Good vs Bad Prophecy Interpretation

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

The statue of Daniel is probably the best example of where we can see good interpretation of prophecy in Scripture, specifically, in regards to eschatology.

Daniel 2 - Wikipedia
Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 2 - New International Version

Few are in disagreement of the meaning of the statue, except to the part of the feet.

Why this verse is particularly good for considering a standard of 'good interpretation', is because we not only have the prophecy, but we also have the interpretation of the prophecy. Further, we have the interpretation as given by God, through Daniel. A matter which is confirmed in the way the prophecy's content was divined -- the prophecy its' self was kept unknown to everyone, but God gave Daniel not only its' contents, but also the interpretation.

Further, because of the significance and clarity of the historical events which this prophecy covered - excepting the part of the feet - we have a global consensus on the interpretation of the prophecy.

This is the way good prophecy interpretation works. It is inarguable, it is reasonable. There is no room for bias.

It is not attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Bad prophecy interpretation attempts to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is unreasonable. It does not stand up to scrutiny.

Because of this, the people who believe these matters will not treat them as theories or possibilities, but as the inerrant word of God. But, I ask you, where did this come from? Are they claiming to be a prophet? Are they claiming God spoke to them and told them this? I certainly am not against entertaining potential prophets -- but, this is not what we find. We find them acting and speaking, effectively swearing by Heaven, that their interpretation is the one and only true and accurate interpretation. But, they can not provide their sources, and will generally - if not always - refuse to do so.

Who wants to say, "Well I heard a minister tell me this", or "well this is what my particular little group teaches"? How do you argue that when critical scrutiny is applied? Who wants to say "Well my group is without error and is inerrant in their beliefs of prophecy interpretation"?

Certainly, some of these groups are not so 'little'. Many of the major doctrines are espoused by very large groups. Normally, even if that is the case, there may be disagreement and other possibilities considered. But, a number of these groups believe that the doctrines are inerrant word of God, because they believe their group is the only way to salvation.

So there is no arguing with them, because you are not arguing with them, but with their church, their group.

And their particular group denies or suspects highly that any other group is damned (in whatever flavor of damnation they take it). Their particular group believes that any other group, or no group at all, means one is not saved.

So, effectively, the person of Jesus Christ and the way of Jesus is not the way of salvation -- but their group one must belong to and follow all the rules, believing everything they say, that is the way to salvation!

This, I have found, over the years, to be the number one reason of the worst form of biblical prophecy exegesis. (To simply keep the matter on the topic of eschatology.)

How does this look, in practice?

- They are not reasonable
- They are hesitant to present their true beliefs
- They are extremely hesitant to present the 'reasons why' they believe a particular eschatological interpretation of Scripture
- They rely on arguing methods which enable them to evade presenting material they know will not stand scrutiny
- They will hesitate to not address specific flaws found in their interpretation, as then they would have their own interpretations open for scrutiny
- They will be quick to condemn contrary or new interpretations as being incorrect, but be hesitant in explaining points as to how they are incorrect
- They will be skilled in strawman arguing, putting words in people's mouths, and unusually zealous in attempting to continue to keep those words in people's mouths
- Exposed interpretations which they fail to keep to themselves, they will fail to defend using reasonable, well thought out responses

I could go on with this, but you get the point.

They will attempt to find any other way they can to attack critical information, except actually attacking in a reasonable fashion that very critical information. For instance, they will evade questions that expose flaws in their reasoning -- as there is no reasoning involved!

As they are simply believing what someone else told them, and they are very aware - on some level - that their source, the person or group who told them these things, is their own selves, not defensible.

This is proverbially 'cutting off one's head'. It is asking, demanding, that people be unreasonable with them. It is the hallmark of tyrants and cults.

'Believe 1+1 = 3, and be done with it!', is their firm stance. This, somehow, passes as the true faith, but it is not. It is believing you can fly, when you can not. It is believing an idol is a god, when it is just a statue.

