The Purpose of Prophecy

[Resha Caner]

Oh, there are many. That's not the only one. That is, however, the only one where we can be absolutely sure which is the correct age because if that particular person was named king at age 42 then he'd be older than his father, which is of course impossible.

OK. If you want to discuss something else let me know.

Uh... how is scripture inerrant if there is an error?

I was too loose with my terms, so my apologies for that. Some get into arguments over whether to use the term "inerrant" or "infallible"; the debate doesn't interest me enough to keep up with it, but "infallible" may be a better descriptor of my view. I lean toward Karl Barth on this topic (though I'm not in agreement with him on all things). Some LCMS Lutherans would foam at the mouth for me saying anything nice about Barth, but he's got some interesting ideas. So, I believe the Bible to be infallible with respect to purpose.

But why would God allow that? I get it that it's not important to you how old such-and-such king was. But apparently it was important to God. It was important enough to be recorded twice. Is your opinion on the matter more important?

If you want my views on theodicy you can follow the 12,430,459.7 thread or start one of your own. I'm not sure we've got the bandwidth to cover 6 major topics in 1 thread.

Scribal error, aside from being a baseless assumption, implies a comically absurd situation. I'm to believe that human beings, who were doing absolutely everything in their power to copy texts verbatim, inadvertently inserted errors; and yet Satan, who is certainly doing everything he can to corrupt the Bible, has been unable to produce any kind of effect.

When did I say Satan has had no effect?

I've played this game before. Christians concede nothing. Only numbers are cut and dry. If I find something else, there's always wiggle room in the language.

I've conceded there are textural errors. I've conceded other things in other threads, but I'd have to go digging up all my history to find you an example, and I'm not anxious to do that. If that's not enough, set the example yourself. Show me a time when you've conceded something.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK. If you want to discuss something else let me know.



I was too loose with my terms, so my apologies for that. Some get into arguments over whether to use the term "inerrant" or "infallible"; the debate doesn't interest me enough to keep up with it, but "infallible" may be a better descriptor of my view. I lean toward Karl Barth on this topic (though I'm not in agreement with him on all things). Some LCMS Lutherans would foam at the mouth for me saying anything nice about Barth, but he's got some interesting ideas. So, I believe the Bible to be infallible with respect to purpose.

But isn't it the case that the Bible needs to be inerrant in order to be infallible with respect to purpose? My understanding is that the purpose of the Bible, ultimately, is to save souls. Allowing for errors to exist in scripture can conceivably cause people to lose faith. A self-consistent Bible cannot conceivably cause people to lose faith.

If you want my views on theodicy you can follow the 12,430,459.7 thread or start one of your own. I'm not sure we've got the bandwidth to cover 6 major topics in 1 thread.

Ok.

When did I say Satan has had no effect?

Wait... you're suggesting that Satan has altered the Bible?

I've conceded there are textural errors. I've conceded other things in other threads, but I'd have to go digging up all my history to find you an example, and I'm not anxious to do that. If that's not enough, set the example yourself. Show me a time when you've conceded something.

That's kind of an odd request. Here's what I'll do. I'll tell you the threads I've made in which I've conceded the point and allowed the thread to die. The threads are "God, Gödel, and Omniscience" and, simply, "Fine Tuning Debunked." I won't go through the effort of finding the actual threads (they are buried here on the apologetics forum) nor the effort of finding exactly where in the threads I conceded error. I'll leave that to you. At least, of course, until you address the parts of my post that you redacted and ignored.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's kind of an odd request.

All my life people have told me I'm odd.

Wait... you're suggesting that Satan has altered the Bible?

I am not omniscent, nor have I ever knowingly encountered Satan. Therefore, all I know of him is what is given in the Bible. As such, I don't know what Satan has or has not attempted with respect to the Bible.

What I do know is that altered versions exist: Jehovah's Witness, Joseph Smith's (Mormon), Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, etc. I'm allowing the possibility Satan could have been involved.

But isn't it the case that the Bible needs to be inerrant in order to be infallible with respect to purpose?

No. I don't know your background, so I don't know if this will help, but I view this similarly to the Shannon–Hartley theorem. In short, as long as the message is above the noise floor, it will get through. Further, one can always specify parameters that will set the message above the noise floor.

My understanding is that the purpose of the Bible, ultimately, is to save souls.

I probably wouldn't phrase it that way, but close enough.

Allowing for errors to exist in scripture can conceivably cause people to lose faith.

The possibility does seem to scare some people.

A self-consistent Bible cannot conceivably cause people to lose faith.

OK, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't. A perfect tool in imperfect hands will still yield an imperfect result.

 

[cvanwey]

What I do know is that altered versions exist: Jehovah's Witness, Joseph Smith's (Mormon), Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, etc. I'm allowing the possibility Satan could have been involved.

May I jump in here?

