Scripture and origins ~ [open] thread for all. Bring snacks as we're running low...

[jeffweeder]

can you understand where i am coming from

obviously not.

Emotive 20th century anachronistic thinking

.


Hang on i need a dictionary.

See above for use of emotive words - but as I say, it's a composite work. It may even contain earlier material that originates with the historical Daniel.

Daniel wrote it then ...look its his work

DAN 1

17 As for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature[17][Or writing ] and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams.
18 Then at the end of the days which the king had specified for presenting them, the commander of the officials presented them before Nebuchadnezzar.
19 The king talked with them, and out of them all not one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered] the king's personal service.
20 As for every matter of wisdom and[22][Lit of ] understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians[23][Or soothsayer priests ] and conjurers who were in all his realm.
21 And Daniel continued[24][Lit was until ] until the first year of Cyrus the king.


]

n the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in[1][Lit of his head ] his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans—
2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years

.

2 In those days, I, Daniel, had been mourning for three entire weeks.

4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
5 Then I, Daniel, looked and behold, two others were standing, one on this bank of the river and the other on that bank of the river.

 

[Melethiel]

I'm undecided on this issue (so don't go jumping all over me), but that argument is not valid. I could write a document saying "I, George Bush saw this," but that wouldn't make it written by George Bush. In the pre-modern times, it was very common for people to sign their works with the name of someone well-known and famous, for various reasons, including honoring the person in question. For an example I am more familiar with, the number of motets attributed to Josquin des Prez which were written well after his death.

 

[shernren]

If you came in here and told me my mother was a street worker, you can understand how I would be offended. I struggle not to get angry not just when you produce conclusions completely dismissive of basic scripture and when you also show not the slightest bit of interest in a arguments supporting scripture. I guess I am not really interested in re-running the course of scriptural deconstruction, so I am really no better when it comes to willingness to pursue the mental exercise of looking at another's viewpoint.

But, let's be clear. It is not necessarily virtuous for a Christian to provoke you to unload more of this standard academic anti-Christian fare. Further, the idea that God did not speak, predict and act they way He said He did is something that needs to be met with clarity.

There is very little common ground here and you have insulted my God.

Whoa. When did artybloke say that "God did not speak, predict and act the way He said He did"? And when did He insult your God? All he said was:

Prophecy is about preaching, not prediction. It was the job of the prophet to hold a mirror up to society and to preach the consequences of Isreal/Judea's sins, not to predict the future. The Bible is not a text for divination of the future.

And I would agree with him with this, on Biblical bases. For look at the Bible's own comment on Moses:

Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt--to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.
(Deuteronomy 34:10-12 NIV)

Now whatever you remember Moses for, it is definitely not foretelling the future - while he did that here and there, it definitely wasn't the defining role of his career. And when the passage singles out Moses as the greatest prophet it doesn't list his prophecies or the events he predicted that came true - it speaks of his "mighty power" and "awesome deeds". And what did Moses say of his successor?

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die." The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
(Deuteronomy 18:15-22 NIV)

The New Testament uses this text as a prefiguring of Jesus Christ - indeed, that is one of the only places where the early Christians could have possibly argued from the Pentateuch that "Jesus is the Christ" as they did with the Jews who would listen. And yet what do you remember Jesus' ministry for? Fulfilled predictions about the future? Or pretty much everything else?

So you have the two greatest prophets in the Bible being Moses and Jesus. And yet neither of them possess an impressive prediction portfolio.

If we look at the predictions of the other prophets, even those always occur within the context of a message to people now. The modern idea of telling the future involves a lot of future-knowing for future-knowing's sake. The prophets' future-telling was not about dazzling people into obedience with knowledge of the future, it was about taking history and showing where it fit in with God's plans - past, present, and future where the information was available. Descriptions of future events are grounded in current prescriptions from God for His people based on His relationship with them. This isn't "academic anti-Christian fare" - it's part and parcel of understanding the prophets' role in Israel and jumps out from the plain text alone of the Bible if nothing else.

