which is mentioned in A. So reading it it doesn't seem as if it's even apt for the Messiah to fulfill D. It looks like it was the ruler's job.

After another 0.5 weeks (32.5 C.E.):
(E)\"In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.\"
(F)\"And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation...\"

I'm assuming we're talking about the same \"he\" here--the ruler. E could be equivalent to B in that when the temple is destroyed, animal sacrifice naturally ceased. Yet your except seems to indicate that we're talking about the Messiah again.

Even if that can be reconciled with the text, it's unclear to me how the NT depiction satisfies how the Messiah could have fulfilled F. Or are we pulling another switcheroo and saying this is the ruler again?

After another 0.5 weeks (37 C.E.) at the latest:
(G)\"...until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.\"

Still the same \"he,\" so if we strictly follow the text, this, as all the former he's, would still be the ruler, in which case it sounds like a judgment against whoever destroys Jerusalem. After skimming over your excerpt, I don't think it addresses this part.

So, in sum, here are my problems with it:
I think that the instances where the NT is used to prove the credibility of the OT aren't very meaningful to anyone who doesn't hold the NT to be credible. Even so, it's unclear to me how the NT depiction even could fulfill it. The most notable concern that I mentioned was the continual antecedent hopscotch.
B - The ruler.
D - The messiah.
E - The messiah.
F - The ruler?
G - The ruler?
It seems reasonable to think that if you keep using he without using any other possible antecedent, you're going to be referring to the same person, not switching off after every sentence.

The thing that's really interesting is the historical prediction, but that seems off the mark by about half a century. Even if we grant God some prophetic leeway, I'm still not sure how significant it is. I mean, week here could have referred to a week of days, a week of weeks, a week of months, etc. We seem to have used years here only retrospectively since that seemed to give the best account. It's like we're using the fulfillment to explain the prophecy instead of vice versa.

[Jeff250]

So to bring things back to the general topic at hand, certainly reason seems capable of discrediting religions. Drakona's linked video is a good example of this in action. But what about accrediting them?

I think that the historical failure for reason to accredit any religion isn't really so much a failure of reason as it is a failure of every religion. I mean, when you're given only a mishmash of Nostradamian-quality prophecies to buttress your supernatural claims, it's hard to see where there's any room for reason to substantiate anything. (Some religions seem to justify this by saying that God finds people believing in him for less reason more valuable than people believing in him for more reason, but this seems to only further emphasize that such a religion probably isn't apt to be accredited by reason.)

It's fairly easy to see how reason could accredit a religion. Make a specific claim with specific dates and times about some specific future miraculous event X in such a way that it is easily testable and interpretable in only one way. Repeat a few times. Then say you're following God Y. I'd be a believer. It's really not that difficult at all. Sure, there would always be the ultimate skeptics, but there would always be the ultimate skeptics.

[dissent]

Wow, these are some pretty proud claims... and jsut from one verse....

And on to the claims of peace and not forcing beliefs... [blahblahblah]

Correct me if I'm wrong Ted; did you glean this long list of quotes from the original sources yourself, by dint of your own research, or is this cut and pasted from some other online source - if so, a link to your source would be nice.

Not being familiar with the "American Texbook of Popery", I can at least glean from the terminology the perjorative "Popery") used that it is not a pro-Catholic piece. As such, what you have posted gives me little confidence to accept that (a) the quotes are accurate or that (b) were they accurate, whether or not they were correctly give in context. I see that wikipedia comes to the rescue with an article on George Bourne, a 19th century Protestant, which confirms that I might indeed be justified in being suspicious of Mr. Bourne's scholarship, since he does not write as a knowledgeable Catholic himself.

John Dowling was a Baptist contemporary of Bourne. G. G. Coulton, came a bit later, but also wrote a number of books as a supporter of Reformation ideas. Again, I find reason the be suspicious of the reliability of the quoted material.

[Kilarin]

From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One
455 B.C.E.
[7 weeks = 49 years]
406 B.C.E.
[62 weeks = 434 years]
29 C.E.
[0.5 weeks = 3.5 years]
32.5 C.E.
[0.5 weeks = 3.5 years]
37 C.E.

