The Purpose of Prophecy

[2PhiloVoid]

You mentioned that you believe the fundamentalists are in error and are not lying. But just recall to mind that video you posted of the rich apologist being grilled before boarding his private plane. It's conceivable that he is lying in order to keep the money flowing in. I mean, if you have been doing this your whole life then your resume is basically blank. You have to decide, "Am I going to clean toilets at Walmart or am I going to keep lying for money?" Because if one of those guys even suggests he has a small inkling of doubt, the money will dry up. He has to lie.

Now of course, I only said it's conceivable that he's lying. But it's inconceivable that none of them are lying.

Some of them are likely lying; but I'm not sure to what extent I can identify and separate out which ones are merely deluded, believing their own weird spin on theology, from those who are just flat out con-artists. There are a lot of ideas to vet out and no perfect method by which to do so.

As for that former Southern Baptist pastor of mine whom I mentioned above, I don't think he was lying. I think he was just misinformed.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not everything a prophet says is prophetic. Prediction of the future is the prophetic part. Once he is established as a prophet by correctly predicting the future, he then issues statements from God. Those are not prophecy.

What I stated has long been the church's understanding of prophecy*. As I said from the beginning, you define it differently. I don't want to quibble over definitions. If you want to discuss predictions, that's fine. I was simply pointing out that you're using the word differently in the hopes of avoiding confusion and strawmen. If you're trying to change the church's use of the word, you won't be successful.

So, again, why are you asking about prediction? What interests you about it? What point do you want to make?

In your OP you asked if prediction was meant to establish superiority over other religions. I would say no, not directly. That would be an obvious result for those who accept the message, but not the result for those who reject the message. Prediction does provide some hope and confidence for believers - hope that God has a plan for the future, and confidence when predictions come to pass. But the message (Christ) is always the focus. If you don't accept Christ the superiority or lack thereof is largely irrelevant.

The Bible itself demonstrates this when, for example, Moses visits Pharaoh and he and his counselors are unimpressed by Moses' miracles.

The comment, "Why did God allow contradictions in the Bible?" comes across as just a back-handed jab that loads the question.

[edit] P.S. *Prophecy ... Prophecy was probably an easier concept for pre-literate cultures ruled by a monarch. Kings trying to rule an illiterate populace that was spread across terrain that was difficult to travel commonly used "heralds". It was someone given a message the king wanted spread to the people who had the authority to speak for the king in his absence. When one understands that historical context, the parallels between King/heralds and God/prophets are many ... including questions like, "Why doesn't God come sit on my couch, talk to me directly, and fix all my problems?"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What I stated has long been the church's understanding of prophecy*. As I said from the beginning, you define it differently. I don't want to quibble over definitions. If you want to discuss predictions, that's fine. I was simply pointing out that you're using the word differently in the hopes of avoiding confusion and strawmen. If you're trying to change the church's use of the word, you won't be successful.

Clearly we have different church experiences.

So, again, why are you asking about prediction? What interests you about it? What point do you want to make?

Have you read the spoiler part yet in the OP?

In your OP you asked if prediction was meant to establish superiority over other religions. I would say no, not directly. That would be an obvious result for those who accept the message, but not the result for those who reject the message. Prediction does provide some hope and confidence for believers - hope that God has a plan for the future, and confidence when predictions come to pass. But the message (Christ) is always the focus. If you don't accept Christ the superiority or lack thereof is largely irrelevant.

Don't put the wagon before the horse. What actual reason do I have to accept Christ?

The Bible itself demonstrates this when, for example, Moses visits Pharaoh and he and his counselors are unimpressed by Moses' miracles.

I think the author of Exodus was henotheistic and tacitly imbued all of the characters with that belief.

The comment, "Why did God allow contradictions in the Bible?" comes across as just a back-handed jab that loads the question.

