Evolution vs. The Bible

[gluadys]

Okay, so please defend this assertion. I'll be curious what verses you'll provide.

Online Etymology Dictionary


So, unless the biblical authors wrote post-1630 AD, they did not view planets as being earth-like or include the earth in any list of planets.

 

[miamited]

Online Etymology Dictionary


So, unless the biblical authors wrote post-1630 AD, they did not view planets as being earth-like or include the earth in any list of planets.

Hi Glaudys,

You reference the 'biblical authors' and this points out one of the great mysteries of God. There are two schools of thought regarding the authorship of the Scriptures. One says the authors are men and the other says the author was God.

I would absolutely agree with you if I were in the 'authors are men' camp. After all man can only know what man knows at the time of such authorship. However, since I am of the second camp, I believe the author had all knowledge of all things.

The writings of Daniel give us a perfect example of this. Daniel writes of a prophecy that he obviously has no knowledge of, and yet it turns out to come about just as Daniel's writings tell us that it did. So, the question is: Was Daniel's writing based on his limited knowledge of what he knew at the time that he lived, or was Daniel's writing based on the knowledge of someone else? Someone who did know that a time would come 100 years in the future that a decree would be issued and that after a specific passing of time, from the issuance of that decree that Daniel had no knowledge of the day in which it would be issued, that the Messiah would be here.

So, who is really the 'author' of the writings that we find in the Scriptures? If one chooses to believe that the 'author' is the Holy Spirit of God, as Paul seems to allude to, then man's limited knowledge at any point in historical time really isn't of any value in determining the truth of the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Achillies wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

But that's exactly the point - they look like they normally do, only faster. And that's exaclty what Rev doesn't say. It says they "fell to earth", not "some looked like they flew up, some looked like fell down, and others went across the sky".

It's talking about the point of view of an observer watching the stars on the night side of the earth. The earth falls off of its axis and the observer watches the stars appear to fall to the horizon (the ground).
​

​

Do you not understand what the sky would look like if the earth started rotating on a different axis? Do you not understand that just as many stars would appear to the rising as setting?

Originally Posted by Papias

No, it can't. That's called a metaphor, a figure of speech, or a simile. Saying what something looks like, using literal speech, includes words like "it looks like.....".

Ah. So when Moses made those cherubim for the ark, did he make literal cherubim or golden representations of cherubim...?

An object made of another substance is still that object. For instance, when my child picks up his matchbox car, it's still a type of car. Thus, Moses did literally make cherubim - they were small golden cherubim.

Originally Posted by Papias

Um, no. I posted the definition up above (as did gluadys). You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own definitions.
​

Well let's see:

Literal | Define Literal at Dictionary.com

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.

3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual:a literal description of conditions.

4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.

5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.
​

Aha! What's this I see in #3 above?! A literal description of conditions!?! And that would be what sunrise, sunset, the waters turning into blood, and so on, wouldn't it?

Achilles, a "Literal description" is saying what it actually is. That's why it says "literal description" instead of "describing the appearance of. Hence, the waters would have to be blood, not just look like blood, and Jesus would have to have risen from the dead,not just "looked like" he rose from the dead.

Originally Posted by Papias

And your own source points out that the Old Testament itself is not in chronological order, so I hope you don't dismiss the Old Testament because it's not in chronological order.

Right, and it indicates itself as such.

Of course it does - that's how we can tell it is out of order. If it didn't, it would usually be impossible to tell it was - so your objection is circular.


I hope you don't consider the allegorical parts of the Old Testament to be a "dishonest allegory" because they don't match reality.

As I said before:

A "dishonest allegory"? All allegories are not literally correct. That's why they are allegories. They certainly don't have "an exact literal depiction in reality" - that's "literal text".

It sounds like you have switched "allegory" and "literal" in your mind, since you are describing allegories as being literal depictions, and literal text as being only "what something looks like", such as a literal "river of blood" just "looking like" blood, but not actually being blood.

Originally Posted by Papias

What part of "can't tell the simple truth" do you not understand? You asked for instances where other creationists say AIG is lying, I gave some. Case closed.

If you'd like to discuss the details of the AIG lie, we can, but first, you can see that your request for sources where other creationists say AIG is lying is satisfied, and I hope you can acknowledge that.

I don't consider the article an instance of AiG lying, but rather of opinion-based handwaving. There's nothing really wrong with what Ham said, in my opinion. If you think that there is then quote his statement(s) that you feel are wrong and perhaps we can discuss them.

Did you avoid reading your own posts? The point was that others have pointed out the lying, (and you asked for examples). I gave them. Whether or not they are correct is irrelevant, since you objected to my statement that others had claimed he lied. You don't understand this goalposts thing, do you?

Originally Posted by Papias

So your source doesn't support your point, and is instead consistent with parts of Genesis being poetic.

Of course there are other instances of poetry in the Bible aside from Job-Psalms! That sort of poetry is only one example. But the fact remains that the type of poetry found in Job, Psalms, and elsewhere, is nowhere found in the narratives under discussion Genesis 1-11.

Of course there are different types of poety - again, irrelevant. The upshot is that your reference (which talked about poetry in Job-Psalms) did nothing to support your point that Genesis wasn't poetry.

Originally Posted by Papias

The many ways it is are explained in many places, including Jewish, Protestant and Catholic. (Biblical Hebrew Poetry). Some of those indications of poetry include parallelism, pun (plays on words), a chiastic structure, and so on.

As I have pointed out before, these devices are used all over the Bible in books such as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and so on, which are all talking about historical narrative.

Which was never in question.

My point was that the type of poetry contained in books such as Psalms, Job, etc., is not found in the creation/flood narratives in Genesis.

Again, irrelevant.

I think we agree that parts of Genesis, Job, Exodus, Psalms, and other places have poetic verse. I think we agree that poetic verse could still describe things that actually happened, or didn't actually happen. I think we agree that historical events can be mentioned in poetic verse.

The fact is, however, numerous portions of sacred scripture are framed in poetic language, and yet are anchored in genuine history (cf. Num. 24; Psa. 148; 1 Tim. 3:16b). Yet such are acknowledged as documents that are divine in origin and authoritative in force (cf. Psa. 82:6; Jn. 10:34).]
​

Poetry is merely a literary form. On its own, it has nothing to do with history—pro or con. It may or may not reflect a historical background.
​

Right. However, when used heavily, it does sugguest that more than just a retelling of events is going on. In the case of Genesis, that's the first clue, which is then confirmed by the use of puns, clearly symbolic speech, and so on. After all, if you are going to deny the symbolic speech in Genesis, you end up denying the fall itself, a core Christian doctrine.

Dr. Oswald Allis, cofounder and longtime professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, noted:

t has been clearly shown that the dividing line between prose and poetry is not fixed and sharply defined but that elevated or impassioned prose may approximate very closely to poetry, especially that it is often marked by that basic characteristic of Hebrew poetry, balanced repetition or parallelism (1974, 109).
​

Right.

​

The scholars involved in the major translations of the Scriptures have made a conscious attempt to separate the prose portions of the biblical text from those of a more poetical nature. Obviously there is a degree of subjectivity involved in the process. In biblical prose the typeface, line by line, takes a uniform format. When the translators feel that poetic literature is in view, varying procedures are employed in the typesetting process to indicate such.

....which contradicts what you've said above about it being intermixed.
​

Originally Posted by Papias

So you are saying that the fall caused the rewiring of the Giraffe's neck, or made Sea Turtles, and whales appear, and so on? I think you are ascribing too much to the fall.

The fall could have absolutely caused some creatures to develop traits they didn't previous have. Take, for example, the serpents poisonous fangs, or the bee's poisonous sting. Remember also that animals prior to the fall were herbivores; after the fall they become carnivores.

