How can anyone believe the Bible, when it contains many contradictions and fabrications?

First topic message reminder :

Christians often tell us that the Bible is the “word of God”. Yet it is a seriously flawed book. As a historical source it is poor, since it contains no primary evidence, having been written a long time after the so-called events which it describes. Far from being the word of any supernatural being, it’s a collection of writings by men chosen by men for inclusion in a book. For example, there were around a dozen ‘gospels’, yet only four were chosen to be in the Bible. Hardly surprising when you see what was left out. Thomas’s gospel contains numerous anecdotes about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of a mischievous fairy, transforming his playmates into goats, or turning mud into sparrows, or giving his father a hand with the carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood.

One of the most unconvincing aspects of the Bible is the fact that what was included in it contains many contradictions. When the gospels were written, many years after Jesus’ death, nobody knew where he was born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. In the light of this prophecy, John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: “Others said: ‘He is the Messiah!’ But others said: ‘The Messiah will not come from Galilee! The scripture says that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David and will be born in Bethlehem, the town where David lived.’” (John 7:41-42)

Matthew and Luke treat the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all, but they get him there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth long after the birth of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents. On the other hand, Luke acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born. So how did he get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to fulfil the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go “to his own city”. Joseph was “of the house and lineage of David” and therefore had to go to “the city of David, which is called Bethlehem”. That must have seemed like a good solution. Yet David, if he existed, lived nearly a thousand years before Mary and Joseph, so why would the Romans have required Joseph to go to the city where a remote ancestor had lived a millennium earlier?

Luke mentioned events that historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius - a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole - but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod’s death. Luke’s story is historically impossible and just reveals that he was economical with the truth in his desire to fulfil the prophecy of Micah.

All the essential features of the Jesus legend, including the star in the east, the virgin birth, the veneration of the baby by kings, the miracles, the execution, the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed from other religions already in existence in the Mediterranean and Near East region. Matthew’s desire to fulfil messianic prophecies (descent from David, birth in Bethlehem) for the benefit of Jewish readers came into headlong collision with Luke’s desire to adapt Christianity for the Gentiles by using the familiar buttons of pagan Hellenistic religions (virgin birth, worship by kings etc). The resulting contradictions are glaring but are consistently overlooked by the faithful.

Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’s descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations (Matthew 1:17), while Luke has forty-one generations (Luke 3:23-31)? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! In any case, if Jesus really was born of a virgin, Joseph’s ancestry is irrelevant and cannot be used to fulfil, on Jesus’ behalf, the Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah should be descended from David.

Matthew 27:9-10 claims to fulfil a saying that it attributes to Jeremiah. The saying actually appears in Zechariah 11:12-13. The gospels also contradict one another outright. John 19:14 tells us that Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover meal was eaten. Mark 14 says it happened the day after. So the Bible can’t even be consistent about the two most important aspects of Jesus’ life – his birth and his death - yet so many people are so blinded by their faith to take it as 'gospel truth'. Are you taken in by it?

Yes, well, as Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice through the looking-glass, "a word means whatever I want it to mean."

An example to confuse the uninitiated would be the true statement, "Every soldier in the British Army is issued with a Housewife as a part of their kit."

A "housewife" in this specific context is the name given to a mending-kit of needles, thread and darning wool.

....or Jesus meant his wife in the literal sense of the word, strange to read Texas opting for a non-literal interpretation in the Bible.

Semantic games mean zip in science, thanks to good old Aristotle's law of identity.

A cabbage is not a stapler.

The core principles used in establishing historical accuracy( source criticism) are as follows:

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

The stories of Jesus in the New Testament have no original sources, no independant sources and are patently biased, they were not written by eye witnesses or contemporaries of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus never even met the man.

A historian must take the earliest manuscripts and deduce from their contents the closest guess to the facts.

Using the earliest Gospel Mark we can establish Jesus chose to be baptised by the apocalypticist John, and we can establish from the letters of Paul that the Jewish followers of Jesus after his death were apocalypticists. Paul himself was an apocalypticist and Jewish apocalyptism was fairly common in the 1 st century.

If Jesus was apocalyptic at the beginning and end of his ministry then it is logical to deduce his apocalyptic teachings during his ministry were literal and not figurative.

In my opinion Jesus was radical because he genuinely believed the end of the earth was imminent.

In this highly accessible discussion, Bart Ehrman examines the most recent textual and archaeological sources for the life of Jesus, along with the history of first-century Palestine, drawing a fascinating portrait of the man and his teachings.

