For All Hallows Eve

quote:

---

Bruce Metzger is the name of the major textual critic I couldn't remember earlier. He doesn't believe in the supernatural, such as the prophec of the book of Daniel,`so his readings of the bible suffer from his bias in a way that should not be given any authority whatever. He's a fraud. Nobody should pay any attention to him.

---

By which you mean that because he tells truths you don’t like you prefer to use lies and slander to suppress his views.In reality Bruce Metzger was a Christian, he rejected the prophecies of Daniel for reasons quite apart from a disbelief on the supernatural - as you would know if you actually bothered to find out what his reasons were.He was a major Biblical scholar, certainly not a fraud and you certainly should pay attention to his views just as you should pay attention to any major expert.You know if you are going to try to pretend to be a Christian maybe you shouldn’t put your evil on open display like this.

quote:

---

Of course it was written after Jesus died, but not LONG after, most of it was before 60 AD. Those that do not allude at all to the major event of 70 AD, the destruction of the temple, were earlier than that date at least.

---

The claim that the Synoptic Gospels do not allude to the destruction is one that can be reasonably disputed - and is disputed. For my own part I would argue that the major rewrite of the Olivet Discourse in Luke, at the least, indicates an awareness of the actual events.Also we may question the need to allude to events so well known.As an argument the claim is very weak.

quote:

---

The Old testament is all about Jesus, as He said. Too bad you don't know how to read scripture or you'd know that.

---

Since your own reading of the Bible has been proven to be deficient such boasting is rather silly.

quote:

---

The event of 70AD so altered the way of life of the Jews there is no way it could simply have been forgotten.

---

Thank you for agreeing with my point. Given that the event was so well-known, allusions would be unnecessary.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, you will have to remind me of how my reading of the Bible is deficient

---

Yes, you do quickly forget your errors. See the subthread starting with Message 284 - less than a month old.

quote:

---

It's interesting however that while you find my reading deficient you let pass the utterly ridiculous claim of jar to be the only person who knows how to read the Bible even among all the best theologians since Christ.

---

I haven’t seen jar making such a claim. Not that I would trust any reading from your preferred theologians without checking it.

quote:

---

There is a boundary beyond which a person is not a Christian for denying some tenets of the faith. I don't know if denial of the supernatural and prophecy is beyond that boundary or not though I would suspect it has to be since Christianity is nothing if it is not supernatural

---

I don’t see how denying that particular prophecies are genuine predictions - based on evidence - would cross the boundary.

quote:

---

I saw a quote by Metzger himself saying that he dated Daniel later than Daniel himself claims to have written, (making Daniel a liar of course), because he didn't believe in prophecy.

---

I very much doubt that. It is more likely that you saw somebody else claim that was Metzger’s reason. Besides Daniel is a fiction anyway - he never existed - so how can Metzger be calling him a liar ?

quote:

---

The book is quite consistent and coherent as Daniel wrote it but to date it later destroys its coherence and consistency.

---

The book is a compilation of shorter works - in two different languages - and how you think the late date for the prophecies creates internal contradictions I have no idea.ABE: And for further reference here is a tribute to Metzger from Daniel T Wallace Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry you have to quote me, not following a whole thread.

---

So, you can’t remember things that happened a few weeks ago. You’re not prepared to read a half-dozen posts. And I bet that you are going to argue even when i provide quotes because it really does need to be read in context.Now, if you remember for some time you insisted that the child of Isaiah 7 could only be Jesus. As I pointed out, according to the text, the child was given as a sign of events that occurred in the reign of Ahaz, and therefore had to be born before those events.After a few posts you admit: Message 307Something that would be obvious to anyone who understood the text.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

In other words jar disagrees with traditional interpretations. However he does not claim to be the only one at all, and in fact his views are often in alignment with Bible scholarship. So your assertion is quite obviously untrue.