Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity and the End Times
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 1748 (835977)
07-06-2018 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by PaulK
07-06-2018 1:03 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
I guess you believe all that. It's false in every conceivable way.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:12 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 212 of 1748 (835978)
07-06-2018 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
07-06-2018 1:00 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
quote:
Being wrong has nothing to do with motives. Oh yes "attempt to drag out this tangent" claims I have a MOTVE to "drag out this tangent.'
When you put in points that aren’t part of the tangent, in a sub thread intended to deal with a side point out of respect to your request to wait until you finish writing your post it certainly looks like an attempt to drag out the tangent.
quote:
Oh yes WANTING a winged lion is different from thinking a winged lion is a good symbol. I COULD want it for that reason but you turned it into a scurrilous motive.
I did ? I can’t see where I attach any scurrilous motive to you wanting a winged lion. Obviously I think you preferred a winged lion because it better supported your assertion.
quote:
You're very good at that.
Inventing examples hardly supports that claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 1:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 1:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 213 of 1748 (835979)
07-06-2018 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
07-06-2018 1:06 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
quote:
I guess you believe all that. It's false in every conceivable way.
None of it is untrue, and that is the only way of being false that counts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 1:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 1:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 214 of 1748 (835980)
07-06-2018 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by PaulK
07-06-2018 1:09 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
You are wrong wrong wrong about my motives. Leave my motives alone.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 215 of 1748 (835981)
07-06-2018 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Faith
07-06-2018 1:12 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
So you didn’t use the image of a winged lion over all the images of unsigned lions - and make a point of it being winged - because you thought it would better support your argument ?
You think that there is something scurrilous in choosing what you think is the best evidence ?
Weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 1:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 216 of 1748 (835982)
07-06-2018 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by PaulK
07-06-2018 1:12 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
I guess you believe all that. It's false in every conceivable way.
None of it is untrue, and that is the only way of being false that counts.
All it means is that you are good at finding superficial correspondences but even there you come up with a totally false idea of the ten kings and just force it on the argument by ridiculous technicalities -- two kings that never reigned, oh give me a break. No, your idea of what is true is just not true at all, it's a manipulation you somehow get away with even in your own mind, though it involves massive self-deception.
To make your ridiculous claims about the Seleucid empire as the fourth beast, and the Maccabean period as the end of the Daniel prophecy, and the two messiahs nobody has heard of, you have to utterly mangle or destroy or ignore the whole seventy weeks prophecy, you have to twist the clear order of the empires that are intended to be identical, you dismiss the obvious twoness that ties together the images of the Medo-Persian empire, you pretend that the four horns of the goat aren't a part of Greece which the goat represents, you ignore the iron of the fourth beast that ties it to the legs of the statue, you try to turn it into the Seleucid empire by some kind of sophistry I can't even fully remember it's so forced and tricky. NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF TRUTH IN ANY OF THIS, it's all a concocted deviation from the clear meaning of the prophecies.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:58 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 217 of 1748 (835983)
07-06-2018 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
07-06-2018 1:20 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
quote:
All it means is that you are good at finding superficial correspondences but even there you come up with a totally false idea of the ten kings and just force it on the argument by ridiculous technicalities -- two kings that never reigned, oh give me a break.
Heliodorus reigned a short while and the young Antiochus was co-regent, even if he was too young to meaningfully weird power. Even though Demetrius wasn’t in a position to do anything about it he was still rightfully King. Try finding an equally good correspondence if you think it’s just chance.
So no, since even the numbers - seven and three - match, and for a specific individual the fit is hardly superficial it’s amazingly good. That you try to add qualifications to try and disqualify it - when you would strenuously object to similar arguments against an interpretation you favoured - only shows that it is good.
quote:
No, your idea of what is true is just not true at all, it's a manipulation you somehow get away with even in your own mind, though it involves massive self-deception.