The actual beginning date for the "decree" is under some debate. In the first place, there were more than on decree. And, of course, for anything that happened so long ago any attempt to nail down an exact number will leave a little bit of fuzz around the edges. I feel that the best estimate is actually 2 years earlier than the one you use. I'll be basing my numbers off of that:

457BC Decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

[7 weeks + 62 weeks = 483 years] takes us to:
27AD Baptism of Christ in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar

[3.5 days] takes us to
31AD Crucifixion of Christ.

Now then, I admit that "confirmed a covenant with many", and the "destruction of the temple" are a bit less obvious in their interpretation, so we'll just stick with this part of the prophecy which is very, very simple.

No SERIOUS scholar questions the existence of Jesus as a historical character. Nor do they question the timeline of his life by much. That leaves us with a pretty incredible prophecy here, even with the fuzz left in.

[Jeff250]

I feel that the best estimate is actually 2 years earlier than the one you use. I'll be basing my numbers off of that:

That looks fine. I don't think that'll change anything significantly anyways.

No SERIOUS scholar questions the existence of Jesus as a historical character. Nor do they question the timeline of his life by much. That leaves us with a pretty incredible prophecy here, even with the fuzz left in.

Whether or not Jesus was a historical character isn't really the issue in question right now. There were probably thousands if not tens of thousands of historical Jesus's living at the time in question. One in particular does happen to be associated with starting the Christian religon in a couple of scant historical documents. But all of this is neither here nor there--the prophecy doesn't mention Jesus or the founding of any religion. What's really important to the prophecy is whether or not Jesus--or someone else--actually did the things that it outlines.

What the prophecy mentions is that there will be an annointed one, a messiah (traditionally, this applied to kings and high priests), who will be "cut off" and "will have nothing"-- all of this after another sixty-two "sevens." That's pretty much it if we're going to cut off all that fuzz, as you say.

Let's say that out of that you can somehow gather that it was intended to predict the Christian interpretation of a messiah, that it was supposed to refer to sixty-two weeks of years, and that "cut off" and "will have nothing" was intended to mean death. I don't think you can textually determinate all of that, but let's just say that that's what we're assuming. As far as I know, there's still no reason outside of the NT to historically think that any such Christian messiah was killed during that time.

Besides, from my understanding of the time period in question, there were all sorts of people claiming to be a messiah. It's not unlikely that at least one of them died at some point in their life. So they could just as easily be argued to have fulfilled the prophecy as well.

So far from being incredible, I don't see how this is any more than Nostradamian jibberish interpreted retrospectively to fit something we don't even know happened!

[Kilarin]

I don't see how this is any more than Nostradamian jibberish interpreted retrospectively to fit something we don't even know happened!

How do you feel about the political prophecies of Dan 2, 7 and 8? Of course, they are only impressive if you accept that Daniel was written about 530BC instead of 165BC. Most of the current evidence DOES point to 530BC though.

[Jeff250]

Perhaps you can give me some insight. Let's assume that Daniel was written in the earlier date, even though Wikipedia seems to favor the more recent date. After reading over these and doing a little bit of research, here are my current thoughts on them:

Daniel 2

I grabbed this from the Wikipedia article on the book of Daniel:

Most biblical scholars assume that the four kingdoms beginning with Nebuchadnezzar, mentioned in the "statue vision" of chapter 2, are identical to the four "end-time" kingdoms of the vision in chapter 7, and usually consider them to represent (1) Babylonia, (2) Media, (3) Persia, and (4) Greece (Collins). Some conservative Christians identify them as (1) Babylonia, (2) "Medo-Persia," (3) Greece, and (4) Rome (e.g. Young); others (e.g. Stuart, Lagrange) have advocated the following schema: (1) the Neo-Babylonian, (2) the Medo-Persian, (3) the Greek empire of Alexander, and (4) the rival Diadochi, viz. Egypt and Syria.