Ehrman shows us what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament (and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter), Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet--a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within the lifetime of his apostles and that a new kingdom would be created on earth. According to Ehrman, Jesus' belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization not only underscores the radicalism of his teachings but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to Jerusalem's established leadership.

i think in hindsight the bible would not have been put together as it was. the newly formed Christians would have done well to have discarded the old testament and upheld the view later condemned as heretical that the god of the OT was not the true god. but choices were made and as a result a lot of the new testament drew on OT writings for validation of Jesus as a facet of God. well pretty much all the succeeding theology did! as a result the bible and of course Christianity is a patchwork quilt of problems but contained within the religious writing there's also a fair bit of history such as with Kings for example. much of Christian theology through the ages has been concerned with trying to reconcile the contents of the bible with philosophical thought given the confusing state it's in. as such we have some quite sophisticated arguments as well as fundamentalist blunt ones dealing with the contents of the bible and trying to explain it to questioning Christians. i think people have to 'cherry pick' if they want to keep the security of their religious bubble and in my experience that is more or less what they do. it shouldn't come as a surprise as we tend to do that with most things in life. if a contradiction in the bible is pointed out there will be a workaround for it somewhere. allegory is a good one.

In my opinion Jesus was radical because he genuinely believed the end of the earth was imminent.

i think the Israelites had a history of Apocalyptic preachers and Monty Python probably had the gist of it with Life of Brian where they depict a number of preachers all touting their doom and gloom. what made Jesus different was that his message was carried out into the Diaspora communities and from there to sympathetic Gentile ears.

Polyglide. I used to be like you but Prayer is too often used by people who can't be bothered to seek the truth for themselves. Too many Christian want to believe what the Bible says is true. They are frightened they might find that things aren't what they believed.
Study of the Bible without any foreknowledge or preconceived ideas and you have a very different Bible.
The Jews are right. There is no reference to Jesus in the OT. There is no prophecy of the 'Christian' Messiah.
All references claimed by Christianity can be clearly be seen to relate to Israel. The disciples made Jesus into a divinity. Jesus may have claimed to be a son of god, as all Jews believe they are sons of god. He would not have claimed to be The Son of god. This was against everything he believed. 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God'.
Christianity's ritual is a mishmash of adapted Judaistic beliefs and ritual thanks to Paul.
Jesus is really an unknown figure. As I said we have 2 Jesus'. It's clear from his actions and words he came to the Jews. He leaves no doubt about this by ignoring the Gentiles and telling the disciples to do the same. Any contact with the Gentiles is an approach by the Gentile.
The term Messiah means 'anointed one' - not Saviour. When Jesus tells the woman at the well he is the Messiah - he is talking 'anointed one'. A term applied to various people - such as King David.
Jesus believed he was 'anointed' to bring the Jews back to Jahweh. Thus his attitude to the Jewish hierarchy who had let the Jews astray.
Incidentally, the 'woman at the well' incident was simply the result of a Jewish custom. If you were passing through a village and needed a drink, meal or accommodation you sat in the middle of the village and someone would offer their help.
The Gospels are full of Judaistic beliefs, some adapted by Christianity. But this is not taught by Christianity.

The last book in the Bible clearly indicates that the words and examples are not to be taken literally.

Many are just impossible, so one has to look at the whole Bible in a similar manner, each example of any event is sybolic rather than fact, in many cases, common sense being the guiding factor.

Because other religions have adopted similar stories does not in any way make the Bible any less truthful, either previously or later.

The best way in which to consider who is right and who is wrong is to just study the state the world is in at the present time, and which religion fits the bill.

Regards.

The state of the world has changed little over 4000 years. Of course we can only compare the known history of the ancient world. There has always been war. The Middle East of old consisted of tribes fighting each other nations fighting each other and Empires coming and going through warfare. Murder, theft, sexual crime, homosexuality have always been around. Pedestry was acceptable in some countries, marriage of family members (Uncle and niece, etc) was not unknown, or frowned upon.

Things we consider wrong today were a necessity then. You wouldn't accept the marriage of 2 young people when they reached 13-14 years of age. But then most were quite capable of being a married couple. Unlike today the children had little time to play or the need for education. The girl learnt housework etc from her mother from an early age, and the boy his father's occupation. They were far more mature than today.