Funny that you can never show any such self-deception then. And yet you can claim that wanting to present the evidence you think best supports your case is a scurrilous motive
quote:
To make your ridiculous claims about the Seleucid empire as the fourth beast, and the Maccabean period as the end of the Daniel prophecy, and the two messiahs nobody has heard of, you have to utterly mangle or destroy or ignore the whole seventy weeks prophecy, you have to twist the clear order of the empires that are intended to be identical, you dismiss the obvious twoness that ties together the images of the Medo-Persian empire, you pretend the fact that the four horns of the goat aren't a part of Greece which the goat represents, you ignore the iron of the fourth beast that ties it to the legs of the statue, you try to turn it into the Seleucid empire by some kind of sophistry I can't even fully remember it's so forced and tricky. NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF TRUTH IN ANY OF THIS, it's all a concocted deviation from the clear meaning of the prophecies.
I’ll start by noting that I did not ignore the iron of the fourth beast that ties it to the legs of the statue. In fact I claim that it is consistent with the fourth beast of Daniel 7 representing the Seleucids.
Further I note that my ideas have strong support from the text and that the prophecy is not clearly against any of them. You on the other hand have yet to provide any textual support for a massive gap in the 490 years of Daniel 9 or the alleged change of context in Daniel 11 - or even answered my textual evidence that Daniel 11 continues to talk about the Seleucids and Ptolemys at least as far as 11:40.
I can point out that your obvious twoness could easily be a threeness in the case of the statue. Or it could be just incidental, since the interpretation in the text makes nothing of it.
I can’t say for sure what you’re mangling when you say that I pretend the fact that the four horns of the goat aren't a part of Greece which the goat represent so I can’t really answer it. As written it certainly isn’t true.
If you want to claim that I’m the one pushing falsehoods you’d do better to avoid getting so much wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 1:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 9:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 218 of 1748 (835984)
07-06-2018 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
07-05-2018 10:05 AM


Re: Lets Get Back To Marketing
jar writes:
One group decides what they want the conclusion to show.
One group simply looks at what the text says regardless of any desired outcome.
One group sells the sizzle rather than the steak.
One group simply says it is steak of a particular cut with marbling.
For the purposes of this argument, I will state that you and PaulK are in the second group and that Faith and I are in the first group. The particular steak which we are examining is 2nd Peter and also Daniel. Let's start with 2nd Peter.
jar writes:
2 Peter is a very important example of how the marketing changed because the prophecies failed.
In 2 Peter we see the acknowledgment that what Jesus said failed to happen and a revision of the "sizzle" from "this generation" to sometime in the future.
And that ambiguity has worked well as a marketing tool ever since then.
Let the audience note what jar is marketing. Nowhere on google can I find any scholars who agree with jars assessment. Jesus is never seen as a failed Messiah nor is it even suggested that Jesus was wrong in what He said. Let the steak speak for itself, however. (You will experience the sizzle once we turn up the heat! )
First off, who is the book addressed to? Critics would argue that the book was only addressed to a specific audience in a specific time yet those same critics will attempt to change the meaning of the book (or the Bible itself) to market their own conclusions in this day and age.
2 Peter 1:1 writes:
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours...
I will argue that the letter could be addressed to you or me today.
Often, jar asks the hypothetical question of "how do you know its God and not just a bad burrito?" 2nd Peter makes it clear that the knowledge of God begins with faith...not evidence. The 2nd group fails to acknowledge this point and instead insists on picking apart scripture to support evidence which they themselves seek to market.
Note that the corruption of the world is a theme that runs through the entire Bible. It is central to our arguments even today over what scripture means or should mean.
2 Peter 1:5-9 writes:
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Critics argue over this whole idea of sin in general and we all often point fingers at each other as being the villains in any argument. Suffice it to say that people in both groups fall short of the mark. Logic and evidence alone will never take away one's sins.
Getting back to the author, note what he says:
2 Peter 1:15 writes:
And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.