If we can't even really figure out what the prophecy was supposed to mean with the advantage of retrospect, it doesn't seem apt to have been testable before the events in question! And it's easy to see the source of disagreement. All Daniel seems to have done is lined up a metal (or clay) with a future kingdom. We're left to try to come up with the right analagy appropriate to the material and then fit it to a kingdom. This leaves a lot of room to interpret it any way. Something like "gold" has a lot of analogies, like "rich," or "malleable," or "idolatrous." You could pick and choose which analogy you like as it pertains to some future kingdom.

Moreover, there's really no time limit on this one. Like, why not let the United States be the nation of iron and clay?

I'm also a little puzzled about this excerpt:

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

I take it that Christians interpet this part to be metaphorical, whereas I suppose that Jews would have interpreted this literally back in the day, and possibly even today. This only further illustrates how ambiguous this prophecy is if anything in it can be interpreted as only a metaphor. Still, I'm not so sure that there has been any Godly kingdom that has crushed all others yet, historically or metaphorically. I suppose that some would interpret this as some end-times event, but this would seem way outside the scope of the prophecy and just goes to show that it can be interpreted to mean anything. Besides, if that were the case, it seems like the iron and clay part of the statue should be around belly area to make room for kingdoms that replaced the iron and clay one. Or this could also especially open the doors for some interpretation like that the iron and clay is the United States. Essentially, it seems like anything would fulfill this prophecy.

Daniel 7

I'm not really sure what to think of this one. Stuff like:

23 "He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.

... seems cryptic at best, nonsensical at worst, and either way doesn't seem to have ever even happened in that there has never been a kingdom that has devoured the entire earth.

Daniel 8

Same as Daniel 7. Stuff like:

19 He said: "I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

I guess that if it could be determined that Daniel was written before the events in question, this would seem to have predicted the split of the Greek empire. But then again, it could have been a lucky guess, considering the bizarre and cryptic and, well, wrong stuff that surrounds it. Is this fourth kingdom literal, or are we going to say that it's metaphorical again to try to make it fit historical facts? And it was destroyed not by a human power? Natural catastrophe? Divine retribution? Maybe Nostradamus would like to comment?

[Kilarin]

The 3 visions make much more sense when you realize they are all about the same kingdoms.

Code: Select all

  Dan 2                 Dan 7                  Dan 8
Head Gold      : Winged Lion        :                 : Babylon
Chest Silver   : Lopsided Bear     : Ram        : Media Persia
Waist Brass   : Winged Leopard : Goat        : Greece
Legs Iron        : Iron Monster        : little horn : Rome
Feet Iron/Clay : 10 horns             :                 : Europe (Rome divided)

The head of gold is identified clearly as Babylon in Dan 2.
The Ram is identified by name as Media Persia in Dan 8
The Goat is identified as Greece by name in Dan 8.

Babylon is left out of Dan 8 because Babylon had already fallen by that time, Daniel was serving in the Media Persian empire.

The Legs/Iron Monster/Little Horn Kingdom is not identified by name, but the only candidate that fits is Rome. Rome was the world wide empire that took over after Greece. And Rome did indeed break up into multiple divided kingdoms that still exist to this day. Europe. (Beats me why Europe wasn't represented directly in the Dan 8 vision)

Many try to connect the little horn in Dan 8 with Antiochus Epiphanies, but it just won't work.

Dan 8:4 ram ... became great (Media Persia)
Dan 8:8 goat waxed very great (Greece under Alexander the Great)
Dan 8:9 little horn, which waxed exceeding great

Ok, we can argue about how big \"exceeding great\" is, but its hard to argue with the sequence. Antiochus was a small king, he didn't compare to Media Persia, let alone Alexander the Great. There is simply no way he qualifies as the top of this list, whereas Rome clearly does.

You will note that I have carefully left out all of the \"spiritual\" interpretations and stuck just with the political. One of the reasons there are divergent Christian interpretations of Daniel's prophecies is the different viewpoints Protestants and Catholics usually take on the spiritual application and meanings of these prophecies. So lets just avoid that heated debate. The political timeline is simpler and much less controversial.

