User talk:Blue Hoopy Frood/Essays/Bible POV

Criticism

This is about This argument relies on two assumptions, that (a) the intent and interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel can be understood with confidence, and (b) no prophecy ever comes true, not even by chance.

You try to use WP:OR + pure logic in order to oppose WP:RS and WP:RS/AC.

About what is the correct interpretation of those prophecies: this has been outsourced to mainstream Bible scholars (of the WP:CHOPSY sort).

About whether those prophecies have abysmally failed: this has been outsourced to mainstream Bible scholars (of the WP:CHOPSY sort).

Frankly, the historical method leaves only one possibility open: that the Book of Daniel talks about Antiochus Epiphanes, some scenes being already known (i.e. rendering the past as if it were prophecies) and some scenes drawing a desired future (i.e. what the author wanted that it would happen, but in reality it didn't). This is really the only view asserted by mainstream historians and mainstream Bible scholars, for more than a century. Every other view about its historicity is dead in the water in the mainstream academia.

As Bart Ehrman has stated:

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)