|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
But those are not children of his loin, his seed. How does the verse concerning the servants seed support the idea of symbolic "birth" into God's kingdom or eternal life after physical death? That's assuming quite a lot. What translation tells you he will give his descendants long life? The NAS which says this: John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
quote: This passage says nothing about giving his descendants long life. That is the whole gist of the argument. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:irrelevant quote:irrelevant quote:False. Ideas can be objective. quote:If we are really, honestly trying to understand "what the Bible really means," (the subtitle of this forum, BTW) it is irrelevant what it means to you or to me or to an aborigine. What matters is what it meant to the original author. The original author was trying to communicate something. The task of the interpreter is to try to figure out what this was. quote:EXACTLY! quote:No, they have an objective meaning, which is the meaning that human beings have assigned them. quote:Universal, no. Objective, yes. quote:We seem to be operating from different definitions of the word "objective". If you like, you can replace my uses of "objective" with "specific." Perhaps that would be clearer for you? I have been using the word "objective" in this way (from dictionary.com):
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
With study of language, history, and culture, it is possible to know what many of these apocalyptic symbols meant to the original author. This knowledge can be gained independent of the person doing the study. Thus these meanings are objective according to the above definition. I now understand that you may be using the term in a different way, and that my usage may be confusing to you. I am not trying to argue about terminology, but to communicate ideas. So I can try to use the word "specific" to avoid confusion, if you think this is clearer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
quote: How? How can you know what some one from 2000 or 4000 years ago meant? You do not have the linguistic and cultural background to know what they meant by their symbolism. No one does. All you, or anyone, can do is interpret and try to divine what they may have meant. To declare that you can know what they meant is a huge statement of hubris. It is extremely arrogant to declare that your interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. You can state, without any reservations, that your interpretation of Isaiah is correct and the interpretation of all Jewish scholars is wrong? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Of course not. The point is that they DID have a specific meaning to the original author. It is this meaning which is the correct interpretation. quote:Nonsense! Do Maxwell's equations have an "objective, clear meaning?" Yes! Do they need to be "interpreted," especially for a non-scientist? Yes! Objectivity and interpretation are in no way contradictory.
quote:That's as crazy as saying that physics or mathematics cannot be used as an argument for the "objective and clear meaning" of Maxwell's equations. Because that is what it purports to do. It is like trying to use science to prove science. quote:This is EXACTLY the goal of biblical interpretation--you've described it well. If you've never studied theology, hermeneutics, literary interpretation, archaeology, history, language, etc, then yes, this sounds like a very audacious and ridiculous claim. But with the proper study of these subjects it IS possible. An aborigine would probably think it equally audacious if someone told him that the symbols in Maxwell's equations actually meant and communicated something specific and profound.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
quote: Maxwell's equations are laws of electromagnetism that can be proven and mathematically explained. They are a fundamental truth. You are equivocating by saying that they would need to be interpreted for a layman. The symbols in the bible are not a universal truth. Different people and different groups will come up with different meanings(read interpretations) Just because thay are the same word(interpret) does not mean they mean the same thing. Interpret as you used for maxwell's equations, is to explain or elucidate. I do not think this is an actual correct use of this word here. Because in actuality the equations do not require an interpretation. All they require is for the person to learn physics and mathematics and they can learn why they are truth. Interpret as used for the prophecies has a different meaning. Here it means :To conceive the significance of; construe. A person can not learn the ultimate intent of the writer. All they can do is make educated guesses and suppositions of what the original writer meant. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I really don't see much difference. In essence, to "interpret" means to "explain what something means". The symbols in Maxwell's equations have a very specific meaning, but need to be interpreted, especially for a layman. Likewise, the symbols in Scripture had a very specific meaning to the original authors. Biblical interpretation is figuring out this original meaning. In both cases, we are dealing with symbols. The symbols themselves are not "universal truth", but they communicate truth. One communicates truth from nature (God's works); the other truth from Scripture (God's Word). You keep insisting that the Bible cannot be interpreted (i.e. we can not know the meaning of the original authors). I completely disagree. Why are you even posting here? (The subtitle of this forum is "what the Bible really means".) If you take your view to the extreme, we can never interpret any communication from someone from another culture or language. We can never enter into international agreements with foreign countries. This is ridiculous. The Bible can be interpreted. We can understand what the original author was trying to communicate. Not perfectly and not uniformly, of course, but often with very high confidence. This is what we mean by "biblical interpretation" or "hermeneutics." It requires studying the language, history, and culture of the original writer. Your description of biblical interpretation as something which is subjective and culture-dependent is NOT true, scholarly biblical interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: For the purposes of this discussion the author's intent is a minor issue at most. The question we need to answer is how much freedom of interpretation is available. This is especially important because the proponents of Bible prophecy are clearly mainly interested finding an interpretation that fits their ideas - regardless of what the original author actually meant. It is quite clear that Isaiah 53 contains few, if any, precise confirmable details. It is also clear that the proposer is more interested in reporting the opinions of other writers than actually discussing the text itself - in fact doing so only to find a convenient interpretation of pieces of the the text that do not easily fit with the ideas that the author meant Jesus. In conclusion: 1) Isaiah 53 isn't a convincing example of predictive prophecy. 