That's an interesting way to try to avoid the question. It was the thing that drove me away from the faith. If the record of my posts and threads created goes all the way back to the creation of my account, you'll see that the first thing I ever mentioned was this issue. You won't find it here in the apologetics subforum because the thread predates the existence of this subforum. Well, I'm disappointed that you don't take a legitimate issue seriously. I'll note that you've got no answer to it whatsoever.

[edit] P.S. *Prophecy ... Prophecy was probably an easier concept for pre-literate cultures ruled by a monarch. Kings trying to rule an illiterate populace that was spread across terrain that was difficult to travel commonly used "heralds". It was someone given a message the king wanted spread to the people who had the authority to speak for the king in his absence. When one understands that historical context, the parallels between King/heralds and God/prophets are many ... including questions like, "Why doesn't God come sit on my couch, talk to me directly, and fix all my problems?"

But God is not limited by difficult terrain. Only a "little-g god" would be, which Jehovah certainly was in the early days.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Some of them are likely lying; but I'm not sure to what extent I can identify and separate out which ones are merely deluded, believing their own weird spin on theology, from those who are just flat out con-artists. There are a lot of ideas to vet out and no perfect method by which to do so.

As for that former Southern Baptist pastor of mine whom I mentioned above, I don't think he was lying. I think he was just misinformed.

You are too optimistic about the human animal.

 

[Resha Caner]

What actual reason do I have to accept Christ?

If you don't believe Christ is a real person, none.

That's an interesting way to try to avoid the question.

I'm not avoiding the question. Asking one question (What is the purpose of prediction?) while burying the real issue in the subtext (the Bible has contradictions) is called loading the question. It's considered disingenuous. If you want to talk about supposed contradictions, pick one and ask that question.

But God is not limited by difficult terrain. Only a "little-g god" would be, which Jehovah certainly was in the early days.

Nor was the king limited. If his herald managed to get the message to the people, it means the king could have gone in person. But he didn't. It was more an issue of the people having access to the king. Again, you have to understand the context of the analogy. It's not that the king lacked access to the people, but the people lacked access to the king. Point: It's not that God lacks access to us, but we lack access to God.

I can give you many more analogies that essentially make the same point. I work for a major corporation, and as such they have much financial and political power. There are many things they could, but don't. I am a parent, and when my children were young, I had more ability than them. There were many things I could do, but didn't. Point: It's not that God couldn't do the things you want him to do. It's that he doesn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are too optimistic about the human animal.

And here I thought I was simply too pessimistic about the human predicament which we all have to live out under God because there is (I believe) a Devil in the political and social details the world. And being that I think this is the case, I expect to encounter liars and other phonies, along with false teachers, false prophets and pseudo-messiahs.

I mean, if Jesus and His Apostles foretold these kinds of people would be present in the world, then I'd have to think the Bible was false IF I didn't find any of them in our world history or in the world today.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you don't believe Christ is a real person, none.



I'm not avoiding the question. Asking one question (What is the purpose of prediction?) while burying the real issue in the subtext (the Bible has contradictions) is called loading the question. It's considered disingenuous. If you want to talk about supposed contradictions, pick one and ask that question.

Wait, so you dispute that there are contradictions in the Bible?

Nor was the king limited. If his herald managed to get the message to the people, it means the king could have gone in person. But he didn't. It was more an issue of the people having access to the king. Again, you have to understand the context of the analogy. It's not that the king lacked access to the people, but the people lacked access to the king. Point: It's not that God lacks access to us, but we lack access to God.

We lack access to God? Why?

I can give you many more analogies that essentially make the same point. I work for a major corporation, and as such they have much financial and political power. There are many things they could, but don't. I am a parent, and when my children were young, I had more ability than them. There were many things I could do, but didn't. Point: It's not that God couldn't do the things you want him to do. It's that he doesn't.

Is this your way of saying that God could prevent contradictions from being in the Bible, but didn't? I'm not sure if you think there are or aren't contradictions in the Bible.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And here I thought I was simply too pessimistic about the human predicament which we all have to live out under God because there is (I believe) a Devil in the political and social details the world. And being that I think this is the case, I expect to encounter liars and other phonies, along with false teachers, false prophets and pseudo-messiahs.