The real difference between the 2 ages is the that we have modern methods of criminality. We also have religious wars. 3000 years ago war was a matter of power, land and property. If it could be proven to everyone that religious belief was futile, that fighting in the name of a god was simply throwing your life away, it would not stop wars, but certainly diminish the insanity.

Unfortunately, symbolism can be interpreted in many ways. Commonsense does not come into it.
Different cultures - different symbols - different meanings.

The last book of the Bible is a good example. Mainly taken from the OT the symbols/images represent Jewish belief. Christianity has adapted it to add Jesus and convert it to Christian belief. The Essenes also took the OT symbols/images and added their own 'interpretation' before Christianity. Since them there have been countless interpretations of Revelations. Who is right? Do we accept the original images of the Jewish Belief, or the adapted images of the Essenes, or the later adapted images of Christianity. Or are modern interpretations just as valid?

Polyglide wrote:Because other religions have adopted similar stories does not in any way make the Bible any less truthful, either previously or later.

You've got this round the wrong way. The Bible has adopted other similar stories. These stories were around before the 'Bible'/'Tanakh' was ever written.

It does not matter which way around it is, if it fits in with the Bible the others that have thought the same previously have been correct.

Regards.

It does not matter which way around it is, if it fits in with the Bible the others that have thought the same previously have been correct.
==================================

It does matter if one is claiming the Bible to be a reliable source, if not then i suggest you treat the Epic of Gilgamesh as your divine chronicle, 4 years later and still talking utter mince.

You talk of something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible's acount of creation, it is poetry and nothing more than what could be expected from a lost generation seeking something to explain matters beyond their comprehension.

Regards.

You really should read the Epic. Written a millenia before the Bible, yet the 2 run parallel in many things.

Failure to gain immortality. Temptation by a snake. Loss of Innocence. Dire consequences for the human race.

There are many mysteries of life prior to the Bible, far too many to actaully evaluate with reference to creation and the reason for mankind.

This I grant you.

That is why I dismiss all before the birth of Jesus as having nothing to do with the present obligations of mankind.

I could point out numerous such apparent discrepancies etc; however, you have to also take into consideration that there is a maniac in the house, Satan, who although not as powerful as God, has powers over and above what mankind can comprehend, and what better way could he use than to confuse the issue than by having fairy stories distributed in an attempt to refute the truth?.

Regards.

That maniac you call Satan is simply an adaptation of the Jewish HaSatan. He is actually a messenger of god and appointed to test men's faith in Jahweh. He did so with Job and with Jesus. Both passed with flying colours. So Jesus temptation was quite in line with Jewish thinking, as Matthew the Jew knew.

HaSatan (The Satan) has been turned into satan the enemy of god by Christianity. You'd be surprised how much Jewish teaching there is in the Gospels - except you ignore the Tanakh.

I only ignore all that goes before the birth of Jesus because I cannot reconcile all the apparent discrepancies that exists prior to his birth.

Anyone wanting to con another would ensure that all the facts added up, they do not, and that is why I ignore anything before the birth of Jesus as it has no revelance to man's obligations today.

Regards.

In that case, all we have is the fact that a Jew called Jesus was born somewhere in Palestine - most likely Bethlehem in Zebulon, near to Nazareth. There are errors and contradictions in the NT. As Jesus used the OT frequently in his teaching I fail to see how 'anything before the birth of Jesus has no relevance to man's obligations today'.

Still, if you pick and choose what you want to believe that's your privilege.

I watched a programme on the television last night regarding Jehricho and the fall of, it gave clear details of the time and relics that proved in all probability the event actually took place.

This was conducted by persons only interested in history and the realy the relevance to the Bible, presumably they took everything into account.

The same applied to the programme regarding Exodux, with the same conclusions.

I am aware that there are more questions than answers regarding religion but if everything was clear there would be no need for religion.

Regards.

polyglide wrote:I watched a programme on the television last night regarding Jehricho and the fall of, it gave clear details of the time and relics that proved in all probability the event actually took place.

Jericho has been destroyed several times in 11,000 years. It sits in an earthquake belt. Todays Jericho actually started to be rebuilt away from the ruins of the old.

I read 2 articles issued by  the Biblical Archaeological Site I belong to. One proved the Exodus was possible. One proved it wasn't.

The problem with the Bible is that it was written against known events. Around 700BCE when the OT was started people knew that Jericho was in ruins, they knew about the 5 cities of the plain being destroyed, they knew about the Hittites. These and other events are woven into 'historical drama's'.  We have the same today. Moses never wrote anything. The Torah contains various styles of writing and other factors that render the idea nonsense.

