So I've taken you off ignore because you've shown a tendency to engage in discussions more openly than was previously the case. You've admitted a failing in some of the ways you engaged I believe, that is to your credit.

It may be possible for you to consider that some of those habits remain though.

Pretty much what dereds said. I'm not accusing you of infinite stubbornnes and I'm not taking credit away from the progress that you've made in this area (especially relative to previous presentations). But the plain fact is that in this conversation, as little as a few posts ago, you stated the following:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=164

And then you reframed your position as follows:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=173

It is essential to bring the statement of intent and what you actually do into alignment.

More than possible, highly likely :P Like I said though, I'm working on it.

Ok, I'm going to back off from this particular conversation and attempt a fresh canvas approach with a new one when the opportunity arises. Part of the problem is that I do have a habit of adapting as I go along but from my perspective that's simply improving (or trying to improve) or better explain my thought process which I'll be the first to admit can be muddy. I can see how that might come across as shifting the goalposts or being intellectually dishonest but it's not intentional.

Whatever my tone though, I'm always open to being proved wrong even when I can't see that it's already happened.

They're both mirrors of the same Light, my friend.

Seems like it ya

Well except for Isiah and Cyrus and the rebuilding of the 2nd Temple.

This came from the Dutero-Isiah section and in this part was compleated somewhere around 550 BCE, BEFORE Cyrus conqured Babalyon.

Fulfillment: In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 BCE. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild Jehovah’s temple there.

How do you know?

What is the claim that this might support if it were true?

Isiah is a religious prophet. He made a claim that a certian event would happen with the name of a very specific charicter. Historical evidence shows that an event happened simular to what this religious prophet (regardless if you belive it still was him or someone writing as him) stated after it was said by the same predicted name, after the time the claim was made.

You stated, in absolute terms, "There is NO evidence to suport any religious claims at all."

Your thesis is refuted.

My notes from a UoM Near Eastern Studies proff but you dont have access to those... interestingly the Wiki has a good, annotated entry (and has most of the info I refered to) for The Book of Isiah.

Problem is that Isa 44 is DtrIsa and not TritoIsa. Your cite refers to TritoIsa.

About DtrIsa wiki mentions:

Dating DtrIsa roughly around 550-530 makes a lot of sense, but claiming you know that this particular passage was written 20 years earlier than that passage would need a lot of further detail. Usually, prophecys, if they are used to date passages, are taken as termini post quem, not ad quem (such as the destruction of the temple in Mark as t.p.q. for Mark at 70post at the earliest, for example).

In all of the latter prophets, there's a lot of later additions, redactions and the like. It's pretty much up in the air currently if "Deutero-Isaiah" is even an individual or not rather a group of people (priests, for example). The "existence" of TritoIsa is debated as well.

Edit: Just to clarify - I don't mean to say that you're wrong; just, that what you're doing is backwards to what the common approach is. Usually, we take historical events and date texts by linking them to the events. We don't go the other way and take what we assume is a properly dated texts, find events that come later and conclude we have a true prophecy. Which is why, for example, the go-to introduction to the OT for students in Germany dates the entire DtrIsa section to 538 and later. That this is in itself an approach that basically negates the possibility of true prophecies and miracles in the bible is one of the big conundrums of academic exegesis...

Yeah I know...

I totally understand the quagmire that is here. It's nearly impossible to say where Isaiah left off and others came to continue to write in his name (if even *he* actually existed) much of this can be left up to debate and inference as to when exactly this prophesy was made and when Cyrus conquered Bayb. But even if this was written the day before he reversed the river flow and conquered them, it still gives an evidence to support a religious claim. Even if it is merely plausible it still destroys MM's unequivocal statement, which really was my goal.

Ah ok. Gotcha.

How do you know the gates were left open?

Herodotus 1.191, I presume. Not that it makes much difference either way whether they were left intentionally open or unintentionally unguarded.

I would consider that a historical claim then. You should have asked me what my definition of a 'religious claim' was before attempting to refute it. For me, a religious claim is one with a spiritual element, not simply any claim made by a religion. For example, that some god or other actually exists and performed godly acts or that so and so was son/daughter of said god, that we have a soul, that there is an after life etc etc

If you have any evidence pertaining to those types of claim as made by the religious, I'd love to hear it.

Calling a fulfilled biblical prophecy (which would constitute a miracle) a "historical claim" and not a "religious claim" is pretty disingenuous, imo. It obviously fits both categories, as do most claims of the miraculous.

Ummmm...

Consider the claim that God verifies his existence through historical acts. How does this fit in your understanding?

Like a fulfilled prophecy?

Your dichotomy seems to be too strict to be useful. It reminds me of the claim that every claim about the universe is a scientific claim.

No, MB, you need to change your thesis and or your wording. You are the one communicating your idea so you are the one responsible for communicating it in the way that best represents your intended meaning.

You stated in ABSOLUTE terms your idea. You used no equivocations. Trying to weasel out of this with a "historical claim" is an equivocation not to mention pretty juvenile. NOTHING of your original thesis had anything close to any kind of equivocation, in fact it used absolute language 3x in an 11 word sentence. How am or anyone else going to see that thesis as anything but a narrow, one-way view?

Yeah I can see how it would come across that way, it even felt that way when I was replying but I made that post a while back and if I made it again I would have worded it completely differently.

Also, I don't consider a dubious prophecy fulfillment as proof of religious claims about the existence of god and/or the other 'spiritual' aspects of religion.

I consider it weak.

It was a throw away remark, poorly worded, I wouldn't make it now. At least, I try not to make remarks like that now but they slip out occasionally.

Absolutely. I'm working on that.

I did but it wasn't what I meant. I have no need to 'weasel' out of anything, I don't know you, you mean nothing to me, why would I bother. I made a poorly worded statement that I've now clarified for the sake of accuracy (and to defend myself) but I have no need or desire to lie to you or anyone else on here.

Update: Here is a broad collection of greek and roman texts online. Herodotus 1.191 starts here.