Is it not ironic that in 2018 we are in fact able to remember (and critically examine) the points which the author intended?
2 Peter 1:16-18 writes:
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
Critics would say that the books of the NT are also cleverly invented stories designed to market a particular belief or idea, but I personally believe that the stories are not invented but recounted and that the only thing being sold is the idea that God is alive and real.
2 Peter 1:20-21 writes:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
I suppose it is fair to acknowledge that critics will ask how one would know they are being carried by the Holy Spirit vs indigestion from their morning burrito, but I'll simply let the text speak for itself!
2 Peter 2:1-3 writes:
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
We may well ask ourselves if there are any false teachers among us. I have mentioned Richard Carrier before...this is an excellent article which highlights a controversy between him and an apologist: Refutation Of Richard Carrier The first group believes that the Bible speaks to us today. The Gideons have stated it quite succinctly:
The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.
Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.
It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.
Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.
It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.
The second group believes that the bible is mythos.
jar writes:
But religions can be a path, a guide and somewhat connected to reality at times.
I agree. I respect the idea of logic, reason, and reality as well as evidence-based thinking. I would argue, however, that scripture itself and its message is evidence. Supporting this belief does require a lot of work, however. Comments so far?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 07-05-2018 10:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-06-2018 9:20 AM Phat has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 219 of 1748 (835985)
07-06-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by PaulK
07-06-2018 1:58 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
Heliodorus reigned a short while and the young Antiochus was co-regent, even if he was too young to meaningfully weird power. Even though Demetrius wasn’t in a position to do anything about it he was still rightfully King. Try finding an equally good correspondence if you think it’s just chance.
I've found some good discussions of the ten horns imagery related to the Roman Empire but it's going to take me a while to get through it.
I'll start by noting that I did not ignore the iron of the fourth beast that ties it to the legs of the statue. In fact I claim that it is consistent with the fourth beast of Daniel 7 representing the Seleucids.
As long as both images are included. I'm reading up on some interpretative views and see that at least some of yours is acknowledged, so I guess you are just getting it all from some liberal sources.
Further I note that my ideas have strong support from the text and that the prophecy is not clearly against any of them. You on the other hand have yet to provide any textual support for a massive gap in the 490 years of Daniel 9 or the alleged change of context in Daniel 11 - or even answered my textual evidence that Daniel 11 continues to talk about the Seleucids and Ptolemys at least as far as 11:40.
As long as your ideas make a mess of the seventy weeks prophecy you cannot say you have strong support from the text.
I don't see a gap. I see a prophecy of one week or seven years that was not fulfilled in the time span after Daniel. If a prophecy is not yet fulfilled, we consider it awaiting fulfilolment. There is no gap.
I'm not sure I can defend the change of context to you although I believe it. As I've been reading through the passages it is pretty subtle. If I run across an explanation that make it clearer I will argue it here.
We know that most of Daniel 11 is about the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, that's not at issue.
I can point out that your obvious twoness could easily be a threeness in the case of the statue. Or it could be just incidental, since the interpretation in the text makes nothing of it.
Most of the prophecies are mere imagery we are left to figure out for ourselves, the text making nothing of it.
However, if you are including the chest of the statue as the third element, then you have to include the neck of the bear between the shoulders as a third element and the head of the ram between the two horns as a third element. However, two arms are two arms, two shoulders are two shoulders, and two horns are two horns, and the fact that there is a difference between the two in the case of the bear and the ram adds to the correspondence that identifies Medo-Persia. And of course Daniel 8 SAYS that the ram is Medo-Persia so we know the other two are as well.
I can’t say for sure what you’re mangling when you say that I pretend the fact that the four horns of the goat aren't a part of Greece which the goat represent so I can’t really answer it. As written it certainly isn’t true.