I mean, if Jesus and His Apostles foretold these kinds of people would be present in the world, then I'd have to think the Bible was false IF I didn't find any of them in our world history or in the world today.

You're basically just borrowing the point I made.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If it's not a prediction, whom is that going to influence? Nothing in the Bible has made me fall to my knees and weep, basking in the profound beauty of the words. Though it seems that has been the attempt on occasion.

When discussing someone's belief concerning Isaiah 35 about the wilderness prophecy I pointed out the meaning (as short as I could make it for forum purposes)..

Just to point out.. your not waiting for actual sand to become grasslands..

The Hebrew word for sand, חול (chol), is the same as the word for “secular” or “ordinary” – that which is not set aside or holy.

Sand and dust in the Bible represent secularism and worldliness...

Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city… Shake yourself from the dust and arise; be seated, O Jerusalem; loose the bonds from your neck, O captive daughter of Zion.” (Isaiah 52:1-2)

In the same way, water can, and often does, represent salvation..

"... Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word." Ephesians 5:25-26

What happened at the pool of Siloam? What happened when the light of Christ came into this world and gave Himself for the salvation of man?

spiritual productivity makes the believer to be:

“like a tree planted by flowing streams; it yields its fruit at the proper time, and its leaves never fall off” (Psalms 1:3).

water also represents life that has been renewed: “At that time … joyfully you will draw water from the springs of deliverance” (Isaiah 12:1-3).

Your not looking for some supernatural earthly phenomenon - just look backward and you'll see the supernatural phenomenon that already happened...

Amazing Grace, How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now am found
T'was blind but now I see
T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear
And Grace, my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed
Through many dangers, toils and snares
We have already come.
T'was grace that brought us safe thus far
And grace will lead us home​

As this shows, most prophetic passages are not literal but rather symbolic, and reading God's word without the Holy Spirit to guide your understanding, especially when reading prophecy, will only drive you away from any real understanding...

The role of a prophet is to teach and guide and to point people to God and/or repentance.

And yes, those who tell you something will come to pass and it doesn't pass, they are false prophets..the ever changing goal posts of the YouTube prophets are a good sign they are clueless in all matters spiritual, and are not qualified to teach anything where concerns God's Word.

But where concerns Biblical prophecy, if you don't see the real picture of the prophecy you won't get any emotional connection to the same.

I'm disabled and I can't read Isaiah 40:29-31 without crying tears of joy, not because it speaks of some future date, but because it applies to me right now, today... You have to understand the scriptures - and prophecy is rarely literal - to get anything out of them..

And it is God who gives understanding... so ask God, if you want to understand these prophecies are already fulfilled, and you must be saved to see how they apply, to you, today... and then, and only then will you drop to your knees in worship of your Creator when you read them.

 

[Resha Caner]

Wait, so you dispute that there are contradictions in the Bible?

I've yet to see a watertight case.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're basically just borrowing the point I made.

I did?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I did?

Yep.

Let's just go ahead and assume from the outset that Christianity is true. That would then mean that Judaism was the true religion prior to Christ's arrival.

But even with Judaism being the one true religion, how many of the religious Jewish leaders did Jesus approve of? Not many at all. I'm going to say 10%, max.

I do not believe human nature has fundamentally changed in the last 2000 years. I think Christians need to own the fact that many of their leaders are wolves in sheep's clothing. But virtually no Christians acknowledge this.

In my opinion, good atheists are the ones who own the atheist label. The guy in the video you posted is an example of an evil atheist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've yet to see a watertight case.

I could pick one, but first you'd have to list which versions of the Bible you approve of and which ones you've disavowed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep.

Just for the record: one reason that I'm Ecumenical on CF is because there are rules in place here.

Another reason is that I simply seek to offer charity first to other Christians who disagree with me because I know that we can all be wrong about, or fail to correctly understand, various parts of the Bible (hence part of the additional reason we have so many denominations).