The idea that animals before the fall were herbivores is unbiblical, nonsensical, and insults God by claiming God would make a non-functional world. If you want a good example of an idea made up by men by reading their own ideas into scripture, the idea that there were no carnivores before the fall is a great example.

Originally Posted by Papias

Guiding is not micromanaging. In fact, "Guiding" is really a poor way to describe it, as it suggests that it would go on without God, which isn't true of anything.

I see. So exactly what parts of evolution is God responsible for?

Well, all of it, of course. Just as God is responsible for everything that happens, because God is in control. When an earthquake happens, and people are killed, what part of it is God responsible for?


In Christ-

Papias

 

[Achilles6129]

Archeology would be an acceptable form of evidence to show the historicity of some parts of the bible. Two of the best cases come from the reign of Hezekiah: the inscription on the tunnel built to bring water inside the city walls as described in the book of kings was found, and also an Assyrian inscription referring to the siege of Jerusalem, (even naming Hezekiah) as described in the bible.

There are numerous examples. Here's a good source:

http://www.amazon.com/Reliability-O...words=on+the+reliability+of+the+old+testament

Fulfilled prophecy, not so much. Too subject to manipulation and interpretation.

Perhaps the prophecies that you commonly hear used are subject to ambiguity or manipulation, but there are examples in Scripture of prophecies that are very clear and could not possibly have been written after the fact. Here are a few examples:

"13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men." Rev. 13:13 (NASB)

This is an excellent example. "Fire from heaven" is something that is only possible with modern technology. This prophecy can be literally fulfilled by nuclear weapons, napalm, or just ordinary bombs. The fact that John wrote this over 1900 years ago is obviously proof it couldn't have been retroactively inserted into Scripture. Here's another:

"8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which [f]mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead [g]bodies for three and a half days, and [h]will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth." Rev. 11:8-10 (NASB)

This particular passage says tha tthsoe who dwell on the earth will rejoice over the death of the two witnesses, which happens in Jerusalem. "Those who dwell on the earth" in the book of Revelation is used to describe those that live on the entire planet, that is, everywhere in the world. Even if we try to claim that John was simply talking about the Roman Empire (he wasn't, but just for the sake of argument) it would still be impossible for people in Britain or North Africa (part of the Roman Empire during John's day) to rejoice over an even that happened in Jerusalem within the span of 3.5 days.

The only way this would be possible is with modern communication. As a matter of fact, interpreters of Revelation were puzzled by this passage all the way up until modern times, since there is obviously no way for everyone in the world to know about an event that happened in Jerusalem within a 3.5 day span. They concluded the passage was symbolic. It isn't.

"As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, “Teacher, behold [a]what wonderful stones and [b]what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.”" Mk. 13:1-2 (NASB)

Mark is commonly agreed to be the earliest gospel written, and in fact most scholars would agree that it was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:

https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-introduction-argument-and-outline

Most scholars hold to Markan priority and that Mark was written at the beginning of the Jewish War.

That being the case, then, this constitutes a genuine fulfilled prophecy.

"26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the [aa]Messiah will be cut off and have [ab]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." Dan. 9:26ab (NASB)

Here Daniel prophesies of Jerusalem/the temple being destroyed, which was fulfilled in 70 AD by Prince Titus and the Romans. Daniel obviously could not have written this in after the event: even the most liberal of scholars would assign a date to Daniel sometime in the 160s BC. Of course, Daniel was actually written circa 530 BC - regardless - the prophecy has clearly been fulfilled.

And finally:

"68 The Lord will bring you back to Egypt in ships, by the way about which I spoke to you, ‘You will never see it again!’ And there you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer.”" Deut. 28:68 (NASB)

Moses says that the children of Israel will return into Egypt and be sold as slaves to the Egyptians. This prophecy was written circa 1400 BC and was fulfilled when Titus sacked the city of Jerusalem and sold the Jews as slaves in Egypt:

Primary Sources - Josephus Describes The Romans' Sack Of Jerusalem | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

and as for the rest of the multitude that were above seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines.

Thus we can see clear examples in Scripture of fulfilled prophecy that could not possibly have been retroactively inserted into the text. And this proves that the Bible is true.

I don't think Jesus was telling us we could know this through the logic of science. As you see, what it actually takes is resolve to do the will of God--and that is an act of faith.

Or it could be considered a scientific experiment. If you do what I'm telling you to do, you'll know whether this is true or a lie (I'll prove it to you). There can be no doubt Christ offers experiential knowledge - and, as such, it is possible to know for a fact whether or not the Bible is true.

There is a certain school of thought which engages in what I call anachronistic interpretation, re-interpreting texts of scripture in ways that would be unintelligible to their own authors to make them correlate to modern science. One current favourite is to take the scriptural phrase "spreading the heavens" to refer to the expansion of the universe, unknown to humanity until the 20th century. Ridiculous correlation of ancient texts to modern science.

But again, if the Bible was written by God, then we would expect God to know things that ancient authors could never have known.

So, yes, I believe God divinely inspired the bible, and that in communicating with the human authors, rather than force-feed them a course in science to be, he accommodated his message to the pre-scientific conceptions of the day.

I guess he didn't concern himself with us then.

Just something to think about: the book of Revelation prophesies of events far in the future. That is a perfect example of God telling an ancient author about events that people in his time would have no way of knowing about otherwise.

Christians have long recognized that God stoops to where people are. This is the spirit of the Incarnation. It is also a concept used by Augustine in his teaching on creation. In God's sight we are all little children who need to be spoken to simply in vocabulary we can understand. So he accommodates his inspired message to that level of comprehension.

God could have easily described evolution in the Bible in words that could clearly be understood. He did not.

 

[Achilles6129]

Well, for one, that's not the entire world, that's just the earth where humans dwell. Human's don't dwell in the heavens or the sea, they are limited to the earth (land). Earth here absolutely has to be referring to the land where all humans dwell.

Hi Calminian,

You're correct. But the land is all over the earth (!). So if he's describing all of the land, then he's really describing the entire planet as well. Same works for Genesis 1:1.

I would just ask you, though, why wouldn't these work with earth being a simple concept of land?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the land, and the land was initially unformed and unfilled.

And I saw in the future, there was a new heaven and new land, for the old ones passed away, but this time there is no sea.
​

I firmly believe this is what was in John's mind, as he would have been very familiar with the way Moses described the 3 fold universe—heaven, earth, sea.

And this is no way means the were embracing a false cosmology. It's a very logical way to describe the world.

Very well - I suppose you could read it that way. But I don't think it really matters because the land is really all over the entire planet. So the two statements would really be synonymous.

If you're describing the earth's entire landmass then you obviously know what a planet is, since the landmass is all over the entire planet.

 

[Achilles6129]

Do you not understand what the sky would look like if the earth started rotating on a different axis? Do you not understand that just as many stars would appear to the rising as setting?

You're correct: but John has only described one aspect of what it would look like if the earth fell off of its axis. Indeed it would look like the stars were falling to the ground (horizon).

An object made of another substance is still that object. For instance, when my child picks up his matchbox car, it's still a type of car. Thus, Moses did literally make cherubim - they were small golden cherubim.

The point is that one can do silly things with an overly literal interpretation of the text - the type you were applying in your posts.

Achilles, a "Literal description" is saying what it actually is. That's why it says "literal description" instead of "describing the appearance of. Hence, the waters would have to be blood, not just look like blood, and Jesus would have to have risen from the dead,not just "looked like" he rose from the dead.

No, Papias, a "literal description" can be what something actually is or what something actually looks like. We're just going to have to disagree on this one.

It sounds like you have switched "allegory" and "literal" in your mind, since you are describing allegories as being literal depictions,

The point is simple: allegories have to match reality (like Revelation 13, for example) or they're just dishonest. Please show me where Genesis allegorizes evolution.