They occur in the image of Greece and nowhere else, as likewise the four wings and heads of the leopard which is also Greece, but you want to separate them from Greece and make a separate kingdom out of one of them using the fourth beast and the legs of the status although that ruins the clearly intended pattern of four entirely different empires, the fourth clearly possessing completely different characteristics from Greece.
If you want to claim that I’m the one pushing falsehoods you’d do better to avoid getting so much wrong.
Yes I got sloppy, but being wrong can be corrected.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 1:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 9:34 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 220 of 1748 (835986)
07-06-2018 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Phat
07-06-2018 8:07 AM


Re: Lets Get Back To Marketing
First, you really need to learn what Mythos actually means. Before we can go much further that needs to get resolved.
Second, you actually support everything I have said regardless of your belief you present any rebuttal.
One group accepts a set of dogma endorsed by their chapter of Club Christian as authoritative while the other group accepts that what is written in the Bible stories is what is actually written in the Bible stories EVEN when it refutes the dogma of a given Chapter of Club Christian.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Phat, posted 07-06-2018 8:07 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 07-06-2018 10:42 AM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 221 of 1748 (835987)
07-06-2018 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
07-06-2018 9:03 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
quote:
I've found some good discussions of the ten horns imagery related to the Roman Empire but it's going to take me a while to get through it.
I doubt you’ll find a straightforward fit.
quote:
As long as both images are included. I'm reading up on some interpretative views and see that at least some of yours is acknowledged, so I guess you are just getting it all from some liberal sources.
I’m doing very little consulting of resources for anything but the history. I look at the Bible frequently because the text has to be correctly represented, I look up the actual history but the only reasearch I did with other resources was to find the possible start date for the seventy weeks. And I ended up ignoring that.
But then I have a strong case so I don’t need much help.
quote:
As long as your ideas make a mess of the seventy weeks prophecy you cannot say you have strong support from the text.
Even with the seventy weeks prophecy they do better than yours, and I think the other prophecies ought to count for something.
quote:
I don't see a gap. I see a prophecy of one week or seven years that was not fulfilled in the time span after Daniel. If a prophecy is not yet fulfilled, we consider it awaiting fulfilolment. There is no gap.
Then, since the 490 weeks prophecy has not been fulfilled I guess you think it can’t even have started yet. Are you really going to give up on the claim that it successfully predicted Jesus so you can get rid of the gap ?
quote:
I'm not sure I can defend the change of context to you although I believe it. As I've been reading through the passages it is pretty subtle. If I run across an explanation that make it clearer I will argue it here.
If it isn’t clear it probably isn’t there.
quote:
However, if you are including the chest of the statue as the third element, then you have to include the neck of the bear between the shoulders as a third element and the head of the ram between the two horns as a third element. However, two arms are two arms, two shoulders are two shoulders, and two horns are two horns
That really supports my point with regard to the statue, though I admit I had no idea that you were leaving out the chest! The point is that it is easy to make up interpretations as you have just demonstrated. Note that there is no suggestion of inequality between the arms - your supposedly diagnostic trait, and as I said the explanation doesn’t make anything of the chest and the arms or of there being two arms so you are very likely picking up on something that is purely incidental.
quote:
They occur in the image of Greece and nowhere else, as likewise the four wings and heads of the leopard which is also Greece, but you want to separate them from Greece and make a separate kingdom out of one of them.
That’s still pretty mangled. But there’s no solid objection underneath it. If the Seleucids are the focus of the prophecy - and there is good evidence for that. And Daniel is about the cultural struggle against Hellenism, and particularly in light of Antiochs’ treatment of the Jews I don’t see it as unreasonable for Daniel 7 to present them as a different beast. Especially as they were an independent kingdom.
quote:
Yes I got sloppy, but being wrong can be corrected.
Then I guess there’s a chance you’ll see it my way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 9:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 07-06-2018 11:09 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 07-06-2018 11:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 222 of 1748 (835988)
07-06-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
07-06-2018 9:20 AM


Re: Lets Get Back To Marketing
jar writes:
First, you really need to learn what Mythos actually means. Before we can go much further that needs to get resolved.