It seems to me that the Jews, in writing the scriptures, were trying to explain reasons for their changing fortunes. If they were in trouble, they were being punished for some wrongdoing. When they were OK they were being blessed for doing right. Today Christians, when something goes wrong, say 'it wasn't god's will'. And Vice versa.

If things go wrong for me it's usually down to myself, my expectations, the circumstances, being realistic. It's the same for everyone. Human nature. Illness isn't the fault of any god. Our bodies can be frail, susceptible to all sorts of diseases. They affect the religious and non-religious alike.

trevorw2539 wrote:The Jews are right. There is no reference to Jesus in the OT. There is no prophecy of the 'Christian' Messiah.

Perhaps they were wrong in this regard

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ( Immanuel , "God is with us"  in Hebrew)
Isaiah 53:4, Will bear our sins and sorrows
Isaiah 53:5  Will make a blood atonement
Isaiah 11:10 Gentiles will seek Him
Isaiah 53:12 Will save us who believe in Him
Isaiah 11:4,5 He will judge the earth with righteousness

All references claimed by Christianity can be clearly be seen to relate to Israel. The disciples made Jesus into a divinity. Jesus may have claimed to be a son of god, as all Jews believe they are sons of god. He would not have claimed to be The Son of god. This was against everything he believed. 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God'.
Christianity's ritual is  a mishmash of adapted Judaistic beliefs and ritual thanks to Paul.
Jesus is really an unknown figure. As I said we have 2 Jesus'. It's clear from his actions and words he came to the Jews. He leaves no doubt about this by ignoring the Gentiles and telling the disciples to do the same. Any contact with the Gentiles is an approach by the Gentile.

This is not correct according to Christianity, understandably I used to say similar things when I was an Agnostic without grasping the true teachings of Jesus. For example;

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 Jesus was happy being around gentiles and sinners against what Jews believed of the time.

The term Messiah means 'anointed one' - not Saviour. When Jesus tells the woman at the well he is the Messiah - he is talking 'anointed one'. A term applied to various people - such as King David.
Jesus believed he was 'anointed' to bring the Jews back to Jahweh. Thus his attitude to the Jewish hierarchy who had let the Jews astray.
Incidentally, the 'woman at the well' incident was simply the result of a Jewish custom. If you were passing through a village and needed a drink, meal or accommodation you sat in the middle of the village and someone would offer their help.
The Gospels are full of Judaistic beliefs, some adapted by Christianity. But this is not taught by Christianity.

I would agree that Christianity is different from Jewish practises. Regarding the messiah, according to Christianity , Jesus came to save those from the inevitable be it Jews or Gentiles. All previous covenants have been broken and there can be no more.   Jesus is the last chance. Explained by some; "the negotiator" between God and man after man turning his back to God quite a few times and doing evil things.

I agree entirely that Jesus gives all the hope and chance of everlasting life, there would be no point in life at all unless it had a purpose over and above three score years and ten, for human.

Regards.

JSmythe wrote:Regarding the messiah, according to Christianity , Jesus came to save those from the inevitable be it Jews or Gentiles.  

Yet in his teaching he completely ignored, and actually told his disciples to NOT to go to the Gentiles. Jesus was a Jewish preacher who came to turn his people back to Jahweh.

Galatians is Christian teaching.

JSmythe wrote:This is not correct according to Christianity, understandably I used to say similar things when I was an Agnostic without grasping the true teachings of Jesus.

;

Of course Christianity says it is not correct.

Isaiah is clearly referring to the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53 is the 4th of the Suffering Servant songs. Israel is often referred to as Jahweh's servant in the Tanakh. Israel is referred to in the singular - he - more than once. The Suffering servant is Israel. In the Jewish Messianic age the world will see the suffering of the Jewish nation over time and be astonished. Christianity has elevated Jesus, the Jewish preacher, to divinity and ascribed 'miracles' to him for that purpose.

I went the other way. Study of the Bible - esp. the OT (Tanakh) led me from Christianity to Agnosticism.

If Judaism had not existed and the Tanakh not written, Christianity would not exist today because Jesus would simply, and was, be just a Jesus preacher. His divinity is stated in birth stories which are completely nonsensical  if you study them carefully. Both stories contradict each other. I uses completely irrelevant quotes from the OT and the other goes against the Roman Laws of the time. Old and New Testament are full of errors, exaggerations etc.