And right now, you might do well to take a break and relax. A little rest might convince you that not all TEs are dirty little liberal Christians sneaking up with daggers to stab your faith behind its back.

 

[busterdog]

And right now, you might do well to take a break and relax. A little rest might convince you that not all TEs are dirty little liberal Christians sneaking up with daggers to stab your faith behind its back.

I put up evidence of 1. Jesus' endorsement of Daniel's prediciton of the Abomination of Desolation; and 2. prediction of the arrival of the Messiah with at best about a 2% margin of error, giving the opposition the benefit of a number of presumptions.

This is not the kind of stuff you just wave your hand at because it doesn't fit the world view. What am I supposed to say? Maybe your right, maybe your wrong, who really knows? This is a major error in scripture if you are right. And now we are talking explicitly about the character of God. What am I supposed to say?

Artybloke knows there are people here who take that very seriously. I don't really like being dismissed, personally. And no one should be surprised if bristle at a fundamental attack on God's character. You all do expect this right? You know its coming eventually?

I hardly get a reflective pause before the cannonade launches against a clear claim of scripture. My God, I put up very good evidence of a matter of life and death -- that is, the ability of Scripture to predict holocaust in Israel.

Robert Anderson and Isaac Newton provide an amazing correlation of prophecy to documented events. Again, predicted an event 500 years in advance with an arguable 2% margin of error. No one looked at this data. Newton was said to be consorting with nuts. That's analsys? That's an argument? Please.

And I get a comparison to Moses? All of what you said about certain types of scripture is very true. But, you must realize that it is all completely beside the point. You know very well about the prophecy of the abomination of desolation.

But, lets not start pretending that Jesus never warned about the abomination of desolation. If this was a reference to recurrent debuachery, as in the "reflective" type of prophecy, Jesus would not be warning a specific event in the temple and the need to flee Judea. Can we just admit what the text says? THis is about a future predicition and Jesus endorses it -- by the prescience that was given to Daniel and Jesus' own prescience.

God says His reputation rests upon His ability to tell the future, among other things.

Melethiel seems to be on the fence on some interpretive matters. I understand that. Lots of us are hung about lots of interpretations. It is a welcome sign that the information is being considered and appreciated for the extreme view that it represents.

But, to simply dismiss this prophecy is unthinkable. I could be wrong. But, if I am not wrong, you are messing with what? A gift of God intended to save lives and souls. This is about hell on earth and the possibility of rescue. Does the audacity of that claim mean nothing? Genesis can be a bit academic in its application. Daniel is the rubber meeting the road.

I am begging the liberals to pause and think about where exactly we are in history and the audacious claim that this has been seen in advance and that the Word of God is provided for our assistance in a time when we will need all the help we can get. This is not just an academic discussion.

There is no middle ground about reflecting the times. If you want to say Jesus was wrong, the gospel was wrong, Daniel was wrong, you have that right. But let's not pretend that we are analyzing the text to uncover the real truth. It says what it says.

 

[shernren]

Moses was not called "the greatest prophet in Israel" for predicting the future. He was called that for his mighty power and his awesome deeds. I'm only quoting the Bible here.

Jesus was called a prophet just like Moses not because He could predict the future but because whoever ignored His words would die. Again, I'm only quoting the Bible here.

The Bible's expectation of its great prophets seems to be very different from yours: prophecy is not just the Sports Almanac from 2015 delivered by divine inspiration instead of a DeLorean, it is a revelation about the current state and needs of God's people within the context of divinely directed history. And that's precisely what I'm saying. I'm not attacking God's character, or saying that Jesus and Daniel and the gospel are wrong, or aiming a large spaceborne laser at the icecaps and holding the UN to ransom.

And if you won't trust me, trust Jesus:

He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.
(Luke 21:8 NIV)

Every generation of Christians has believed that they are in the end-times when when the love of most has grown cold. Every generation of Christians has thought that they could see Jesus over the horizon, or that some structure or person in their time was going to be the abomination of desolation. Every generation of Christians has seen wars and rumors of wars, famines, and earthquakes, and thought they were birth pains. Every generation of Christians has known persecution of one kind or another.