Everything Jesus said and did is able to be scrutinized and defended. Easily. We know everything Paul said is similar, as he praised the Bereans for doing exactly this.

In the worst case, this sort of 'faith' ends up being purely diabolical, demonic. You get to finding yourself dealing with a rat's nest, chaos.

There is a reason why totalitarian, tyrannical groups all tend to ban open information. Be they the groups of cults, or be they the group of tyrants. Because they are lying and know that their beliefs are not able to be defended.

Their beliefs are not able to stand critical thinking, reasoning, scrutiny.

If you believe in Jesus and hold his word close, but feel convicted or bothered by this post, well, you read it. That is a good step. Everyone is not wrong. Everyone else is not damned or condemned. There is truth to many of the major theories. But, they are theories, until we have clear evidence otherwise. As we do with the statue of Daniel, excepting the feet.

There is nothing wrong with considering theories that are contrary to yours, if you are a person who keeps their head on.

(And, yes, I do view the removal of the head as spiritual... but that is another topic... ;-) )

 

[Lost4words]

Lots of prophecy interpretation on these forums. Especially end of times.

 

[Alithis]

the feet of the statue ... iron and clay .. two opposing philosophies that tolerate but CANNOT ever merge as one .. - the roman (= iron- the last known world empire ) philosophy of democracy and Islam the eastern philosophy of submission by force of death. =clay

both inherently wrong -both destined to destruction at the return of the lord

iron and clay ... nope its not an interpretation it is a thoughtful consideration based upon what we are presently looking at globally .

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Lots of prophecy interpretation on these forums. Especially end of times.

It is, indeed, the end. My only friend.

 

[Lost4words]

It is, indeed, the end. My only friend.

Lots think it is the end. I dont.

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

the feet of the statue ... iron and clay .. two opposing philosophies that tolerate but CANNOT ever merge as one .. - the roman (= iron- the last known world empire ) philosophy of democracy and Islam the eastern philosophy of submission by force of death. =clay

both inherently wrong -both destined to destruction at the return of the lord

iron and clay ... nope its not an interpretation it is a thoughtful consideration based upon what we are presently looking at globally .

These are certainly possibilities... I remain, as yet of this writing, undecided on 'what the feet are'.

I lean towards the clay being the American rendering of democracy, as a vehicle against the millennial old rule of imperialism.

But, I have considered many possibilities there... true Christians, true Christianity, Islam (as you do), the sentiment that there should be true freedom not the old rule of imperialists... and probably quite a few other possibilities. I do not see the 'clay' as *necessarily* a bad thing. But, I remain open to the possibility, it could be.

The reason why Islam does not stick out to me on this, is because Islam is largely so deeply segregated. Culturally and geographically. They are not interspersed in the midst of the lineage of the old Roman Empire (which, in turn, has lineage with the Greek empire, and her predecessors).

The reason why I have considered Islam is because it did take over the Eastern half of old Roman Empire. But, that was a relatively blatant takeover, and has little possibility of spreading anywhere else. It was stopped, powerfully, at every turn, when it attempted to do so.

And I certainly do not see Islam spreading West now, nor in the future. Not meaningfully so. It has historically spread by war, and does very, very badly spreading via evangelism.

 

[Alithis]

Lots think it is the end. I dont.

depends .. the end of what ? it is the end of times ..end of particular season and the very close end of salvation .. the time of the ARK was the END for all those NOT on the ark .. very SUDDEN destruction came upon them ALL.. that was certainly an end for them .

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

Lots think it is the end. I dont.

Okay, your initial response was pretty vague on that...

Would you like to tell me why? The obvious would be, that it has been the end for two thousand years now... and at certain chronological points in time, people have naturally thought it was getting very close to 'the time'.

I certainly do not mind arguing my belief that it is, 'the end'. But, if so, I know, what I mean by 'the end', is going to be very different from what you mean by 'the end'...