Now then, I do NOT expect this to convince determined Atheists to become Christians. There IS wiggle room, and the number of different Christian interpretations proves that. But I still think these are way and above the Nostradamus nonsense.

Daniel predicts that Media Persia would be succeeded by Greece, (NAMING the kingdoms, no guesswork here) If we grant that Daniel was actually written in the 6th century BC (and there are really good reasons we should), then this prediction was made about 200 years before Alexander conquered Persia.

It predicts that Greece would have one great king that led it to conquer the world. And that this great king would be broken at the height of his power. His kingdom would be split up under four smaller kings. This matches the history of Greece and Alexander the Great so perfectly that it has been used as the primary reason for saying Daniel must have been written at a later date.

None of this part of the prophecy is vague Nostradamus nonsense. Greece is named directly, the details about the horn being a king etc, all explained right there.

Dan 8:20-22 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

More vague is the prediction that the next world conquering kingdom after Greece would be one big powerful kingdom that shattered into small kingdoms that are still around until the end of the world. It's true, but not out of believability to guess.

Which brings us to:

In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.\"

I take it that Christians interpret this part to be metaphorical,

Nope, \"those kings\" are the shattered remnants of Rome, the many kingdoms of Europe. And this is a literal description of the second coming, it just hasn't happened yet.

[Jeff250]

OK, your interpretations make more sense. For brevity's sake, could you choose the chapter that you think presents the strongest case for me to look further into and research? That is, unless you think that they must be looked at together, but then it might be a while before I can get back to you.

edit:

The 3 visions make much more sense when you realize they are all about the same kingdoms.

Unless the author explicitely states somewhere that this is the correct interpretation, I'm not sure if this is necessarily the correct way of looking at it, at least in the context of evaluating a prophecy for its credibility. I only feel justified in rewarding credibility to what a prophet explicitely states. For example, if somebody were to predict an event happening somewhere between 5 and 6 o'clock, and it just so happens that the said event happens smack dab in the middle at 5:30 o'clock, I don't feel justified in rewarding any more credibility for that "coincidence," because it may have just been an unintended coincidence, and it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find others like it.

[Kilarin]

For brevity's sake, could you choose the chapter that you think presents the strongest case for me to look further into and research? That is, unless you think that they must be looked at together, but then it might be a while before I can get back to you.

The strongest case from a secular point of view is Dan 8 with the direct prophecy about Greece and Alexander the Great. Specifically verses:

Dan 8:5-8 And as I was considering, behold, a he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

And
Dan 8:20-22 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

Unfortunately, the rest of Dan 8 is a bit more vague. Interpretable, in my opinion, but requiring a lot more work, which means there is MUCH more wiggle room.

If you want to go beyond just that one small section about Greece, it really does require studying all three prophecies.

If you are interested in going further with it, there is a study available here: http://guide.discoveronline.org/focus/guide01/
WARNING in advance, it's from my church, and it's purpose is, of course, to convert you. So if you choose to click, don't be offended, you have been warned.

A more scholarly study, but certainly not perfect (what is), can be found in this old book which is available online now: "The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation by Uriah Smith". HTML or Text

And, of course, you can just pull out a Bible and some history books and go at it without using anyone elses opinions at all.

Oh, and by the way, I appreciate your being willing to actually LOOK at and research these things. Many (myself included sometimes) don't have an open enough mind to even LOOK at things they disagree with.

[Lothar]

But what about accrediting them?

I think that the historical failure for reason to accredit any religion isn't really so much a failure of reason as it is a failure of every religion.

I think reasoned viewing of the evidence can and does accredit religion on a regular basis. Not in a way that it can be proven to everyone's satisfaction, mind you, but for many individuals. I'm not religious out of ignorance, but because of continued examination of the evidence.

You can look at the claims religions make about human nature and history and accredit those fairly easily (though people will always find ways to dismiss both -- see, for example, 9/11 conspiracy theories.) Claims about the supernatural are more difficult to accredit, though I think the prophecies in Daniel (which Kilarin has been writing about) are pretty darn impressive. And, of course, people can interact with the supernatural themselves, and that interaction can confirm or deny specific religious claims.