Every generation of Christians has lived as if Christ might come for them tomorrow.
Not a single one has actually seen it.

The message of prophecy is not simply that Event X or Event Y will happen. The message of prophecy is that Event X or Event Y is part of God's plan, and there is nothing in them that takes God by surprise, and therefore that God's people should live by God's ways. Whether the writer of that prophecy is living before, during, or after Event X or Event Y is inconsequential to that message. Look back at Jesus' prophecy. If the point of the prophecy was simply "Jesus will return", isn't it utterly wasted on the hundreds of generations for whom Jesus hasn't? Isn't the prophecy's point that in light of Jesus' return Christians should live fearlessly in a doomed world? The prophecy's point is not to tell us what Jesus' return looks like (for only the last generation would ever have use of it) but what Jesus' return means, which is something every generation has clung to.

Prophecy is more than just tomorrow's news today.

 

[HypnoToad]

But if they hadn't been separated, then it wouldn't make sense for the Spirit to be hovering over the waters, for the waters didn't exist as things-in-themselves yet at that point as you say.

How do you know that, before being separated, it wouldn't have a fluidic form?

 

[busterdog]

If anyone is offended by my post about prophecy, I am sorry that I was unable to make it inoffensive. I would hazard a guess, that I may have broken or bent some of the forum rules. It was a bit of a flame. I would like to have the skill to bring clarity on an issue without sounding judgmental.

Do I need a rest? I rather ably collected and put the information out. If I am so over-exerted that I am putting out bad information, I would be interested to see how that is so.

Just because someone says they are trying to analyze a text doesn't mean that they are. By analogy, when Jesus says He is the I Am, I don't think we need to hear about his charity and how that was the real point.

I can understand how someone would find claims of the Bible hard to swallow -- the resurrection, healing, the idea of a millenial kingdom. But then lets just say it -- "From everything I know of the world, this doesn't fit my thinking." That is an honest statement. We can agree to disagree, but at least we know where we stand with one another.

The prophecy of Daniel is not answered by any talk about the general nature or prophecy or what some other prophet did differently. It is either a prophecy of the future, a betrayal of lunacy or a bone in your throat. That is not just a matter of personal faith. It is an intellectual problem. Pretending we know better what the text means and ignoring what it says doesn't make it go away and it is rather difficult for some of us to see the problem dismissed in that fashion.

 

[Willtor]

BusterDog, you're calling people liberals while defending Newton's interpretations of Scripture. But back to this after some context.

I agree that some of the prophetic work in Scripture is predictive. I disagree that this is any of its primary purpose. You mentioned the abomination that brings desolation, but recall that the author immediately states that the reader should understand. If this is predictive of a future event, it is at least something that was recognizable to the people of that day. They were aware of an abomination that brought desolation standing where it didn't belong. The text was not written only for a distant generation. It was also written for the people then and there.

Back to the matter of non-trinitarianism, some of us consider that more wayward than arguing that the apparently predictive element of Scripture is not intended as such. Is that a "liberal" concern? Either way, I think it is the right concern. Why base what one thinks on whether one thing is called liberal or conservative by self-professed conservatives and liberals, respectively? If you are searching for the truth in Scripture, I'd say you are looking in the right place, but I would think that would make you more concerned about how Scripture is constructed, and what social and historical contexts shape its form.

Look at it this way: If you say you already know what form Scripture must take in order for it to be true, then you know more than I do about what the truth must look like before coming to Scripture in the first place. I am not so confident of my own innate abilities. Will you fault me for trying to understand? I don't know how or when or by what processes Daniel was written. Most of what is being said is news to me. But regardless of what this means regarding interpretation of the text, the ancient fathers recognized the core of the Being of God as being properly expressed within it. On that account, I believe it, and am more certain of it than I am of my own conceptions or interpretations of it.

 

[busterdog]

BusterDog, you're calling people liberals while defending Newton's interpretations of Scripture. But back to this after some context.