 

[Alithis]

These are certainly possibilities... I remain, as yet of this writing, undecided on 'what the feet are'.

I lean towards the clay being the American rendering of democracy, as a vehicle against the millennial old rule of imperialism.

But, I have considered many possibilities there... true Christians, true Christianity, Islam (as you do), the sentiment that there should be true freedom not the old rule of imperialists... and probably quite a few other possibilities. I do not see the 'clay' as *necessarily* a bad thing. But, I remain open to the possibility, it could be.

The reason why Islam does not stick out to me on this, is because Islam is largely so deeply segregated. Culturally and geographically. They are not interspersed in the midst of the lineage of the old Roman Empire (which, in turn, has lineage with the Greek empire, and her predecessors).

The reason why I have considered Islam is because it did take over the Eastern half of old Roman Empire. But, that was a relatively blatant takeover, and has little possibility of spreading anywhere else. It was stopped, powerfully, at every turn, when it attempted to do so.

And I certainly do not see Islam spreading West now, nor in the future. Not meaningfully so. It has historically spread by war, and does very, very badly spreading via evangelism.

its digressing too much im afraid -not intending to derail your topic . but the reason i do consider the philosophy of islam as the clay is due to the fact it fully allows for and encourages dominance and submission by fear of death and in particular the death of beheading . the number 1 form of execution of the last days ..
as for the spread into the west .. Europe is now fully peppered by forced immigration of refugee (not the refugees fault ) and the sates has been inviting them in . they do not integrate - i do not say stop them i say preach the gospel to ALL men every where .

for example of non intergration of interest - there is a vid clip of a muslim refugee in finland -on camera in English she complains that "it is hear to integrate because there are too many Finns ! in Finland .... :O but thats ok she says as there are more refugees coming so it wil get beter... now go figure that thinking ... so her entire warped mindset of integration means the finns diminish and the muslim take over .-this is what Islam considers to be integration .. to dominate by shear numbers and to convert the former inhabitant by fear ....

ok sorry - back to your topic now

 

[Lost4words]

Okay, your initial response was pretty vague on that...

Would you like to tell me why? The obvious would be, that it has been the end for two thousand years now... and at certain chronological points in time, people have naturally thought it was getting very close to 'the time'.

I certainly do not mind arguing my belief that it is, 'the end'. But, if so, I know, what I mean by 'the end', is going to be very different from what you mean by 'the end'...

What is 'your' end times going to look like? Thanks

 

[DreamerOfTheHeart]

its digressing too much im afraid -not intending to derail your topic . but the reason i do consider the philosophy of islam as the clay is due to the fact it fully allows for and encourages dominance and submission by fear of death and in particular the death of beheading . the number 1 form of execution of the last days ..
as for the spread into the west .. Europe is now fully peppered by forced immigration of refugee (not the refugees fault ) and the sates has been inviting them in . they do not integrate - i do not say stop them i say preach the gospel to ALL men every where .

for example of non intergration of interest - there is a vid clip of a muslim refugee in finland -on camera in English she complains that "it is hear to integrate because there are too many Finns ! in Finland .... :O but thats ok she says as there are more refugees coming so it wil get beter... now go figure that thinking ... so her entire warped mindset of integration means the finns diminish and the muslim take over .-this is what Islam considers to be integration .. to dominate by shear numbers and to convert the former inhabitant by fear ....

ok sorry - back to your topic now

Does not matter to me, in regards to topic. You supplied further details, which is meaningful evidence. That is on topic. But, you are correct, it could quickly spin out of control on other issues.

This, regardless, on topic, is a good example of meaningful discourse using reasoning, and being open to scrutiny.

Conversely, bad prophecy interpretation holders will not deal with specifics, because they are entirely inarguable and they know how that will go...

They will not offer evidence on their beliefs, as you did. If they can, at all, avoid it. Which they learn to do so.

Out of memory of sheer pain of getting walloped for handing out something which does not stand scrutiny.