Did you avoid reading your own posts? The point was that others have pointed out the lying, (and you asked for examples). I gave them. Whether or not they are correct is irrelevant, since you objected to my statement that others had claimed he lied. You don't understand this goalposts thing, do you?

I'm sorry, I didn't find any examples of AiG lying in the posts you cited, as I pointed out before. I found some examples of them (and their detractors) stating opinions, but no deliberate distortions of fact.

Of course there are different types of poety - again, irrelevant. The upshot is that your reference (which talked about poetry in Job-Psalms) did nothing to support your point that Genesis wasn't poetry.

If it is poetry, it's certainly not the same type as described in Job/Psalms, and it's also nothing that could really be differentiated from other parts of Scripture, since many parts of Scripture contain chiasm, parallelism, puns, alliteration, and other highly polished literary devices.

The idea that animals before the fall were herbivores is unbiblical, nonsensical, and insults God by claiming God would make a non-functional world. If you want a good example of an idea made up by men by reading their own ideas into scripture, the idea that there were no carnivores before the fall is a great example.

OK, so show me how I'm making things up here:

"29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so." Gen. 1:29-30 (NASB)

God permits every animal to eat vegetation and also permits Adam/Eve to eat vegetation. You will notice he only allows carnivory for man here:

"3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." Gen. 9:3 (NASB)

This passage indicates that carnivory was not a part of God's original plan for mankind (since he is only permitting it after the Flood). Hence, it also indicates that the statement about the animals' food (Gen. 1:30) is the exact same: carnivory is not a part of the original plan.

Obviously after the fall alot of things changed in the animal kingdom. Originally, it could all function with animals as strictly herbivores. The fall caused animals to change drastically.

 

[mark kennedy]

If it is poetry, it's certainly not the same type as described in Job/Psalms, and it's also nothing that could really be differentiated from other parts of Scripture, since many parts of Scripture contain chiasm, parallelism, puns, alliteration, and other highly polished literary devices.

I don't get that at all but they all do it, it's like once they categorize it poetic it's not supposed to be taken literally anymore. Genesis 1 uses a parallelism for the creation of man emphasizing God's creation through the use of a triple parallelism. Even if you see something poetic in there, the charge of the light brigade was poetic, it was also an actual battle.

 

[gluadys]

Hi Glaudys,

You reference the 'biblical authors' and this points out one of the great mysteries of God. There are two schools of thought regarding the authorship of the Scriptures. One says the authors are men and the other says the author was God.

According to the Muslims, God was the author of the Qu'ran. According to their belief, the Qu'ran existed eternally, being dictated by God before creation. God entrusted it to the Angel Gabriel who dictated it to Mohammed. (He was illiterate and could not read it himself.) His followers wrote down what he said, and now a book of which God is the author exists among humanity.


According to the bible itself, it was written by human authors. Almost all the books have names attached to them: names of people to whom the books were attributed. Sometimes, those are even the actual authors. Jeremiah dictated part of his prophecy to his secretary Baruch. Paul dictated most of his letters. Luke wrote his gospel after researching his data. John wrote down his vision on Patmos.

According to the bible itself (specifically Peter), prophecy came as holy men of God were moved (inspired) by the Holy Spirit.

Inspiration is not dictation.

So there ought not to be two schools of thought about the plurality of the authors of scripture. There were many human authors and they were really authors. Inspired authors to be sure: but authors not stenographers.

It is inspiration that is the mystery, not authorship.

 

[gluadys]

I don't get that at all but they all do it, it's like once they categorize it poetic it's not supposed to be taken literally anymore.

Right. This is a typical failing of creationists--to equate poetry with figurative meaning and prose with literal meaning. Then they take the existence of a prose narrative as evidence the narrative is historical.


No such correlation exists in literature. Both prose and poetry can have figurative meanings; both prose and poetry can have literal meanings. And both can occur in the same passage--even in the same sentence.

Even if you see something poetic in there, the charge of the light brigade was poetic, it was also an actual battle.

Precisely. A good example of history recounted in poetry. This is why the fearfulness of acknowledging the poetic nature of Genesis 1 is misplaced. It can be poetic and still be history. It can be poetic and still be interpreted literally.

I don't agree that it should be interpreted as literal history, but I do agree that the presence of poetic elements doesn't make a case against that.

 

[gluadys]

Perhaps the prophecies that you commonly hear used are subject to ambiguity or manipulation, but there are examples in Scripture of prophecies that are very clear and could not possibly have been written after the fact. Here are a few examples:

And your examples prove my point. In every case you (or someone) takes the prophecy and interprets that a later event fulfills it. That, of course, is necessary, for any claim that prophecy is fulfilled must interpret the event to be the fulfillment. The New Testament writers, even Jesus himself, did this. (Luke 24:27) The connection between the prophecy and the event is never obvious. Someone reasons their way toward it. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong. But the very fact of the necessity of interpretation means there can also be disagreement and doubt about the interpretation. So, even when we fully believe a prophecy has been fulfilled, it comes down to trusting a particular interpretation of the prophecy. We have nothing to back up that trust but faith; nothing to counter a different interpretation except fallible human reasoning.

Personally, I expect that John was more likely to be referring to something like Elijah calling fire from heaven than to any modern technology. Furthermore, someone could hold that no modern technology actually calls fire down from heaven, so that use of technology would not count anyway. And likewise, the prophecy refers to a certain individual. The existence of technology per se doesn't count as a fulfillment until that person performs that action--and I know of no one who has done that yet.

The death of the two witnesses again is not a fulfilled prophecy since it has not yet happened. Nor does modern technology need to be in place since the prophecy does not say that all people from other nations will look at the bodies. It would be sufficient for visitors to Jerusalem to do so. Much as at Pentecost people from every nation were there listening to the apostles and hearing them speak in their own native tongue. (Acts 2:5)

I won't bother going through them all. Prophecies of the anti-Christ get attached to every villain that comes along--beginning with Caesar in the days of persecution and going on through the Turks and the Pope and the Communists & so on.

Every prophecy can be "fulfilled" in many different ways, and what one person takes as fulfillment others don't but point to something else. For that matter, there is not even agreement on what is and what is not prophecy. Lots of subjectivity in the whole field and nothing to settle disputes about it.

Furthermore, every religion has prophecies. If we take these as proof the bible is true, must we not also take the fulfilled prophecies of other faiths as proof that they are true?

Or it could be considered a scientific experiment. If you do what I'm telling you to do, you'll know whether this is true or a lie (I'll prove it to you). There can be no doubt Christ offers experiential knowledge - and, as such, it is possible to know for a fact whether or not the Bible is true.

Not in terms of science as we understand it, since that would require a publicly observable event to corroborate it, and this type of experiential knowledge is internal, and not transmissible to others.

But I do agree with you that it is experiential knowledge, and in a non-scientific sense, Jesus is inviting us to carry out an experiment. But I don't think it confirms the bible per se. It confirms who Jesus is. Christian experience is another mode of knowing God, another means of grace which we can set beside reading the bible. Ever hear of the Wesleyan quadrilateral?

But again, if the Bible was written by God, then we would expect God to know things that ancient authors could never have known.

The bible never claims to have been written by God. The term in "inspired". Different matter altogether. Yes, God would know these things, but we would not expect ancient authors to know them.

I guess he didn't concern himself with us then.

God concerns himself with us now. At the appropriate time. We are secondary hearers of his revelation to our ancestors.

Just something to think about: the book of Revelation prophesies of events far in the future. That is a perfect example of God telling an ancient author about events that people in his time would have no way of knowing about otherwise.

But according to that book, these are things which "must soon take place" for which people living at the time needed to be prepared. Of course, every generation needs to be prepared, so the message of the book of Revelation has resonance for later times as well and will continue to do so as long as injustice and oppression and persecution prevail on earth.

God could have easily described evolution in the Bible in words that could clearly be understood. He did not.