Polyglide wrote:agree entirely that Jesus gives all the hope and chance of everlasting life, there would be no point in life at all unless it had a purpose over and above three score years and ten, for human.

That's the saddest statement I've heard for a long time. Life is for living. Life is for helping our fellow man who needs help. There was a song long ago which went 'If I can help somebody as I pass along - then my living will not be in vain'. You don't need the religious aspect to help someone.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Yet in his teaching he completely ignored, and actually told his disciples to NOT to go to the Gentiles. Jesus was a Jewish preacher who came to turn his people back to Jahweh.

I go along with that ,that Jesus came to turn the Jews back to Jahweh especially from the seemingly corrupt versions of Jewish tradition.

Galatians is Christian teaching.

Yes but these Christians at the time were mainly former Jews. But I understand all your point(s)

Isaiah is clearly referring to the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53 is the 4th of the Suffering Servant songs. Israel is often referred to as Jahweh's servant in the Tanakh. Israel is referred to in the singular - he - more than once. The Suffering servant is Israel. In the Jewish Messianic age the world will see the suffering of the Jewish nation over time and be astonished. Christianity has elevated Jesus, the Jewish preacher, to divinity and ascribed 'miracles' to him for that purpose.

Christianity sees the same thing regarding suffering of the Jews. However to Christians (Not all I grant you) believe this is the curse from killing the prophets and living by different laws from the original laws. Jesus of course says this more or less and would be concurring with your notion that ;  Jesus was sent from Jahweh (after many broken covenants,as the last straw) trying to get them ...the lost flock...back with God.

I went the other way. Study of the Bible - esp. the OT (Tanakh) led me from Christianity to Agnosticism.

If Judaism had not existed and the Tanakh not written, Christianity would not exist today because Jesus would simply, and was, be just a Jesus preacher. His divinity is stated in birth stories which are completely nonsensical  if you study them carefully. Both stories contradict each other. I uses completely irrelevant quotes from the OT and the other goes against the Roman Laws of the time. Old and New Testament are full of errors, exaggerations etc.  

 Yes there are errors resulted by many of the fallible traits that exist within humans. On the whole there is an overall theme that is always still the same throughout. The multitude of books involved and non included books,oral traditions through generations spreading out will bound to have errors being that there are of course many authors and so many recollections from the minds of many people. Mistakes in combination with "deliberate" errors (perhaps to mislead by the bad ones), as seen in the verse below.
 
 Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 8, Verse 8
   
     'How can you say, "We are wise,
      for we have the law of the LORD,"
      when actually the lying pen of the scribes
      has handled it falsely?

I totally agree that if it weren't for the Jews there would be no Christianity. The cause and purpose for Christianity .. why its here .. we will differ on.

polyglide wrote:I agree entirely that Jesus gives all the hope and chance of everlasting life, there would be no point in life at all unless it had a purpose over and above three score years and ten, for human.

Regards.

Indeed PG

I have no real problem with your post. My view of many errors in the stories of Abraham and Moses is down to the writers of these stories. Few Bible scholars believe that 'Moses' wrote anything.

The stories were written much later (starting around 700BCE). 'Moses' could never have known Ur OF THE CHALDEES. He would have known that Abraham could not have bought his tomb from the Hittites and that meeting the Pharaoh of the time was highly unlikely.

The stories of Abraham and Moses and the Exodus are just that - stories which give the Jews a 'history'. Stories written by scribes who had no experience of nomadic life. Thus we have impossible situations.
It also explains the way they saw Jahweh. A god who blessed their good deeds and punished their bad deeds.
The truth is that the Jews were subject to normal conditions of the time. It's called 'survival of the fittest'.

If you actually study the book of Isaiah with the history of the time, most of the prophecy about
Israel's fate in history doesn't need prophecy. I've no doubt the writers of Isaiah were astute enough to see what was obviously going to happen. The Assyrians were expanding their empire and the Northern Kingdom were troublesome enough to be taken over. They left the Southern Kingdom alone. There was no
need to waste men on conquering them when they agreed to pay tribute.
The Babylonians took over the Assyrian Empire. They, too, left Judah alone, under the same conditions.
An Egyptian Pharaoh challenged the Babylonians, and was defeated. Judah signed an agreement with Egypt. This altered the situation and Judah became a threat to the Babylonians. The writer of Isaiah could see what would happen, and 'prophesied'. Of course the prophecy came true.

Much of OT prophecy is either of this type - or written as history.

The 'prophecy' of the Jewish Messianic age - which Christianity has adapted in Revelations for their Messianic age. Prophecy or wishful thinking?