I agree that some of the prophetic work in Scripture is predictive. I disagree that this is any of its primary purpose. You mentioned the abomination that brings desolation, but recall that the author immediately states that the reader should understand. If this is predictive of a future event, it is at least something that was recognizable to the people of that day. They were aware of an abomination that brought desolation standing where it didn't belong. The text was not written only for a distant generation. It was also written for the people then and there.

Back to the matter of non-trinitarianism, some of us consider that more wayward than arguing that the apparently predictive element of Scripture is not intended as such. Is that a "liberal" concern? Either way, I think it is the right concern. Why base what one thinks on whether one thing is called liberal or conservative by self-professed conservatives and liberals, respectively? If you are searching for the truth in Scripture, I'd say you are looking in the right place, but I would think that would make you more concerned about how Scripture is constructed, and what social and historical contexts shape its form.

Look at it this way: If you say you already know what form Scripture must take in order for it to be true, then you know more than I do about what the truth must look like before coming to Scripture in the first place. I am not so confident of my own innate abilities. Will you fault me for trying to understand? I don't know how or when or by what processes Daniel was written. Most of what is being said is news to me. But regardless of what this means regarding interpretation of the text, the ancient fathers recognized the core of the Being of God as being properly expressed within it. On that account, I believe it, and am more certain of it than I am of my own conceptions or interpretations of it.

"Liberal" is a shorthand I use to save time. I assume we all know what that means, maybe not. I don't mean it as a derogatory term. I am referring to the idea that scripture is not to be taken literally. Now, some folks I regard as "liberal" do take scripture literally in its most essential point - the resurrection. That could be a "conservative" position, but preferably it is simply universal and I don't wish to make an issue of what is conservative and what isn't..

My concern about liberalism is the idea that something like predictive prophecy can be simply dismiss as "anachronism" or worse, as propaganda for a nation, like Israel. Again, one can be honest about the cognitive dissonance that scripture creates and yet maintain one's disciplined adherence to evolutionism and similar ideas, including recognition of the cultural background. Intellectually, however, it is lame to dismiss belief in predictive prophecy as anachronistic while avoiding the specific evidence in a thread like this.

In some ways I lightly dismiss evolution science. But, I will admit that I struggle with it on occasion as something which has had success. Speciation is an issue. It puts YECs on the intellectual defensive. That's just the way it is. I admit it.

As for the AOD, I understand the preterist argument and similar arguments. They are not without some basis in reason. But, one would be bold indeed to lean upon such an interpretation in absolute confidence. Rome would have preferred to descrate the Temple in AD 70. Because the Temple burned, it was not possible to repeat the descration of Antiochus Epiphanes. Nor has anyone claimed to be God from that venue. Meaning - Jesus made a bold and specific statement that has never been fulfilled. Now, do we dismiss such possibilities with confidence?

The predictive capacity of Scripture is not particularly helpful to me or most Christians I know. Except in a few particulars -- I know to look for Jesus. And, I know that the reputation of God is founded upon past predictions that have been fulfilled. Mostly, predictive prophecy is more helpful in the aftermath. That Daniel predicted the coming of the Messiah is one such example.

Another example:

Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Cyrus was named before he was born. In fact, "loose the loins of kings" refers to the historical situation of Belshazzar, who soiled himself during his feast in which Daniel prophesied, while the Persians prepared to take his city.

Do I know how the AOD will present himself and fulfill the scripture. Not at all. I worry about trying to figure that out along with the odd lacunae between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel. I am not flaming inquiry or doubt.

I am protesting very strongly about the back of the hand given to cognitive dissonance itself when that dissonance is demanded by Scripture. Predictive scripture stands up and screams that we don't understand. Preterism is arguable, but any sensible preterist will do what you are doing and say, this could all work out very differently than I think. (Preterism is just used for sake of example, not as a label for you.) My protest was never about getting prophecy "wrong", but rather about pretending that it doesn't challenge our belief systems with demonstrable fact.

And again, God clearly bases His reputation upon accurate prediction. Words like "anachronism" for such beliefs are shameful.

And, if one cannot be rattled by the dissonance of predictive prophecy, how can one be trusted to give something like Genesis a fair reading?