Sure, there is almost a guarantee that among Christians of any historical era, there will be those who are Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, and I understand your point on this, but making this exacting conclusion about another person who wades in, through and among other people who are (in God's Sight) bona-fide Christians isn't supposed to be an easy assessment or an act that can be made with casual aplomb.

 

[Resha Caner]

I could pick one, but first you'd have to list which versions of the Bible you approve of and which ones you've disavowed.

I use the ESV.

Does this mean you'd now rather discuss supposed contradictions? Or does this somehow relate to the discussion on prediction?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I use the ESV.

Does this mean you'd now rather discuss supposed contradictions?

Well, no. At least not yet. Firstly, "contradiction" is a technical term that's being used colloquially here. Strictly speaking, if 1 Kings says that King X was 20 years old when he became king, and 1 Chronicles says King X was 30 years old when he became king, that's not a contradiction as it is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Instead, it would be a violation of the law of identity. To be a contradiction, it would need to claim, for instance, in 1 Kings that King X was 20 years old when he became king, and in 1 Chronicles that King X was not 20 years old when he became king.

So I would need to know how semantic you're going to be. I need to know if you'll ask me to prove that King X wasn't appointed king at age 20, removed from the throne, and then reinstated at age 30. I need to know if you think the similarity of ancient Hebrew alpha-numerals is a good excuse. I need to know if you'll just end up claiming that it's "not a big deal."

Or does this somehow relate to the discussion on prediction?

It relates to the OP, as you yourself already pointed out. But if it didn't, so what?

 

[mindlight]

If it's not a prediction, whom is that going to influence? Nothing in the Bible has made me fall to my knees and weep, basking in the profound beauty of the words. Though it seems that has been the attempt on occasion.

Predictions and wonders are often features of biblical prophets ministries. But the real power of their message is in what they communicate of God and their connection with Him. If you do not believe in God you are not going to understand the significance of Oracles explaining Him to a world that has failed to put him first and whose priorities are misplaced. The prophets words are a challenge to the deep metanarrative underpinning worldliness. They dismantle the fabricated illusions of merely human thought by reference to the Coming King and to His Kingdom. They usually get people very angry cause of the way they talk and disturb and challenge the existing consensus. Many end up dying because their message is simply too hot to handle by a sinful world.

That said just about all biblical prophets made predictions that later came true. Also many performed wonders that demonstrated the power of God at work in them.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, no. At least not yet. Firstly, "contradiction" is a technical term that's being used colloquially here. Strictly speaking, if 1 Kings says that King X was 20 years old when he became king, and 1 Chronicles says King X was 30 years old when he became king, that's not a contradiction as it is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Instead, it would be a violation of the law of identity. To be a contradiction, it would need to claim, for instance, in 1 Kings that King X was 20 years old when he became king, and in 1 Chronicles that King X was not 20 years old when he became king.

So I would need to know how semantic you're going to be. I need to know if you'll ask me to prove that King X wasn't appointed king at age 20, removed from the throne, and then reinstated at age 30. I need to know if you think the similarity of ancient Hebrew alpha-numerals is a good excuse. I need to know if you'll just end up claiming that it's "not a big deal."

Welcome to exegesis. I assume you're referring to something like 2 Kings 8:26 versus 2 Chronicles 22:2. As you probably realize, the ESV quotes the same age in both verses, but other translations (such as KJV) do not. I don't typically get obsessive about those kinds of details unless the person I'm talking with starts playing games. If one verse says Ahaziah was 22 and another says he was 42, that's a contradiction, most likely due to scribal error. If that's your example, you can claim victory and we'll move on. I don't care.

But there's the rub. Since I don't obsess over those details, I don't care about those details, and that scribal error honestly doesn't bother me. It has no impact on my faith or my view of Scripture as inerrant. Take that however you want.

In the interest of full disclosure, then, I have an MA in history. Ancient history is not my specialty, yet because of where my interests lie I have a decent background in it. I don't know how much history you've dealt with, but scribal errors like that happen all the time in all kinds of texts. If we threw out texts for that reason, we would have to say we don't know anything about history. Historians don't get bent out of shape over that kind of thing ... well, there was this one case I could show you where two historians were really going at it (in peer-reviewed journals) over the details of medieval war horses - I thought it was hilarious ... anyway ...

It is going to be tough for you if you want to move beyond scribal error examples. You're going to have to find something I care about, but I can't give you any hard and fast rules about how to proceed. All I can say is that I try to be reasonable.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Welcome to exegesis. I assume you're referring to something like 2 Kings 8:26 versus 2 Chronicles 22:2. As you probably realize, the ESV quotes the same age in both verses, but other translations (such as KJV) do not.

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.

I don't typically get obsessive about those kinds of details unless the person I'm talking with starts playing games. If one verse says Ahaziah was 22 and another says he was 42, that's a contradiction, most likely due to scribal error. If that's your example, you can claim victory and we'll move on. I don't care.

But there's the rub. Since I don't obsess over those details, I don't care about those details, and that scribal error honestly doesn't bother me. It has no impact on my faith or my view of Scripture as inerrant. Take that however you want.

Uh... how is scripture inerrant if there is an error? Are you assuming the original manuscripts, which no longer exist, were harmonious? As I'm sure you know, it's very conceivable that the two authors were not in communication with one another and wrote original manuscripts that were mutually contradictory.

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?

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. Satan, who is described as cunning at every opportunity, cannot at least match the blunders of mankind. Assuming Satan hasn't gotten his hands on the Bible, we're left to assume that God protects the Bible from Satan, but ignores scribes who earnestly want to preserve the Bible and who presumably pray for divine guidance before copying. That seems quite odd. On the other hand, if there's no God, no devil, and no spiritual warfare of any kind, then what we'd expect to happen of the Bible is exactly what did happen.

In the interest of full disclosure, then, I have an MA in history. Ancient history is not my specialty, yet because of where my interests lie I have a decent background in it. I don't know how much history you've dealt with, but scribal errors like that happen all the time in all kinds of texts. If we threw out texts for that reason, we would have to say we don't know anything about history.

Strawman.

Nobody is saying that we should disregard the Bible as a historical source due to errors contained in it. I'm saying we should disregard it as being divinely authored due to errors contained in it.

Historians don't get bent out of shape over that kind of thing ... well, there was this one case I could show you where two historians were really going at it (in peer-reviewed journals) over the details of medieval war horses - I thought it was hilarious ... anyway ...

Yes, anyway, please rethink your position. That's not even a straw man. It's a paper man. A wet paper man.

It is going to be tough for you if you want to move beyond scribal error examples. You're going to have to find something I care about, but I can't give you any hard and fast rules about how to proceed. All I can say is that I try to be reasonable.

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.

But it doesn't matter. We already agree that there are errors. You've provided a reasonable explanation as to why they're there: scribal error (reasonable, yes, but there is definitely no actual evidence for it). However, I've laid out a reductio ad absurdum, so it's your move. I've never heard any kind of a response to this whatsoever, aside from someone claiming that Satan is practically impotent. But I find that to be incongruent with the New Testament.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Predictions and wonders are often features of biblical prophets ministries. But the real power of their message is in what they communicate of God and their connection with Him. If you do not believe in God you are not going to understand the significance of Oracles explaining Him to a world that has failed to put him first and whose priorities are misplaced. The prophets words are a challenge to the deep metanarrative underpinning worldliness. They dismantle the fabricated illusions of merely human thought by reference to the Coming King and to His Kingdom. They usually get people very angry cause of the way they talk and disturb and challenge the existing consensus. Many end up dying because their message is simply too hot to handle by a sinful world.

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

That said just about all biblical prophets made predictions that later came true. Also many performed wonders that demonstrated the power of God at work in them.

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.