I have a strong feeling that none of the recordings of past history will in any way influence what is to come, all the present siruations are in accordance with what the Bible says they would be in the latter days, and this cannot be denied.

It would also be ridiculous to suggest that the same circumstances have been encountered in the past because they have not all at once and in such worldwide situations.

Regards.

If you refute the above then just consider the following:-

Daniel 2.
Daniel 12:4
Reverlation 12:17
Jude 1:7

Regards.

polyglide wrote:If you refute the above then just consider the following:-

                           Daniel 2.
                           Daniel 12:4
                           Reverlation 12:17
                           Jude 1:7

Regards.

Who are you replying to?

To all who doubt it.

Regards.

The story of Daniel / Dan'el is a a collection of legendary tales - probably from the Ugarit who have a hero called Dan'el. It is Pseudonymous, the writer probably an educated Jew. Ugarit is responsible for many aspects of Jewish belief and many Psalms follow Ugarit poetry. Some Psalms are similar to Ugarit poems.
The 'prophecies' in the Apocalyptic section refer to the Maccabean era of civil wars and the Roman Army, who, having been invited in to help , never left.

Revelations is simply a repeat of OT Scriptures (except chapters 1-3) with additions by Christianity to include Christianity.
Compare Rev. 21:1 with Isaiah 65:17
" Rev. 21:3 with Ezekiel 37:27
There are many images and 'pictures' taken from the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekile and Daniel. You see, you can't do without the OT.

I don't understand the reference to Sodom and Gommorah. These were 2 of 5 cities destroyed, probably by earthquakes - being in that area, similar to Jericho. Destroyed long before the Bible was written but known about by the writers. So they wrote an allegory around it which included characters called Abraham and Lot. Historical novels we call them.

As I have said many times previously, there are many anomolies involved in the Bible, and I have no answers to them, so I have to accept what I do actually know and have experienced.

I know the state the world is in, I know the state the Bible says it would eventually end up in.

I know that the world is fast approaching the said state, and have no doubt that what the Bible says will follow.

Leaving out all religions and prophecies etc; do you realy think that mankind if left to it's own devices has any long term future?.

There has never been a weapon that has been created that has not been used on a wide scale, history will confirm this.

There is now a weapon that can wipe out all life in the UK in one go.

Relations between Nations are at a low ebb.

Famine is not far away, if populations increase, pestilance abounds, brother fighting brother, idiots within Nations not helping each other, the list is endless.

Yet you have mindless individuals, because they have all the present facilities etc; thinking all is well with the world.

Without considering anything other than the actual facts of the present time things are not what they used to be.

Regards.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Much of OT prophecy is either of this type - or written as history.

The 'prophecy' of the Jewish Messianic age - which Christianity has adapted in Revelations for their Messianic age. Prophecy or wishful thinking?

Followers of Christ who were Jews later to be called Christians have merely added to the scriptures of the OT which of course was not accepted by the Pharisees and Judaism. Jesus quotes from the OT and importantly from the older book of Enoch not included in the Torah but having revelance to Christianity and its teachings. Rather than an addaption it is a seperate faith in this respect despite steming from the same original source.

polyglide wrote:I have a strong feeling that none of the recordings of past history will in any way influence what is to come, all the present siruations are in accordance with what the Bible says they would be in the latter days, and this cannot be denied.

Actually it can be denied, and I would do just this, but since you offer no evidence for your claim I am free to simply dismiss it. Hitchen's razor applies. religious predictions tend to be broad sweeping generalisations that sooner or later would be bound to occur, or else they have been doctored post ad hoc. Most often religious claims that predictions, prayers and faith have been fulfilled is little more than use of the common logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

polyglide wrote: It would also be ridiculous to suggest that the same circumstances have been encountered in the past because they have not all at once and in such worldwide situations.

Regards.

So what? That doesn't evidence your claim at all, and again you offer no evidence anyway, just a peremptory dismissal of all objection as 'ridiculous' which I have to say 'IS' ridiculous. This kind of fatalistic approach is quite common i religious beliefs, and pretty meaningless as well. As if anyone could say exactly why every aspect of the current state of the world has occurred based on an ancient archaic narrative, the task of assessing the complexity of all historical events that have ever occurred throughout the globe to determine exactly why the world is currently how it is, would be a gargantuan task and probably impossible given how much we don't know about most of it. This does not in any way justify risible and sweeping claims about religion predicting it all.