OK, let me research the term.
WEbsters says this:
Websters writes:
1 a : myth 1a
b : mythology 2a
2 : a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture
3 : theme, plot the starving artist mythos
Perhaps I thought we were talking about the first definition whereas you mean the term more along the lines of the 2nd definition. Comments?
jar writes:
One group accepts a set of dogma endorsed by their chapter of Club Christian as authoritative while the other group accepts that what is written in the Bible stories is what is actually written in the Bible stories EVEN when it refutes the dogma of a given Chapter of Club Christian.
Does this mean that we should give as much weight to what is written in the Gospel of John as we do to your beloved Matthew 25? My beef with you and PaulK is that you attempt to drag the Bible down to a level where it is simply another book and in no way a conduit to GOD, Creator of all seen and unseen. There is a good article at Tektonics.org regarding Why We Cannot Have Inerrant Bible Copies whereby the apologists make a valid argument:
Tektonics.org writes:
Hardened skeptics often call Christians "bibliolaters" - thus implying that the Bible is some sort of "leather-covered security blanket" that Christians worship and would be frantic without.
This charge is unfortunately sometimes true, but we can see easily why, first, this dichotomy is wrong, in terms of a blanket assessment; and second, how this leads us to the biggest reason why we do not have inerrant copies of Scripture today.
First, it is plain that neither the Bible nor a belief in inerrancy is required to be a Christian. If this were so, then skeptics like Frank Morison or C. S. Lewis, who believed in the historicity of the Resurrection but not in the inerrancy of the Gospel reports of it, would never become Christians. People behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains would never have become Christians in times when the Bible was forbidden in those countries and they often had no more of the Bible than a few pitiable verses handwritten on a paper towel. Finally, in this day beyond when most people cannot even remember what their name is without consulting their drivers' license, literacy would be a prerequisite for belief, which would be absurd being that the Bible was written in a time when up to 95% of the given population was illiterate.
So the charge of "bibliolatry," while unfortunately sometimes true or appearing to be so, is nevertheless not a true representation of Christian belief. Moreover, given the circumstances, it is clear that "the Word of God" for most people was not what was written on paper, but was the original idea (what I have called the "home office" copy) recorded on paper. Few could have appreciated the significance of a written, inerrant original document.
Second, it should by now be obvious, in light of this, why we do not have inerrant copies of the Bible today - if we did, then you might well see genuine, widespread bibliolatry. Look back on the checkered history of mankind in general and the church in particular.
Every Skeptic can recite the litany of sins associated with, for example, the sale of relics in the early church. These "relics" were alleged to be pieces of Christian history that the common believer could buy, and in exchange not only have it for what it allegedly was, but also perhaps thereby purchase some time for themselves or deceased relatives out of purgatory, among other things.
The relics themselves are well-known - most of us have heard the famous statement about there being enough wood from the "True Cross" to build a seaworthy ship. Other relics have ranged from the indelicate (vials of Mary's breast milk) to the mundane (toenail clippings of the Apostles) to the frankly disgusting (a whole TOE of an Apostle).
Now if this is how allegedly authentic pieces of Christian history were regarded, how would inerrant copies of Scripture have been received? True, there are a few of us who would not submit to such temptations; but by far the majority of the population in history has not been of the sort who could resist according some special worship to supposedly holy items.
But for comparison we might consider Muslim treatment of copies of the Quran. While it does not seem that Muslims hold to quite the view that every copy is inspired, consider some standard treatment of the text even in its current state (thanks to "Wildcat" for this info):
It has to be wrapped in a nice cloth. It has to be put on this thing that looks like a stand so you don't put it on your lap. It has to be duly kissed on front, back and top before you open it and most of all you believe it is all the truth and NEVER EVER DARE question it's integrity and when you read it you have to recite it in a prose, you don't read it like a book and some people move back and forth, i.e sway slightly when they recite it.
