Biblical prophesy

[QuestioningMind]

There is considerable evidence. Faith in Jesus is a leap toward the light.

Faith is what you use when you DON'T have evidence. If you have genuine evidence, then no faith should ever be required.

 

[sojourner]

Why? That is the error of assuming that this Holy Spirit exists in the first place. And we do not have any evidence for that at all. If anything there is evidence to the contrary. If there was a "Holy Spirit" then there should be an easily recognizable consensus of Bible interpretation. Instead we see thousands of different sects and cults all based upon different interpretations of the Bible with differences going from mild Baptist to Baptist disagreements or ALC Lutheran versus Missouri Synod Lutherans to major differences such as between Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. Sooner or later one says that the others are "Not true Christians".

Not necessarily. And I’m not defending 74x12. My NT prof (who is an eminent bible scholar) once said that the Bible has stood the test of time, not because it is true, but because it is multivalent. Any number of valid interpretations are possible, so long as they’re based in solid exegesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not necessarily. And I’m not defending 74x12. My NT prof (who is an eminent bible scholar) once said that the Bible has stood the test of time, not because it is true, but because it is multivalent. Any number of valid interpretations are possible, so long as they’re based in solid exegesis.

I am not saying that the Bible is totally without value. There are some very good concepts within it that enable it to stand the test of time. But that in no way means that it is correct, especially not in its entirety. But my point was that if there was some overarching "Holy Spirit" that guides believers then there should not be such a huge variety of interpretations. Making up a fictitious spirit and then claiming others don't have it while you do is not only unjustified, it is rather prideful to say the least. Ironically a sin that the Bible warns people not to fall into.

 

[sojourner]

The problem is that you *think* you can demonstrate that the Bible is wrong. I do not believe for a minute that you understand it. I'm trying to change your perspective because you're locked into the idea that you do know something. It is the holy Spirit that teaches us and if your heart is closed to the Spirit of God then you can't learn from the scriptures.

I understand the texts. And I assert that there is much in the Bible that is simply not factual. A snake didn’t talk to Eve. There was no mass migration of Hebrews into Canaan. David’s army could simply not have been nearly as large as the texts describe. This is not history, as we understand history. These are stories — mythic stories. Even the gospels aren’t factual reporting. This is ancient myth, poetry, letters, etc. and “having the Holy Spirit” changes none of that. It is what it is, and until one understands what it is, one cannot learn from it. And one understands what it is through scholarship. Then Holy Spirit can help integrate the learning.

 

[sojourner]

I am not saying that the Bible is totally without value. There are some very good concepts within it that enable it to stand the test of time. But that in no way means that it is correct, especially not in its entirety. But my point was that if there was some overarching "Holy Spirit" that guides believers then there should not be such a huge variety of interpretations. Making up a fictitious spirit and then claiming others don't have it while you do is not only unjustified, it is rather prideful to say the least. Ironically a sin that the Bible warns people not to fall into.

I don’t think so. Let’s just assume for sake of argument (since you don’t believe in it) a Holy Spirit. Why would such an entity serve to subvert many valid interpretations? Interpretations are informed through knowledge, experience, cultural awareness and bias, etc. IOW, it’s a human process, not a magic process. Seems to me that Holy Spirit would serve to validate those interpretations and help us come to the understanding that widely variant interpretations compliment one another in helping us gain a less myopic picture of ourselves and God.

Of course the Bible isn’t factually correct; it’s not that kind of document. The truths it contains come largely through metaphor and allegory and poetry.

 

[74x12]

It appears as though you’re forsaking scholarship for spiritual experience. They go hand-in-hand. Only when you’ve ascertained what is read out of the texts can you apply it faithfully to understanding through interpretation. Otherwise, you don’t really know what it is you’re trying to understand.

Let me put it this way: it’s by scholarship that you have a Bible to read. Otherwise, you’d be illiterate, and no one would be able to translate ancient languages into modern English. What you’re reading (unless you’re reading in the original languages) is a translation, based in scholarship. You can’t come to a knowledge of it without scholarship. The Holy Spirit will not replace scholarship. And the interpretive process is a communal process. No one interprets in a vacuum.

You're exaggerating my position. That's not what I said. I just believe personal guidance of the holy Spirit is more important.

 

[sojourner]

You're exaggerating my position. That's not what I said. I just believe personal guidance of the holy Spirit is more important.

You’re wrong. It’s not more important for the reasons I outlined above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think so. Let’s just assume for sake of argument (since you don’t believe in it) a Holy Spirit. Why would such an entity serve to subvert many valid interpretations? Interpretations are informed through knowledge, experience, cultural awareness and bias, etc. IOW, it’s a human process, not a magic process. Seems to me that Holy Spirit would serve to validate those interpretations and help us come to the understanding that widely variant interpretations compliment one another in helping us gain a less myopic picture of ourselves and God.

Of course the Bible isn’t factually correct; it’s not that kind of document. The truths it contains come largely through metaphor and allegory and poetry.

As the saying goes:

"They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong".

If two interpretations disagree with each other they cannot both be correct. And the problem is that far too many Christians believe that the Bible not only must be correct, but that they have the one correct interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

As the saying goes:

"They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong".