If you are unaware of Satan's limitations/abilities, then how do you know Satan did not present to humans, around ~2K years ago, in the form of a 'messiah', fool many with lies and magic, which ultimately gets Sal/Paul to start a religion, and since then, have billions worship the wrong 'god', which ultimately gets many to break the first commandment?

Maybe the 'Orthodox Jews' are correct, and you are completely mistaken?

 

[mindlight]

I mean you no offense by this, but honestly it seems like you said a whole lot of nothing here.

Which is essentially why you do not get God.

And this is what I'd be interested in. I'd like for you to show me one.

There's a person who is unable to participate in these forums and messaged me directly. He mentioned that Isaiah prophesied about Cyrus 100 years in advance. It was a historical fact, he said. I asked how he knows this. He said that Josephus, a Jewish historian who came about 500 years later, confirmed what was essentially a religious belief for him (that Isaiah was a prophet). But obviously when a historian professes religious belief, that is not a historical claim. To know for sure that Isaiah didn't simply write about Cyrus after Cyrus was already around, we would need a contemporary source. As I'm sure you would agree.

So please, do let me know if there's anything that was predicted, and was confirmed to come true, and, most importantly, was confirmed to have been predicted before the actual events. Thanks.

The Isaiah prophesies that Emmanuel (God with us ) would be born of a virgin, would suffer for us and die for us and then be restored (Isaiah 52-53) is a good example of prophecy. But also details of Jesus life like coming into Jerusalem on a donkey, being pierced in his hands and feet, having people cast lots for his clothes etc would be examples. The Isaiah scrolls in the Jerusalem Museum are dated at least 2 centuries before Christ. Jesus himself prophesised the fall of Jerusalem within a generation of his crucifixion. Agabus prophesised a famine.

60 Genuine divine Bible prophecies fulfilled

 

[Resha Caner]

May I jump in here?

If you are unaware of Satan's limitations/abilities, then how do you know Satan did not present to humans, around ~2K years ago, in the form of a 'messiah', fool many with lies and magic, which ultimately gets Sal/Paul to start a religion, and since then, have billions worship the wrong 'god', which ultimately gets many to break the first commandment?

Maybe the 'Orthodox Jews' are correct, and you are completely mistaken?

This is a Matrix question.

 

[cvanwey]

This is a Matrix question.

Yes and no.

If you admit that Satan, not only exists, but that he has 'questionable powers', HOW were you able to compartmentalize JW's, Mormons, and others, apart from 'Christianity', while retaining the integrity/veracity of the NT?

Seems as though they are ALL on the chopping block equally?

 

[Resha Caner]

HOW were you able to compartmentalize JW's, Mormons, and others, apart from 'Christianity', while retaining the integrity/veracity of the NT?

Why I follow Confessional Lutheranism and not JW's or Mormons has nothing to do with Satan (as far as I know). I was simply allowing the possibility.

[edit] If I may digress for a moment, I will confess I enjoy speculation, but only when we are both proposing possible solutions to a problem - not when one is proposing ways to tear down my position.

 

[cvanwey]

Why I follow Confessional Lutheranism and not JW's or Mormons has nothing to do with Satan (as far as I know). I was simply allowing the possibility.

[edit] If I may digress for a moment, I will confess I enjoy speculation, but only when we are both proposing possible solutions to a problem - not when one is proposing ways to tear down my position.

I'm actually asking the question in earnest. All such assertions and claims come, using the same criteria apparently. Books written by humans, from the past, instituting anecdotal claims. Not meant to be offensive...

If Satan has the power to deceive, why did he not influence the NT?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm actually asking the question in earnest. All such assertions and claims come, using the same criteria apparently. Books written by humans, from the past, instituting anecdotal claims. Not meant to be offensive...

Maybe not, but your preamble is loaded with all those terms I would have to rephrase.

If Satan has the power to deceive, why did he not influence the NT?

I don't know. You tell me.

 

[cvanwey]

Maybe not, but your preamble is loaded with all those terms I would have to rephrase.

'

Be my guest

I don't know. You tell me.

Then the answer is yes, with the same probability as your assumption for the others. Because, if Satan exists, Satan lies, and Satan has the power to deceive, why wouldn't he fool billions - which would send them straight to hell for breaking the first commandment.

You stated that he may have had a hand in all the others, what makes your belief structure any different? They are all faith based.

 

[Resha Caner]

'Then the answer is yes, with the same probability as your assumption for the others. Because, if Satan exists, Satan lies, and Satan has the power to deceive, why wouldn't he fool billions - which would send them straight to hell for breaking the first commandment.

Billions? Wow. If he's that good I'd expect ad agencies to be after him. Can you show me proof he can influence billions?

You stated that he may have had a hand in all the others, what makes your belief structure any different? They are all faith based.

You're using a very broad brush. So broad I'm going to have to rethink whether he's also controlling science, politics, global warming … and maybe that explains why my poor Chiefs haven't been to the Super Bowl since 1970.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Which is essentially why you do not get God.