Christians are already called bibliolaters now; what if they went this far? How far would any "people of the book" go if they believed every copy was divinely inspired?
Furthermore, consider that the laity in many parts of the early church were forbidden to have their own copies of Scripture; how if those copies had each been inscribed with God's seal? The Scripture copies themselves would become the most expensive sort of relic, put distantly out of reach of the common people. Some would have taken to mind to destroy as many copies as they could, and prevent the production of later copies, to increase the value of their own copies. Scribes would be hired to produce (or NOT produce) more copies for their wealthy patrons. This would be the problems of relics a thousandfold.
So again, the real issue is whether human nature needs outside help and whether this outside help is possible or whether we are self-correcting mechanisms expected to make ourselves better without the need of a Savior.
Another issue is whether the additional messages which you detect from the editors and redactors agree or disagree with what you claim the original message actually is.
One group needs God to be real and interactive and will admit this. I will concede that we expect God to be as we have imagined Him to be, through the reading of scripture and through the common consensus of mainstream Christianity.
The other group expects no such outside help...even if GOD exists and is more similar to the One we market.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-06-2018 9:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 07-06-2018 11:48 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 231 by jar, posted 07-06-2018 2:22 PM Phat has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 1748 (835990)
07-06-2018 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
07-06-2018 9:34 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
Then I guess there’s a chance you’ll see it my way.
I don't know much about this topic, so please forgive me if my question is foolish.
Don't most fundies insist that Isaiah is about double fulfillment? Isn't there going to be a great fit to a conventional prophecy (which might not even be prophetic, but instead historical) and then some future meaning in their eyes?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 9:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 11:18 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 224 of 1748 (835992)
07-06-2018 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by NoNukes
07-06-2018 11:09 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
I don’t think it helps them much in this case. They still need a valid first fulfilment and even if the second fulfilment is pushed off into the future to make it unfalsifiable it’s still likely to be uncomfortable for those who want to say that the end is coming soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 07-06-2018 11:09 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 225 of 1748 (835993)
07-06-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
07-06-2018 9:34 AM


Re: Symbolism isn’t that easy
I've already lost two answers to this post, one quite lengthy, by failing to save it in case I get the log-in page when I try to post, which unfortunately often still happens, and it happened twice now. I thought I saved it the second time but did something wrong. So now this is incredibly discouraging, but I'll try at least one more brief answer:
I don't see a gap. I see a prophecy of one week or seven years that was not fulfilled in the time span after Daniel. If a prophecy is not yet fulfilled, we consider it awaiting fulfilolment. There is no gap.
Then, since the 490 weeks prophecy has not been fulfilled I guess you think it can’t even have started yet. Are you really going to give up on the claim that it successfully predicted Jesus so you can get rid of the gap ?
The seventy weeks prophecy is divided into segments that each have their own fulfillment as well as pointing together to the great finale. 7 weeks plus 62 weeks plus 1 week is the total.
The first 7 were the time for the rebuilding of Jerusalem after Artaxerxes' command which sent Nehemiah to the city for that purpose.; He organized the people into families to rebuild the wall, each building a section, each armed because it was in "troublous times." The rebuilding took 7 "weeks" or 49 years.
The prophecy then says another 62 weeks will count to Messiah the Prince. Those were fulfilled to before the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the 69 weeks from the initial command to rebuild the city after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it, and His crucifixion was followed by the Roman general Titus who destroyed the city and temple again. Titus is the "prince of the people who are to tome."
All this leaves the one week of a covenant to be made by the "prince of the people who will come."
Since that one week was not fulfilled we expect it in the future. And since Titus was Roman, it will be a Roman who fulfills it.
That hasn't yet come but since 483 years of the prophecy have been fulfilled you can't say that there are 490 unfulfilled years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 9:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2018 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024