Right. He didn't. God could have described bacteria and the role they play in causing disease in words that could clearly be understood too. But he did not. God could have told the biblical authors about the great continents across the sea. But he did not.

There are many, many things God could have told the ancients but he chose not to.

And actually, it is not that easy to tell people what they are not prepared to hear. Look at all the time it took simply to get across the message that God's people are not to worship graven images or any god other than God. The function of scripture is to tell people of God and God's will, of human sin and God's plan of redemption in Christ. That is a lot to absorb in and of itself and few of us have plumbed its depths. So why add a program of basically irrelevant 21st century science to it when people of that time were not as prepared as even a kindergarten child today is to hear and understand it?

 

[miamited]

According to the Muslims, God was the author of the Qu'ran. According to their belief, the Qu'ran existed eternally, being dictated by God before creation. God entrusted it to the Angel Gabriel who dictated it to Mohammed. (He was illiterate and could not read it himself.) His followers wrote down what he said, and now a book of which God is the author exists among humanity.

Yes, and if you want to believe that muslims, who deny that Jesus is the Son of God, know the truth, then you may. But, for me, my test of 'truth' regarding the things of God is: Does the person writing believe that Jesus is the Son of God sent from Him to save mankind from the penalty of their sins?

After I have answered that first question in the affirmative, then I research the work. If that first question is answered with a 'no', then I understand that if they aren't able to know even the simple truth of the Scriptures, they certainly don't understand the more difficult truths.

I also keep firmly in front of me Jesus' words that many will come to us and say, "There he is over there or over here." (loose translation) But, truly, the very first question I ask myself, before allowing that what someone else believes or teaches about the things of God, is do they understand the foundation of the Scriptures, Jesus?

According to the bible itself, it was written by human authors. Almost all the books have names attached to them: names of people to whom the books were attributed. Sometimes, those are even the actual authors. Jeremiah dictated part of his prophecy to his secretary Baruch. Paul dictated most of his letters. Luke wrote his gospel after researching his data. John wrote down his vision on Patmos.

Well, I myself do agree that God used human writers, but just as we find with the scribes of Israel, their job was to write down what was given to them to write, and not to be the authors. To me, the term 'author' denotes the originality of the work.

According to the bible itself (specifically Peter), prophecy came as holy men of God were moved (inspired) by the Holy Spirit.

Inspiration is not dictation.

That is an oft claimed 'truth', but just as you agree here in your next claim, the act of the Holy Spirit's inspiration is a mystery to us in how exactly it was carried out. I believe that, yes, there are parts of the Scriptures that do allow for the freedom of the writer to write some of his own characteristics into what he writes, but it is still the truth.

So there ought not to be two schools of thought about the plurality of the authors of scripture. There were many human authors and they were really authors. Inspired authors to be sure: but authors not stenographers.

Again, you are free to make that claim, but since neither of us were there at the time these things were written, we really can't have any real understanding of just exactly how a man sat down at some point to write down the things that were written and how he was getting the words that he wrote. John speaks of the writing of the Revelation coming to him in a vision. God actually put in his mind a picture of real events in which God controlled what he saw and John wrote it down. Daniel had an angel come to him and tell him what he knew and claimed that it was from God, and Daniel wrote it down. Both of these examples would allow that the writers were more like stenographers than authors.

It is inspiration that is the mystery, not authorship.

Yes, I would agree that God's working of 'inspiration' among men is not fully understood by us.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Achilles6129]

And your examples prove my point. In every case you (or someone) takes the prophecy and interprets that a later event fulfills it.

Well of course you interpret that a later event fulfilled it: what, exactly, are you supposed to do with prophecy? The point is that it either historically happened or it didn't. In this case it did.

Personally, I expect that John was more likely to be referring to something like Elijah calling fire from heaven than to any modern technology. Furthermore, someone could hold that no modern technology actually calls fire down from heaven, so that use of technology would not count anyway. And likewise, the prophecy refers to a certain individual.

The fact that he is referring to a false prophet here means that the individual in question is not using any sort of power of God. In addition, the text does not say that he called down fire from heaven but rather that he caused fire to come down from heaven. The point is that this is now technologically possible where it was not technologically possible for well over 1800 years.

The existence of technology per se doesn't count as a fulfillment until that person performs that action--and I know of no one who has done that yet.

It shows that such a fulfillment is possible and strongly suggests that a person back in the 1st century AD knew that technology would be at this level.

The death of the two witnesses again is not a fulfilled prophecy since it has not yet happened. Nor does modern technology need to be in place since the prophecy does not say that all people from other nations will look at the bodies. It would be sufficient for visitors to Jerusalem to do so. Much as at Pentecost people from every nation were there listening to the apostles and hearing them speak in their own native tongue. (Acts 2:5)

You're missing the point and not even reading the text! It says that everyone in the world rejoices at the death of the two witnesses within a 3.5 day timespan: this is only possible in the light of modern communication. The phrase "they that dwell upon the earth" in the book of Revelation is referring to everyone on the planet; this is shown on more than one occasion in the book:

"10 Because you have kept the word of My [g]perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of [h]testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole [i]world, to [j]test those who dwell on the earth." Rev. 3:10 (NASB)

The passage makes it clear that those who "dwell on the earth" live upon "the whole world." Also:

"10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O [a]Lord, holy and true, [b]will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”" Rev. 6:10 (NASB)

"13 Then I looked, and I heard [a]an eagle flying in midheaven, saying with a loud voice, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound!”" Rev. 8:13 (NASB)

"12 He exercises all the authority of the first beast [a]in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. " Rev. 13:12 (NASB)

"14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform [a]in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life." Rev. 13:14 (NASB)

" 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality.” " Rev. 17:2 (NASB)

"8 “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and [b]go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come." Rev. 17:8 (NASB)

So there can be absolutely no doubt that the passage in Revelation 11:10 is describing everyone in the entire world. And that means it can only be fulfilled with the advent of modern communication.

Every prophecy can be "fulfilled" in many different ways,

No, they can't. Either the children of Israel returned to Egypt and they were sold as slaves in Egypt or they weren't. There's no two ways about.

Furthermore, every religion has prophecies. If we take these as proof the bible is true, must we not also take the fulfilled prophecies of other faiths as proof that they are true?

I haven't seen any "prophecies" of other faiths that are even as remotely as clear and unambiguous as Scripture's. All the ones that I have seen are couched in riddles much like Nostradamus' "quattrains" and require a great deal of leniency and imagination to interpret a "fulfillment."

Not in terms of science as we understand it, since that would require a publicly observable event to corroborate it, and this type of experiential knowledge is internal, and not transmissible to others.

Well it would be science for the individual personally. One is able to personally prove it to oneself; I suppose you can never prove anything to anyone who just doesn't want to believe it.

But I do agree with you that it is experiential knowledge, and in a non-scientific sense, Jesus is inviting us to carry out an experiment. But I don't think it confirms the bible per se. It confirms who Jesus is.

If Christ is who he said he is then the Bible is true:

"17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." Jn. 17:17 (NASB)

Ever hear of the Wesleyan quadrilateral?

Nope.

The bible never claims to have been written by God.

"14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this in [b]a book as a memorial and [c]recite it to Joshua, [d]that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”" Ex. 17:14 (NASB)

"27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write [a]down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” " Ex. 14:27 (NASB)

"The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book." Jer. 30:1-2 (NASB)

...and many other passages.

But according to that book, these are things which "must soon take place"

Time is relative to the observer. From a heavenly point of view the things were soon to come.

Right. He didn't. God could have described bacteria and the role they play in causing disease in words that could clearly be understood too. But he did not. God could have told the biblical authors about the great continents across the sea. But he did not.

The point is that the narrative of Scripture contradicts evolution. Nothing in Scripture contradicts bacteria or continents.