 

[busterdog]

In the Hebrew division of the OT, Daniel is not included among the prophets, but among the Writings. His work dates from after the time the rabbis assigned to the Prophets. I am sure Jesus was aware of this.

But Jesus called him a prophet on a matter of the future.

It is easy to manipulate numbers to get the answer you are looking for. I saw all too much of that among Jehovah's Witnesses, though they are far from the only onces to engage in this sort of analysis of "prophecy". The commentary on Anderson's figures shows that they can be understood differently. Among other things it mentions that

Another area in which Sir Robert's investigative work turned the lights on was in nailing down the correct royal edict which had fired the starting gun for the initiation of the Seventy Weeks prophecy.​

So, if he had chosen a different edict, he would have got a different answer.

There is historical record of the order to rebuild. I have allowed a few years of leeway for the sake of argument. If a 95% correlation is significant, this is significant.

Good mental exercise though.

]

In a way. But the more we move from academic questions to things with real impact, the exercise is less recreational.

Lots of what we do I guess is mental exercise. But there do appear to be arhythmias where we have stop and take stock. The Bible takes prophecy so seriously and literally, how do we take the Bible seriously if we don't at least acknowledge the possibility of literal fulfillment of prediction?

Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. I am just looking for a little fear. If we can decide to simply dismiss these ideas or not without fear of consequences, isn't that a real problem in communicating about the Bible?

 

[shernren]

This thread has been massively derailed.

I have no idea where you get your idea from that prophecy entails massive cognitive dissonance. When I look at what the Bible calls prophecy I simply see that:

Moses was not called "the greatest prophet in Israel" for predicting the future. He was called that for his mighty power and his awesome deeds. I'm only quoting the Bible here.

Jesus was called a prophet just like Moses not because He could predict the future but because whoever ignored His words would die. Again, I'm only quoting the Bible here.

And to complete a trifecta of examples I refer you to Jonah, whom Jesus explicitly names as a parallel to His own ministry. Jonah was a prophet. He was commanded by God to preach destruction on Nineveh, and he did after a watery interlude. Jonah's message was simple:

On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
(Jonah 3:4 NIV)

Jonah never told the people to repent, or to fast, or to do any of the things they actually did. And if you read on you realize that Jonah's prophecy never actually came true. And yet Jonah's single message on the first day of his preaching converted the entire city from king to menial beast, even though it never actually came true, and scored a stronger blow against idolatry at the heart of a pagan nation, than any of Israel's prophets had done in the thousand years God had chosen them as His people.

How come a prophecy which never even came true converted a nation? What does that tell us about the purpose of prophecy? Prophecy as simply tomorrow's news today doesn't explain that. Prophecy as God's divine appropriation of apparently contingent events, whether past, present, or future, does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Stumpjumper ---

I don't believe we've ever talked before - it's nice to meet you.

Anyway, tangents aside, why should the narrative account in Genesis be read as literal or scientific history?

For one thing, Jesus Himself interpreted the Scriptures literally.

For another, the Allegorical Method was made popular by the Alexandrian School, and, as you probably know, God placed Egypt off-limits to OT saints.

It always boiled down to [allegorical] Alexandria vs [literal] Antioch.

The Allegorical Method makes the mind of the reader the sole authority for interpretation - (either that, or a centralized body of "interpreters").

There's no room for an independent third-party verification.

What portions of the text make one believe that it is a historical account versus the Jewish spin on Babylonian creation myths in a myth of their own*?

The Bible will alert you when a passage is coming up that is to be taken figuratively.

 

[shernren]

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
(Matthew 5:27-30 NIV)

I don't see the "Warning, figurative passage ahead, don't try self-amputation at home" alert. Does anyone?

 

[gluadys]

My concern about liberalism is the idea that something like predictive prophecy can be simply dismiss as "anachronism" or worse, as propaganda for a nation, like Israel.

There are a couple of ways one can take "anachronism" here. The first, I think, is unavoidable. All interpretation of prophecy is a matter of looking first at the present and then at a text from the past and trying to see in the text a reference to the present.