The Isaiah prophesies that Emmanuel (God with us ) would be born of a virgin, would suffer for us and die for us and then be restored (Isaiah 52-53) is a good example of prophecy. But also details of Jesus life like coming into Jerusalem on a donkey, being pierced in his hands and feet, having people cast lots for his clothes etc would be examples. The Isaiah scrolls in the Jerusalem Museum are dated at least 2 centuries before Christ. Jesus himself prophesised the fall of Jerusalem within a generation of his crucifixion. Agabus prophesised a famine.

60 Genuine divine Bible prophecies fulfilled

I'm unclear on why you attribute the virgin birth to Isaiah 52-53. It is Isaiah 7, and Matthew takes it out of context. Just read it in context.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.

This is Isaiah telling a king that his enemies will be defeated. The virgin birth is the sign to affirm the prophecy as true. Jesus being born 500 years later won't confirm anything to the king.

As for Psalm 22, it's clearly describing arena combat with animals. Just read it. The gospel writers took it out of context.

 

[cvanwey]

Billions? Wow. If he's that good I'd expect ad agencies to be after him. Can you show me proof he can influence billions?

Nice attempt in shifting the burden here Also, in trying to throw off the sent. I applaud you and your efforts.

I don't resign to the notion that an 'evil' agent exists, bent on destruction, and continually opposes another entity, in which I doubt also exists. But if I did, the fact that billions are worshiping the incorrect God, and apparently going to hell, according to OT Biblical proclamation, may be the beginnings of sufficient proof.

The Devil has free will, right? This means God would not stop him. And if God does stop others, then why not stop all of them? Unless you can sufficiently make the case that (your) brand of belief is the only one guarded from the likes of Satan's wrath? Can you prove that? What makes your specific belief structure immune to Satan's free will?

Case/point - The many false prophets roaming around today. The many other religions you've mentioned, and have yourself acknowledged, that the Devil may have a hand upon.

You're using a very broad brush. So broad I'm going to have to rethink whether he's also controlling science, politics, global warming … and maybe that explains why my poor Chiefs haven't been to the Super Bowl since 1970.

I see where you are trying to go with this. And if you wish to muddy the waters, this much so, then let's just shut down CF all together Please hear me out.

Do you disagree that the Bible endorses various forms of faith? I doubt it. And no, we don't need to establish the definition of 'faith'

(You) are the one whom stated in post #44:

"What I do know is that altered versions exist: Jehovah's Witness, Joseph Smith's (Mormon), Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, etc. I'm allowing the possibility Satan could have been involved."

I again ask, WHY is your brand of believe exempt from the same fate equally?

 

[Resha Caner]

Nice attempt in shifting the burden.

It's you who is speculating about what evil beings do or don't do. I declined to participate.

 

[cvanwey]

It's you who is speculating about what evil beings do or don't do. I declined to participate.

You see how fun it is to throw out unfalsifiable claims, and ask unbelievers to refute them

Since I cannot demonstrate the existence of Lucifer, I can only demonstrate his handy work:

Incredibly Detailed Map Of The World’s Religions

Apparently, Satan influences predominantly by region.

 

[Resha Caner]

You see how fun it is to throw out unfalsifiable claims, and ask unbelievers to refute them

Since I cannot demonstrate the existence of Lucifer, I can only demonstrate his handy work:

Incredibly Detailed Map Of The World’s Religions

Apparently, Satan influences predominantly by region.

You think you get to take a victory lap? Oy. That's sad.

 

[cvanwey]

You think you get to take a victory lap? Oy. That's sad.

My point is that 'victory' is already had, by anyone, whom poses the unfalsfiable claim. The fact that you bowed out, in acknolwedgment of that, is a testament to this reality

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point is that 'victory' is already had, by anyone, whom poses the unfalsfiable claim. The fact that you bowed out, in acknolwedgment of that, is a testament to this reality

Yep. You guys win! Congratulations on a job well done!

 

[mindlight]

I'm unclear on why you attribute the virgin birth to Isaiah 52-53. It is Isaiah 7, and Matthew takes it out of context. Just read it in context.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.

This is Isaiah telling a king that his enemies will be defeated. The virgin birth is the sign to affirm the prophecy as true. Jesus being born 500 years later won't confirm anything to the king.

As for Psalm 22, it's clearly describing arena combat with animals. Just read it. The gospel writers took it out of context.

The way you handled my text says it all and then you lecture me on how the text should be handled.

But I can break this down:

Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin bearing a child called Emmanuel meaning God with us. As with many prophetic words there is an immediate fulfilment and context and there is echo in eternity which refers to the Messiah himself.

Isaiah 52-53 refers to the Suffering servant initially interpreted as Israel by many Jewish interpreters but more clearly and fully fulfilled in the life of the Messiah as really how have the sufferings of Israel benefitted the rest of us.

NT authors are not reading OT passages exegetically in original context, but they are pointing to the deeper significance of these passages as fulfilled in Christ, they are articulating the deeper fulfilments and typologies these passages allude and which are now unlocked in the life of Christ.