 

[gluadys]

So there ought not to be two schools of thought about the plurality of the authors of scripture. There were many human authors and they were really authors. Inspired authors to be sure: but authors not stenographers.

Again, you are free to make that claim, but since neither of us were there at the time these things were written, we really can't have any real understanding of just exactly how a man sat down at some point to write down the things that were written and how he was getting the words that he wrote. John speaks of the writing of the Revelation coming to him in a vision. God actually put in his mind a picture of real events in which God controlled what he saw and John wrote it down. Daniel had an angel come to him and tell him what he knew and claimed that it was from God, and Daniel wrote it down. Both of these examples would allow that the writers were more like stenographers than authors.

It is inspiration that is the mystery, not authorship.

Yes, I would agree that God's working of 'inspiration' among men is not fully understood by us.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The basic point here is that generally the biblical authors did not make the claim Mohammed did--that he was receiving dictation from an angel. And we do not limit inspiration to the few instances in which something of the sort is noted (as in Daniel) but recognize all of scripture to be inspired.

Further, many of the authors were not cognizant of the fact that in days to come their writings would be recognized as revelation. When Paul was sending letters to the new churches, he has apparently no sense of receiving dictation, nor even of writing inspired words. To him, his letters were ordinary letters, written for the needs of the moment in Corinth or Philippi or wherever. Almost certainly he did not expect his very personal letter to Philemon to be preserved for thousands of years in a collection of holy writings.

So, even if some passages of scripture were dictated, dictation cannot be the mark of inspiration as claimed by Muslims for their holy writings--for we accept the whole bible as inspired even when it seems clear that dictation does not describe what the authors experienced.

This is why setting limits to the canon comes well after the actual writing; the people of God used what was written, and much more than is in our bibles today. They also used the letters of Clement, the gospels of Thomas and Peter and Mary and works like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. And through use they sifted out which writings can be relied on for the purposes of teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.

It is not possible to tell inspired writing from non-inspired writing simply by reading it. That is why it took hundreds of years of study and arguing to decide what belonged in the bible and what not.

 

[Achilles6129]

Further, many of the authors were not cognizant of the fact that in days to come their writings would be recognized as revelation. When Paul was sending letters to the new churches, he has apparently no sense of receiving dictation, nor even of writing inspired words. To him, his letters were ordinary letters, written for the needs of the moment in Corinth or Philippi or wherever. Almost certainly he did not expect his very personal letter to Philemon to be preserved for thousands of years in a collection of holy writings.

Hi gluadys,

Your claims are contradicted by simple fact:

"37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment." 1 Cor. 14:37 (NASB)

"15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet. 3:15-16 (NASB)

It is not possible to tell inspired writing from non-inspired writing simply by reading it. That is why it took hundreds of years of study and arguing to decide what belonged in the bible and what not.

Actually, the canon was decided fairly quickly:

The New Testament Canon

No other books outside of the 27 we now call the New Testament were ever really seriously considered for canonization. It has always been just those 27.

 

[gluadys]

Well of course you interpret that a later event fulfilled it: what, exactly, are you supposed to do with prophecy?

I agree. But that is my point. Whether the later event does or does not fulfill the prophecy depends on how one interprets the prophecy in the first place and how one links up the event to the prophecy. I am not saying every such interpretation is false. Just that it is an occasion for possible dispute. And one only perceives prophecy to be fulfilled if one trusts the interpretation.

The fact that he is referring to a false prophet here means that the individual in question is not using any sort of power of God. In addition, the text does not say that he called down fire from heaven but rather that he caused fire to come down from heaven. The point is that this is now technologically possible where it was not technologically possible for well over 1800 years.



It shows that such a fulfillment is possible and strongly suggests that a person back in the 1st century AD knew that technology would be at this level.

I just can't agree with the final statement in your interpretation at all. John already had an incident in his own people's history of fire being brought down from heaven. He knows it takes more than ordinary power, but also that it is possible. He doesn't need to know anything about future technology--nor did any of the people listening to his words from the 1st to the 20th century. They all believed it was possible, even in their own day, with the technology they knew. Most would probably assume that technology was not the point. So why does it suggest John knew anything about future technology?

Further, as I said, one could raise the objection that even now no technology actually causes fire to come down from heaven. Or that the use of technology would be a false fulfillment of the prophecy anyway.

You're missing the point and not even reading the text! It says that everyone in the world rejoices at the death of the two witnesses within a 3.5 day timespan: this is only possible in the light of modern communication.

I am reading it better than you. It says the bodies lay in the streets of Jerusalem for 3.5 days and that people from all over the world saw them. It says nothing about the rejoicing happening within the same 3.5 days. Only that people all over the world rejoiced. I take it they rejoiced whenever they heard the news--so no, modern communication is not necessary. Couriers would do fine at getting the word out. That applies to the following resurrection and earthquake as well. There is no need to attribute knowledge of future technology to John or those he was writing to.

The phrase "they that dwell upon the earth" in the book of Revelation is referring to everyone on the planet;

Of course it does.

No, they can't. Either the children of Israel returned to Egypt and they were sold as slaves in Egypt or they weren't. There's no two ways about.

Not so. First, even if they were sold as slaves in Egypt, it doesn't mean that it happened when Titus sent Jewish prisoners there to be sold. It could refer to any Jews who were sold in Egypt after fleeing to Egypt from the Babylonians in Jeremiah's time for instance. Also since "Egypt" is used as a code designation for other oppressors, the actual sale of Jewish slaves could occur elsewhere and still be considered a fulfillment of the prophecy. Finally, since slavery itself may be considered spiritually, it could also be said of any such condition of servitude--even a self-chosen one--as when we say someone has sold their soul. IOW, there are lots of possible fulfillments.

I haven't seen any "prophecies" of other faiths that are even as remotely as clear and unambiguous as Scripture's. All the ones that I have seen are couched in riddles much like Nostradamus' "quattrains" and require a great deal of leniency and imagination to interpret a "fulfillment."

Go to your nearest mosque and ask about the prophecies of the Qu'ran. I am sure they will be happy to supply you with plenty of information on how marvellous it was that their unlettered prophet recorded things that could not be understood until modern technology was invented. I'd quote from one of their pamphlets about his insights into embryology long before microscopes were developed, but I long since threw it in the recycling.

Well it would be science for the individual personally. One is able to personally prove it to oneself; I suppose you can never prove anything to anyone who just doesn't want to believe it.

Exactly. That is why science as we understand it today insists on objectively verifiable evidence. Personal experience is valuable, and I believe that it is a valid resource; but as it is not transferable, it can always be doubted by people without that experience.

If Christ is who he said he is then the Bible is true:

"17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." Jn. 17:17 (NASB)

Christ was not here speaking of the bible. Most instances in which the bible refers to the word of God it is not speaking about itself. It is referring to the creative word of God himself, by which he made the universe--the word which later confronted and inspired the prophets and finally was born in the flesh among us.

The bible is a later invention.

Nope.

http://www.theopedia.com/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

While they don't use that particular name, most denominations have a similar teaching regarding the interplay of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. The bible is important, the centrepiece of authority in any Protestant church. But it is not the only court of appeal. To understand and use the bible properly, we also need to use extra-biblical resources as well.

"14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this in [b]a book as a memorial and [c]recite it to Joshua, [d]that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”" Ex. 17:14 (NASB)

"27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write [a]down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” " Ex. 14:27 (NASB)

"The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book." Jer. 30:1-2 (NASB)

...and many other passages.

Note how specific each of these are. One thing to remember about the bible is that it is a a collection of many books from many writers written over many centuries. None of these statements apply to the bible as a whole. Or even to any passage of the bible not named in the verses above. Not even other passages in the very books these verses are taken from.

People used to make the error (perhaps some still do) that John's admonition in Revelation not to make any addition to or subtraction from his writing applied to the whole bible. But it could not, of course. It applies to what he wrote, not to what any other author wrote.