And because we humans are "pattern-finders" we almost always find the reference we seek, whether or not it is the one intended. Finding today in yesterday's literature is no different really than finding it in tea leaves or horoscopes. (That is the thing that convinced me, after a couple of years study in my youth, that there is nothing substantial to astrology. It was always possible to find a predictor in any horoscope for any event.)

Just so, in different ages and circumstances, Christians have identified the Anti-Christ as the Roman Emperor, the Sultan of Turkey, the Pope, Hitler and/or Stalin (or both) and as the Secretary-General of the United Nations. And they will probably find many more apparently plausible candidates in the future.

The end-times have been calculated for almost every century since the church began, showing in how many ways the figures in Daniel and Revelation can be made amenable to practically any time-line. So it doesn't surprise me at all that someone claims to have found a correlation between Daniel and Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. But then we don't really have a fix on the latter event do we? So how can we know they have the math right? Especially when assumptions have been made about the length of the year and the beginning point of the calendar. Not to mention the assumption that the 70th week of years is to be separated from the first 69. And a final assumption--that the numerals have no numerological significance, as many numerals in apocalyptic writing do, and so may not be referring to chronology at all, but be symbols for other referents.

I can understand why you find this particular interpretation plausible. I just don't find it any more plausible than a dozen other interpretations.

We make many assumptions when we find the present in a text from the past. Maybe some of those assumptions turn out to be true. But we need to assess every claim of realized predictions very critically. Often it is nothing more than a stream-of-consciousness link.


The other way in which prediction can be anachronisitic is when it is actually written after the alleged prediction has been fulfilled. Much of the apocalyptic in Daniel seems to fall into this category. This is what gives credibility to what had not yet occurred: the end of persecution in the victory of the Lord God of Israel over the oppressor.

By today's standards, this writing in the present as if the text came from a now-deceased author, would be considered reprehensible. But, as has been noted, ancient societies had different notions about authorship, including a tradition of self-effacement in favour of honouring a mentor or hero by representing the text as coming from that person directly. (In modern times we have replaced that tradition by the one of dedicating one's work to the person to be honoured.)

Whoever wrote the book of Daniel probably thought very deeply on what Daniel would say to encourage the people of Judea in their time of trouble, were he present among them. After all, Daniel had faced persecution himself. Who better to advise the Jews as they resisted Antiochus? So he very reverently presented his apocalypse as if it did come from the mouth of Daniel himself.

We have a similar case in the Book of Deuteronomy, which appears to have been written in the time of Jeremiah, but is presented as if it were quoting Moses directly.

That Daniel predicted the coming of the Messiah is one such example.

Of course Daniel (or the author of Daniel) predicted the coming of the Messiah. That was a commonplace in apocalyptic writing. But it was Christian interpreters of Daniel who identified the predicted Messiah with Jesus of Nazareth. And it was Christian interpreters who used the numerals in Daniel to justify this identification.

If a non-Christian identifies someone else as the predicted Messiah, they will find a way to make the numerals justify that identification too. (I wonder if a Muslim scholar has done this. I expect Baha'is have, for they interpret parts of the Bible as predictions of the Bab and Baha'ullah.)

Another example:

Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Cyrus was named before he was born.

This particular verse is from deutero-Isaiah and was not written before Cyrus was born, but when his name was already known as the King of Persia who was challenging the supremacy of the Babylonian empire.

And again, God clearly bases His reputation upon accurate prediction. Words like "anachronism" for such beliefs are shameful.

I don't know to what extent this is true. Yes, scripture does say that God knows the end from the beginning and that he tells us of things before they happen. But God is notoriously silent when it comes to announcing that Event X is a fulfillment of Prediction A. So we are left with human minds trying to establish which of events X, Y or Z fulfill prediction A, and often a good case can be made for all of them. Not to mention that anachronism is unavoidable in every attempt to identify the present with a prediction from the past.

Is it God himself who is basing his reputation on accurate prediction? Or is this a claim of interpreters of scripture--especially when it comes to connecting predictions with particular historical events.

We should not forget that for much of the OT we have not only Christian but also Jewish and in some cases Muslim interpretations of various predictions and they do not agree. My conclusion is that like all interpretation, the interpretation of prophetical/apocalyptical predictions is a very human endeavour and fraught with human fallibility. Indeed it seems even more susceptible to misinterpretation than other facets of scripture.

 

[shernren]

Is it God himself who is basing his reputation on accurate prediction?

Yes but it's not the whole story:

"This is what the LORD says--
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come--
yes, let him foretell what will come.
Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
(Isaiah 44:6-8 NIV)

(emphasis added) "What has happened" is as much a part of God's claim to majesty as "what is yet to come" here. Does God expect His people to revere Him just for telling them tomorrow's news today? In our culture, with its sci-fi fantasies of time travel and grandfather paradoxes, the temporal displacement of knowledge is the most miraculous bit of it - but I don't think that's how they would have seen it. The point God makes is not that He can predict the future but that He has made all things - past, present, and future - work for the good of those whom He loves.

 

[busterdog]

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
(Matthew 5:27-30 NIV)

I don't see the "Warning, figurative passage ahead, don't try self-amputation at home" alert. Does anyone?

You also don't see hands and eyes offending anyone. It is an obvious literary device.

 

[busterdog]

Hi, Stumpjumper ---

I don't believe we've ever talked before - it's nice to meet you.



For one thing, Jesus Himself interpreted the Scriptures literally.

For another, the Allegorical Method was made popular by the Alexandrian School, and, as you probably know, God placed Egypt off-limits to OT saints.

It always boiled down to [allegorical] Alexandria vs [literal] Antioch.

The Allegorical Method makes the mind of the reader the sole authority for interpretation - (either that, or a centralized body of "interpreters").

There's no room for an independent third-party verification.



The Bible will alert you when a passage is coming up that is to be taken figuratively.

Please give a little more detail on the Alexandrian school. Very interesting.

One would think there is a way to deal with the Bible's distaste for spiritualizing and allegorizing at will. All those syncretists with astoreth and baal idols in Israel would presumptively interpreting the Law pretty liberally. That is my presumption.

Said otherwise, God sure went to a lot of trouble with scribal disciplines if all he wanted to do was preserve literary figures that could be allegorized at will.

 

[busterdog]

T
I have no idea where you get your idea from that prophecy entails massive cognitive dissonance.

Predictive prophecy does not agree with your apparent world view. I think I am correct in this that you simply don't believe there is predictive prophecy, but maybe I am wrong. That should be cognitive dissonance.

As for how nations have reacted to predictive prophecy (other than Israel, which clearly has), the Bible emphasizes that this is beside the point.

Hsa 5:15 I will go [and] return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

THat is a national recognition of predictive prophecy, to happen in the future.

2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

As for the application to the OP, I think what we are dealing with is the ability of human beings to acknowledge where there understanding is tied up in knots by the Word of God. We argue endlessly about whether the plain meaning of Genesis is about regional floods and six epochs of evolution and whether death existed prior to when the Bible says it entered.

My simple argument is that it is not about what the text says in large part. The argument is about simply overlooking where our minds become uncomfortable with Biblical statements at variance with our worldview. The prophecy discussion makes that point clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello, Busterdog --- nice to meet you!

Please give a little more detail on the Alexandrian school. Very interesting.

When the Greek schools of thought were going strong, Philo of Alexandria wanted to reconcile the writings of Moses with Greek philosophy.

Obviously a literal translation of Moses' writings had to be subordinated to another type of interpretation.

And the Allegorical Method was born --- with two major faults:

1. It does not interpret Scripture.

• ...it will be noted at once that its habit is to disregard the common signification of words and give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author's language, but foists into it whatever the whim of fancy an interpreter may desire.

2. The basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, and becomes the mind of the interpreter.

• Interpretation then is subject to the doctrinal position of the interpreter, the views of the church to which he belongs, his educational background and upbringing, etc.

Info taken from Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost.

 

[artybloke]

When the Greek schools of thought were going strong, Philo of Alexandria wanted to reconcile the writings of Moses with Greek philosophy.

Unlike literalists, of course, who are far too busy mixing up Christianity with Logical Positivism & Scientific Materialism.