If two interpretations disagree with each other they cannot both be correct. And the problem is that far too many Christians believe that the Bible not only must be correct, but that they have the one correct interpretation.

It’s a HUGE problem. Reminds me of the scene out of Life of Brian with the gourd and the shoe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s a HUGE problem. Reminds me of the scene out of Life of Brian with the gourd and the shoe.

And a bit of an aside. Since the Bible was written over a long period of time it is interesting to note the advancement of morals as one goes through it. Early on the morals were tribal morals Extremely crude by modern standards where we abhor genocide, but it was perfectly well "justified" in Genesis and Exodus. It changed to rather rough nationalistic morals and it was not until Jesus came along that it went beyond that. There were still quite a few what we would call bad morals since the people of that time could not afford the morals that we have today. Women were not much more than property due to the conditions of the time. Today we have the luxury of freedom that was hard earned over many years of advancing material wealth and the advancement in morals that went with it. We even see that today where rich countries are the ones that can afford and push for environmental reforms.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ha. Ha.

This is more circular reasoning. You're assuming you're right. And most atheists have obvious misconceptions and misunderstandings of the scriptures.

His question seemed perfectly reasonable to me, not at all circular. And I'm not an atheist.

 

[sojourner]

And a bit of an aside. Since the Bible was written over a long period of time it is interesting to note the advancement of morals as one goes through it. Early on the morals were tribal morals Extremely crude by modern standards where we abhor genocide, but it was perfectly well "justified" in Genesis and Exodus. It changed to rather rough nationalistic morals and it was not until Jesus came along that it went beyond that. There were still quite a few what we would call bad morals since the people of that time could not afford the morals that we have today. Women were not much more than property due to the conditions of the time. Today we have the luxury of freedom that was hard earned over many years of advancing material wealth and the advancement in morals that went with it. We even see that today where rich countries are the ones that can afford and push for environmental reforms.

Just goes to show that it’s not something “absolute.”

 

[74x12]

You’re wrong. It’s not more important for the reasons I outlined above.

In that case you disagree with the doctrine of the scriptures themselves. According to the scriptures you can only understand the things of God through the holy Spirit.

 

[sojourner]

In that case you disagree with the doctrine of the scriptures themselves. According to the scriptures you can only understand the things of God through the holy Spirit.

There IS no doctrine inherent in “the scriptures themselves.” The scriptures aren’t “of God”; they’re of human beings.

 

[74x12]

Why? That is the error of assuming that this Holy Spirit exists in the first place. And we do not have any evidence for that at all. If anything there is evidence to the contrary. If there was a "Holy Spirit" then there should be an easily recognizable consensus of Bible interpretation. Instead we see thousands of different sects and cults all based upon different interpretations of the Bible with differences going from mild Baptist to Baptist disagreements or ALC Lutheran versus Missouri Synod Lutherans to major differences such as between Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. Sooner or later one says that the others are "Not true Christians".

When you understand and realize that the world is under certain so called "archons" that is rulers and cosmic powers. Basically angelic beings who rebelled against the most High; then you'll understand the world is in complete darkness. I am happy to see any sliver of light. I want people to walk on in whatever light they've been given or were able to receive.

Of course there would be little confusion, little turmoil if evil wasn't a real force. Mankind alone cannot come to any reasonable consensus of Biblical interpretation. Mankind alone may not find all the truth. Every one must personally be led of the holy Spirit if they want to know the things of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you understand and realize that the world is under certain so called "archons" that is rulers and cosmic powers. Basically angelic beings who rebelled against the most High; then you'll understand the world is in complete darkness. I am happy to see any sliver of light. I want people to walk on in whatever light they've been given or were able to receive.

Of course there would be little confusion, little turmoil if evil wasn't a real force. Mankind alone cannot come to any reasonable consensus of Biblical interpretation. Mankind alone may not find all the truth. Every one must personally be led of the holy Spirit if they want to know the things of God.

So it comes down to "I am write cuz of conspiracies"? Are you kidding me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In that case you disagree with the doctrine of the scriptures themselves. According to the scriptures you can only understand the things of God through the holy Spirit.

And where does it say that? As if it really mattered.

 

[whirlingmerc]

And where does it say that? As if it really mattered.

In Corinthians. Loosely quoting Isaiah
'Eye has not seen nor ear heard of all that God has prepared for those who love Him"


There is considerable uniform evidence not merely for the individuals in the Book of Daniel but
supporting some portions. In any case the prophesy of return after 70 years is attested to

Esther and Mordecai also appear is archeological records
not a problem as the books of Daniel and Esther are real history

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Corinthians. Loosely quoting Isaiah
'Eye has not seen nor ear heard of all that God has prepared for those who love Him"


There is considerable uniform evidence not merely for the individuals in the Book of Daniel but
supporting some portions. In any case the prophesy of return after 70 years is attested to

Esther and Mordecai also appear is archeological records
not a problem as the books of Daniel and Esther are real history

That is more than quite a stretch. You need to do a lot better than that.

And yes, some of the books of the Bible are fairly historical, and some are clearly fictitious.

 

[whirlingmerc]

That is more than quite a stretch. You need to do a lot better than that.

And yes, some of the books of the Bible are fairly historical, and some are clearly fictitious.

clearly fictitious sound like allot of assertions without evidence
can you give an example?