Time is relative to the observer. From a heavenly point of view the things were soon to come.

You see how easy it is to get away from a literal meaning when it suits your purpose? But John is telling living people that these things "must soon come to pass". So, it would make most sense that he is using their own perspective. Who among them would say 1 or 2 or more millennia in the future is "soon"?

The point is that the narrative of Scripture contradicts evolution.

Like all interpretations, this depends on both how you interpret the scripture and how you interpret evolution. These are both highly variable from one person to another, so there is plenty of scope for coming to the opposite conclusion.

 

[Achilles6129]

I agree. But that is my point. Whether the later event does or does not fulfill the prophecy depends on how one interprets the prophecy in the first place and how one links up the event to the prophecy. I am not saying every such interpretation is false. Just that it is an occasion for possible dispute. And one only perceives prophecy to be fulfilled if one trusts the interpretation.

Regardless, the prophecies are specific. They either happened or they did not.

I just can't agree with the final statement in your interpretation at all. John already had an incident in his own people's history of fire being brought down from heaven. He knows it takes more than ordinary power, but also that it is possible. He doesn't need to know anything about future technology--nor did any of the people listening to his words from the 1st to the 20th century. They all believed it was possible, even in their own day, with the technology they knew. Most would probably assume that technology was not the point. So why does it suggest John knew anything about future technology?

I think that most interpreters thought that the fire from heaven that the false prophet brings down is by the power of Satan. The point is that now that we have the technology for it it is absolutely possible to bring down fire from heaven. I wouldn't say that this is a "fulfilled" prophecy, only that it clearly can be fulfilled, and that no one can deny. See Wesley's Explanatory Notes for the whole "power of the devil" idea:

Revelation 13 Commentary - Wesley's Explanatory Notes

I am reading it better than you. It says the bodies lay in the streets of Jerusalem for 3.5 days and that people from all over the world saw them. It says nothing about the rejoicing happening within the same 3.5 days. Only that people all over the world rejoiced. I take it they rejoiced whenever they heard the news--so no, modern communication is not necessary. Couriers would do fine at getting the word out.

The fact is that they lie dead for 3.5 days and the entire world rejoices over them. It would be impossible for couriers to get the word out within 3.5 days to the entire world. This could only be fulfilled with modern technology.

Not so. First, even if they were sold as slaves in Egypt, it doesn't mean that it happened when Titus sent Jewish prisoners there to be sold. It could refer to any Jews who were sold in Egypt after fleeing to Egypt from the Babylonians in Jeremiah's time for instance.

The prophecy seems to imply a state of affairs that happens to the entire people. In 70 AD the Jewish nation was uprooted from their homeland and many of them went back into Egypt as slaves. But you are right, however; the text could be talking about another point in time where the Jews were sold as slaves in Egypt. Regardless, the prophecy is specific and was clearly fulfilled

Also since "Egypt" is used as a code designation for other oppressors, the actual sale of Jewish slaves could occur elsewhere and still be considered a fulfillment of the prophecy. Finally, since slavery itself may be considered spiritually, it could also be said of any such condition of servitude--even a self-chosen one--as when we say someone has sold their soul. IOW, there are lots of possible fulfillments.

No, I definitely don't agree with this. This is not the type of fulfilled Biblical prophecy that I am talking about. However, I think you will find these sorts of "fulfillments" all over Nostradamus and other world religions.

Go to your nearest mosque and ask about the prophecies of the Qu'ran. I am sure they will be happy to supply you with plenty of information on how marvellous it was that their unlettered prophet recorded things that could not be understood until modern technology was invented. I'd quote from one of their pamphlets about his insights into embryology long before microscopes were developed, but I long since threw it in the recycling.

Not interested unless you have something specific and umambiguous, like the prophecies I listed above. "Prophecies of the Qur'an" tend to be like your paragraph above where you said Egypt was a symbol and slavery could be symbolic as well.

Exactly. That is why science as we understand it today insists on objectively verifiable evidence. Personal experience is valuable, and I believe that it is a valid resource; but as it is not transferable, it can always be doubted by people without that experience.

The personal experience being spoken of in Scripture is objectively verifiable evidence! The same is true of science: you can't really take Einstein's general theory of relativity as true unless you've experienced it for yourself. But the point is that you can experience it for yourself. So any fact or truth (such as that the Pacific Ocean exists, etc.) cannot really be verified unless you experience it for yourself. Same kind of verification that Scripture is talking about.

Christ was not here speaking of the bible. Most instances in which the bible refers to the word of God it is not speaking about itself. It is referring to the creative word of God himself, by which he made the universe--the word which later confronted and inspired the prophets and finally was born in the flesh among us.

No, he was talking about the words of God contained in what we now call the Bible.

The bible is important, the centrepiece of authority in any Protestant church. But it is not the only court of appeal. To understand and use the bible properly, we also need to use extra-biblical resources as well.

I definitely don't agree with this. The Bible itself is sufficient and, as the word of God, trumps any other evidence. It is the ultimate evidence, because it was inspired by the Creator himself. You might also want to read this from that link that you cited:

http://www.theopedia.com/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

However, misuse of the methodology is already manifest in many quarters on many issues:

• It has been used to endorse same sex marriage

It has been used to endorse the role of women elders and pastors

Note how specific each of these are. One thing to remember about the bible is that it is a a collection of many books from many writers written over many centuries. None of these statements apply to the bible as a whole. Or even to any passage of the bible not named in the verses above. Not even other passages in the very books these verses are taken from.

The Bible says over and over again it is the written word of God:

https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-written-word-god

In hundreds of passages, the Bible declares or takes the position explicitly or implicitly that it is nothing less than the very Word of God.
Some thirty-eight hundred times the Bible declares, “God said,” or “Thus says the Lord” (e.g. Ex. 14:1; 20:1; Lev. 4:1; Num. 4:1; Deut. 4:2; 32:48; Isa. 1:10, 24; Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3; etc.). Paul also recognized that the things he was writing were the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37), and they were acknowledged as such by the believers (1 Thess. 2:13). Peter proclaimed the certainty of the Scriptures and the necessity of heeding the unalterable and certain Word of God (2 Pet. 1:16-21). John too recognized that his teaching was from God; to reject his teaching was to reject God (1 John 4:6).17

You see how easy it is to get away from a literal meaning when it suits your purpose? But John is telling living people that these things "must soon come to pass". So, it would make most sense that he is using their own perspective. Who among them would say 1 or 2 or more millennia in the future is "soon"?

I'm not getting carried away from a literal meaning at all:

" But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Pet. 3:8-9 (NIV)

"6 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. 7 I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty. " Hag. 2:6-7 (NIV)

"Let the nations be roused;
let them advance into the Valley of Jehoshaphat,
for there I will sit
to judge all the nations on every side.
13 Swing the sickle,
for the harvest is ripe.
Come, trample the grapes,
for the winepress is full
and the vats overflow—
so great is their wickedness!”
14 Multitudes, multitudes
in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near
in the valley of decision.
15 The sun and moon will be darkened,
and the stars no longer shine.
16 The Lord will roar from Zion
and thunder from Jerusalem;
the earth and the heavens will tremble.
But the Lord will be a refuge for his people,
a stronghold for the people of Israel." Joel 3:12-16 (NIV)


All of the above references are referring to the eschatological "day of the LORD": you will notice that each of them says that it is soon to come. It is soon to come by heaven's timepiece, as the Apostle Peter said in 2 Pet. 3.

 

[miamited]

Hi glaudys,

I'm guessing you've been studying up on Islam, and I suppose that might be of value, but...