2) kbertsche is not even trying to make a case for it being a convincing example of predictive prophecy (probably knowing that it isn't - I can find no other reason for such a complete failure to even attempt to make a valid case) 3) If it is possible to find the original author's meaning (which I doubt) kbertsche seems to have no interest in trying, preferring instead to find a meaning which fits his beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
With study of language, history, and culture, it is possible to know what many of these apocalyptic symbols meant to the original author. This knowledge can be gained independent of the person doing the study. Thus these meanings are objective according to the above definition. What it means to the original author requires for there to be a person that has a thought (the original author). Meaning does not exist independently of a subject who finds that meaning. It is necessarily subjective, not objective. The intent of the author is definite and absolute, but it only exists in the mind of the author and is thus subjective. And inaccessible since the author is very very dead. We can attempt to infer the original intent of the author, but our conclusions must be highly tentative given the cultural, linguistic and temporal distance between us. The greater the reference to idioms and symbols and metaphor...the more difficult it will be for us to be sure of the intent of the authors. It seems that the Isaiah passage in question suffers from this problem. We can't be sure that Isaiah's intent was to prophesize regarding the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:In doing proper biblical interpretation, authorial intent is paramount. But you make a valid point; interpreting prophecy is somewhat unique. Often the original author was not completely aware of the implications of what he wrote. quote:You say this, but NO ONE here has yet given a point-by-point response to the details I presented in Message 25, though I asked again in Message 65. All I've received are vague dismissive comments and off-topic red herrings. quote:I suppose you find it easier to make such dismissive comments than to actually deal with the details presented in Message 25? Instead, try a verse-by-verse response of what I presented there. [Note: my recent replies have been short and concise because I am extremely busy preparing papers to present at an international conference. I will have little if any time to post in the next 10 days or so. Don't take my absence as an inability to answer your questions; hopefully others will answer them in my absence.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:One who has not studied physics or advanced mathematics could insist that the symbols in Maxwell's equations are subjective and unknowable. One who has not studied theology or biblical interpretation (you?) could insist that the symbols in Scripture are subjective and unknowable. For one who has not studied a subject to declare that the subject is unknowable, this is certainly "a huge statement of hubris!" [Note: my recent replies have been short and concise because I am extremely busy preparing papers to present at an international conference. I will have little if any time to post in the next 10 days or so. Don't take my absence as an inability to answer your questions; hopefully others will answer them in my absence.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Would you please make a point when you provide a verse? IOW, explain how the verse supports your position. Again, you're over 700 years away from Isaiah. How does the verse concerning the servants seed support the idea of symbolic "birth" into God's kingdom or that prolonged life is talking about eternal life? A shepherd and sheep relationship is not a parent and child relationship. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Authorial intent may be paramount in "proper" Biblical interpretation - but if it is neither you nor Peg nor John 10:10 are doing "proper" Biblical interpretation.
quote: Well I'll look again and see if there's anything worth a detailed reply - remembering that this topic is about prophecy as a convincing argument FOR the reliability of the Bible. Firstly we can eliminate all those where the confirmation is simply Christian theology. After all that is not confirmably true - and may well be derived from Isaiah 53 in the first place. Well that didn't leave many. Next we can eliminate those that rely on questionable details in the Gospel accounts. Beyond the usual biases of the Gospels, as I pointed out in Message 27 the accounts of Jesus trial and execution do not identify any sources and any matches with Isiah 53 may even be due to the details in question being derived from Isaiah 53, rather than the actual events. Well that leaves us with just one. Or rather part of one:
quote: Yes I will concede that Jesus was convicted of a crime. And that can be dismissed on the grounds of sheer triviality. So I think we're left with two alternatives. The first is that you haven't been seriously trying to build a case (and probably made a lousy choice of prophecy to start with) and the second is that you can't build a decent case because there isn't a convincing predictive prophecy to be found in the Bible. Which do you prefer ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This passage says nothing about giving his descendants long life. That is the whole gist of the argument. You would feel right at home with Bill Clinton who declared "It all depends on what is is." You may not think "eternal life" is long life, but to those who are born of His Spirit (John 1:12-13, 3:3-7), it is! That is the gist of the argument. 1 John 5:11-13 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
will recompose
Edited by Theodoric, : need to rethink reply
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024