You seem to regularly point out that there must be some problem with how one defines, understands, interprets Christianity because there are similar definitions, understandings, interpretations found in Islam. I don't think that to be a logically true argument. Mohammed may claim that what he wrote, or what was written for and about him, was taken down in some sort of dictation. Now, whether or not that claim is true depends on whether or not that claim is true. Likewise, a christian might believe that some of the Scriptures were handed down similar to how one might take dictation. Whether or not that claim is true depends on whether or not that claim is true. The fact that the Islamic claim, we believers in Jesus know, is not true does not, therefore, mean that because that claim is made of Islam and is not true, then the same claim made of Christianity is not true. It may very well be true of the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures and not true of the Islamic Scriptures, even though it is the same claim.

you wrote:

Go to your nearest mosque and ask about the prophecies of the Qu'ran. I am sure they will be happy to supply you with plenty of information on how marvellous it was that their unlettered prophet recorded things that could not be understood until modern technology was invented. I'd quote from one of their pamphlets about his insights into embryology long before microscopes were developed, but I long since threw it in the recycling.

Similarly, I don't understand the logical truth that because the Quran contains prophecies that the 'unlettered prophet recorded', that there would be any correlation that one might make as regards the Hebrew prophecies. As I say, your arguments seem a bit lacking in relativity to the Hebrew Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Regardless, the prophecies are specific. They either happened or they did not.

When prophecies are capable of many types of fulfillment, they are not specific enough to tell us when they have been fulfilled. So they don't tell us much about history. Past or future.

I think that most interpreters thought that the fire from heaven that the false prophet brings down is by the power of Satan.

Exactly. Which Satan could do without technology at all. So John doesn't need to know anything about future technology. Technology is irrelevant.

The point is that now that we have the technology for it it is absolutely possible to bring down fire from heaven.

But given that technology is irrelevant, why is this a point? To whom is it a point? Why does it matter?

The fact is that they lie dead for 3.5 days and the entire world rejoices over them. It would be impossible for couriers to get the word out within 3.5 days to the entire world. This could only be fulfilled with modern technology.

Again you are applying the 3.5 days to two things, when the text only applies it to one. Nothing says all the rejoicing has to occur within the same 3.5 days.

And again, why is technology relevant? For whom is this a point?

The prophecy seems to imply a state of affairs that happens to the entire people. In 70 AD the Jewish nation was uprooted from their homeland and many of them went back into Egypt as slaves. But you are right, however; the text could be talking about another point in time where the Jews were sold as slaves in Egypt. Regardless, the prophecy is specific and was clearly fulfilled

Even under the Romans, the whole nation was never returned to Egypt or even enslaved. One might say the exile and dispersion through the Roman Empire fulfilled the prophecy with "Egypt" being code for "Rome" and even those who were not legally enslaved considered to have been sold into the slavery of exile.

No, I definitely don't agree with this. This is not the type of fulfilled Biblical prophecy that I am talking about.

Obviously not. But others hold to other ideas. Nothing says the sort of fulfilled prophecy you are talking about is the only legitimate way to speak of fulfilled prophecy.

The personal experience being spoken of in Scripture is objectively verifiable evidence!

To the person who has the experience, no doubt. But that is not objective. To be objectively verifiable, it would have to be the sort of experience another person could test and validate in a measurable way.

The same is true of science: you can't really take Einstein's general theory of relativity as true unless you've experienced it for yourself.

On the contrary. Einstein's theory of relativity is written out in mathematics which any competent mathematician can verify without having Einstein's experience. Further it has testable consequences which can be objectively verified. Any astronomer can point his telescope to the location of Mercury as predicted by Einsteins' calculations and determine whether Mercury is there or not, even if he has no understanding of the theory. And again, the theory led to the hypothesis that one could derive energy from atoms and that this energy would allow for the production of atomic bombs. So the existence of atomic bombs and the consequences for Hiroshima and Nagasaki are completely verifiable evidence for Einstein's theory even for those who have no hope of understanding his mathematics and replicating his experience.

But the point is that you can experience it for yourself. So any fact or truth (such as that the Pacific Ocean exists, etc.) cannot really be verified unless you experience it for yourself.

You think I have to actually stand in the Pacific Ocean to be sure it exists? Don't be utterly silly.

On that basis there is no ground for me to believe a single word the scripture says.

No, he was talking about the words of God contained in what we now call the Bible.

No, he was speaking of the word of God, a very different thing than words. While there are exceptions (you have cited a few) scripture normally speaks of the word of God in the singular, and this is usually a signal that the reference is not to anything dictated. Rather it is a reference to a more mystical concept: the eternal Word who is a person of the Trinity, the repository of the Wisdom of God, the agent of God's creativity.

The bible is a book of words which speak to us of the Word.

I definitely don't agree with this. The Bible itself is sufficient and, as the word of God, trumps any other evidence.

Nonsense. Truth cannot trump truth, as all truth comes from the same source: God himself. It was made by God, made by the Word of God, revealed by the Word of God and whether it comes to us in words, in rocks, in personal experience, in solid teaching going back to the apostles who knew the Word in the flesh it is all of equal standing. Evidence that comes from God cannot be trumped.

"Sufficiency" as applied to scripture, is a concept developed by John Calvin and it has a specific meaning. By this term, Calvin meant that a person who read the bible would have sufficient information to be saved and to live a moral life without the assistance of priests or dogmas created by the Church that had no grounding in scripture (e.g. the dogmas about purgatory or about Mary & the saints promoted in the Catholic church). Nor did a person need to be absolved of their sins by priestly sacramental rituals. All these things which the Church of Rome was teaching were necessary to salvation, Calvin said were not. Everything a person needed to know to be saved could be found in scripture.

IOW, what Calvin meant by "sufficiency" is that the Bible contained the minimum a person needed to know to be saved. If a person knew only what was in the bible, it was still possible for them to be saved without any additional knowledge whatsoever.

At the same time, Calvin encouraged people to acquire additional knowledge. A scholar himself, he encouraged scholarship in all fields and never claimed the bible was a repository of all knowledge.

Recently, some people have begun turning this inside out, and taking "sufficiency" to mean just that: the the bible is a repository of all knowledge about everything and we should not even look outside scripture at all no matter what field of knowledge we are discussing. They are taking "sufficiency" not to mean (as it obviously does) "enough" but "all" and then writing off every other source of information as worthless.

Calvin must be turning over in his grave at this distortion of his teaching.

It is the ultimate evidence, because it was inspired by the Creator himself.

All evidence from the Creator is ultimate evidence, even the DNA of a butterfly.

I'm not getting carried away from a literal meaning at all:

Sure you are. The common, literal meaning of "soon" is the human meaning. So when time passed and Jesus did not return to bring in the kingdom within the framework of that common meaning, Peter reminds us that sometimes, we need to think about a heavenly meaning instead. Now we have passed two millennia since Paul preached that Jesus would return "soon" and we so we must take Peter's message to heart: that "soon" in an eschatological framework does not have its ordinary literal meaning. Heaven's time, not being human time, it cannot be literally "soon" in the same way you tell a friend "I'll be there soon."

 

[gluadys]

Hi glaudys,

I'm guessing you've been studying up on Islam, and I suppose that might be of value, but...


You seem to regularly point out that there must be some problem with how one defines, understands, interprets Christianity because there are similar definitions, understandings, interpretations found in Islam.

No, I am not implying a problem with Christianity, but rather with some types of apologetics. I am concerned with what I see as forms of Muslim apologetics creeping into Christianity. And to my mind this is dangerous, because it steers the focus of Christianity away from Christ and toward the bible.

When I was a teenager studying for confirmation, the text we were using made what I always recall as a significant difference between Christian and Muslim concepts of the Word of God. In Islam, the Word of God is a book; in Christianity the Word of God is a person. In Islam, a prophet points to a book and says "This is the Word of God of which I am the messenger. Read and obey." In Christianity a book points to a person and says "There is the Word of God Incarnate. Follow him."

Martin Luther said the bible is "the cradle of Christ" and he went on to say that writing that pointed to Christ was inspired scripture even if penned by the devil and a writing that did not point to Christ was not, even if penned by an apostle. A bit extreme perhaps (Luther often was) but it points both the the necessary focus on Christ and to the importance of scripture in leading us to Christ.

Theologically, it is Christ who is the Word of God to Christians and the bible is a collection of inspired words which point to that Word.

When we start using the apologetic style of a similar faith which identifies the Word, not with the person of Christ, but with the contents of a book said to be dictated by God, I think we are treading into dangerous territory. Instead of the book leading us to Christ, it starts to get in the way and to be treated as if it was the primary Word, when it is not. The bible is essential in Christian faith and practice, but it is not Christ and it is not equal to Christ. It is "word of God" only insofar as it participates in Christ. Like the light of the moon which is not of itself, but borrowed from the sun, the light of scripture is not its own but comes from Christ and that is a relationship we must always respect.

I don't think that to be a logically true argument. Mohammed may claim that what he wrote, or what was written for and about him, was taken down in some sort of dictation. Now, whether or not that claim is true depends on whether or not that claim is true. Likewise, a christian might believe that some of the Scriptures were handed down similar to how one might take dictation. Whether or not that claim is true depends on whether or not that claim is true. The fact that the Islamic claim, we believers in Jesus know, is not true does not, therefore, mean that because that claim is made of Islam and is not true, then the same claim made of Christianity is not true. It may very well be true of the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures and not true of the Islamic Scriptures, even though it is the same claim.

You are quite right, but here is the point you are missing. In Islam, the Qu'ran is the Word of God because it was dictated by God. (So they believe). Dictation by God is what makes it the Word of God.

But although some parts of the Bible may have been directly dictated, it seems most of it was not. So even in the case of passages that were dictated, it is not dictation per se that makes the bible the word of God. In the case of the bible it is inspiration--with or without dictation--that is the ground of its authority. So the bible does not rest its case to be the word of the Word on dictation, but on inspiration.

you wrote:

Go to your nearest mosque and ask about the prophecies of the Qu'ran. I am sure they will be happy to supply you with plenty of information on how marvellous it was that their unlettered prophet recorded things that could not be understood until modern technology was invented. I'd quote from one of their pamphlets about his insights into embryology long before microscopes were developed, but I long since threw it in the recycling.

Similarly, I don't understand the logical truth that because the Quran contains prophecies that the 'unlettered prophet recorded', that there would be any correlation that one might make as regards the Hebrew prophecies. As I say, your arguments seem a bit lacking in relativity to the Hebrew Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Again, it is less the specific contents of such prophecies and their alleged fulfillments that concern me as the apologetic style which is borrowing from the techniques and arguments of Islam and leading toward an Islamic style of Christianity that bothers me.

 

[miamited]

You are quite right, but here is the point you are missing. In Islam, the Qu'ran is the Word of God because it was dictated by God. (So they believe). Dictation by God is what makes it the Word of God.

Yes, but christians don't deny the Quran because it is claimed to be dictated by God. We deny the Quran because it points one away from Jesus as the only mediator between man and God and as the only sacrifice for sin that is suitable to God.

I can believe that there are parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that were handed down to godly men as we might think of dictation and still claim that the Quran is corrupt, not because it is told to me to be some writings dictated to men, but because it doesn't lead one to Jesus. Personally, I don't have a clue really how most of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures came to write what they wrote, I just know that it leads one to Jesus and the salvation for men that is afforded through his shed blood. Whether some of the writing was given as some sort of dictation process or visionary process or just God's Spirit prodding the mind of the one who was writing, I don't have a clue.

I rather envision that Moses spent 40 days and nights with the Lord on Mt. Horeb and in all of that time God spoke to him the things that he was to write down. Then, after Moses descended the mountain, the Holy Spirit prompted him to remember the things that God had told him. This is also found in the new covenant writings when Jesus spoke to the disciples and told them not to worry when they were called before kings and rulers. He encouraged then that the Holy Spirit would 'give them the words to speak'. Now, one can look at that as a type of dictation. As one of them was standing before such a man, the Holy Spirit was, in some manner telling the spirit of that man, "Say this to him..."

So, ultimately I don't know how the Scriptures came to be given to the minds of men. Did they literally hear a voice speaking to them in some instances? And did they then write the things that they heard the voice saying to them?

You see, I believe what Paul wrote. In the days before Jesus God spoke to men through His prophets. We don't have that happening today, because as Paul said, "...but now he speaks to us through His Son." I believe that God dealt differently with the ones that He called to be His prophets in the days of the old covenant. He did literally speak to them in a voice that they heard. There are hundreds of places in the old covenant writings where someone writes, "And God spoke to....". I don't think this 'speaking' is the same as what we experience today as a conscience, for lack of a better word, or prodding of the Spirit. I believe that God literally spoke to Adam and to Noah, Abraham and to Moses, Elijah and to David.

But although some parts of the Bible may have been directly dictated, it seems most of it was not. So even in the case of passages that were dictated, it is not dictation per se that makes the bible the word of God. In the case of the bible it is inspiration--with or without dictation--that is the ground of its authority. So the bible does not rest its case to be the word of the Word on dictation, but on inspiration.

I agree with that and I have repeatedly agreed that it certainly seems also to me that only parts of the Hebrew Scriptures seem to have been handed down as some sort of dictation process. Now, if someone chooses to put the Hebrew Scriptures along with the writings of the Quran because someone told them that they each contained some seemingly dictated passages, then yes, they are focusing on the wrong issue of the purpose for which God gave us the Hebrew Scriptures.

Again, it is less the specific contents of such prophecies and their alleged fulfillments that concern me as the apologetic style which is borrowing from the techniques and arguments of Islam and leading toward an Islamic style of Christianity that bothers me.

Since Islam is a newer religion than Christianity, I would counter that Islam, as Satan is gleeful to do, has tried to get those writings to conform to the true Scriptures by making them 'appear' to be the same style and type of writings. He has encouraged the practitioners of Islam to make that similar claim because that brings into question in the minds of the weak, confusion. As it does seem to be doing even in this discussion.

The Hebrew Scriptures are the true words of God. How they came to be written by men, beyond just understanding that the Holy Spirit did it, is outside of my realm of understanding. But, when I read that a man wrote a prophecy setting the times of an event, and that the understanding of the time is based on something that hasn't even happened yet, and won't for another hundred years, I can certainly understand how what that man wrote was told to him word for word by an angel or in a vision and he wrote it down much similar to how we understand dictation. In fact, there are several places in the Scriptures where God literally says, "Write these things down..." Just as an employer might call in his secretary and have her sit with a pad on her knee and tell her, "Write these things down..."

Let me also say that there is a group of christians who believe that we just aren't telling the story right, or there's a better way to say things. Friend, Jesus was the Son of the living God. According to him everything he said was given to him be the Father to say. If God, hasn't been able to figure out how to tell of Himself to men that right way, then I don't hold out much hope that you or I or anyone else will. I think it is fairly apparent that Jesus walked throughout Israel for some three years preaching the truth, using the very words of God, but in the end, few believed him. So, the question must be asked, "Did Jesus not tell the story well or rightly? Or is man's heart overly willing to cast such truths aside no matter who or what someone says to them?" Personally, I believe the latter. I don't think it's really an issue as to 'how' we tell the story, but rather that no matter what one says, if it is the truth of God, man's heart is wicked and desires utmost to not want to believe that there is sin and righteousness in the world.

Man does not want to believe that God created this realm of existence just as He said He did and Satan is just as much overjoyed about scientists telling us that that isn't true as much as he is that some try to copy 'how' God wrote the Scriptures. Friend, Satan is all about turning the hearts of men away from God and he's been doing a pretty good job since the day that Adam and Eve listened to and believed his first 'alternative' explanation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted