If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

. . . in hebrew, gen 1:27, the first "created" is an imperfect tense, denoting a lengthy process.

---

Hello Arachnophilia,Please allow me a minor correction. While the first "created" in the Hebrew text of Gen. 1:27 is indeed in the imperfect tense, it cannot be construed as denoting a lengthy process.If you look at the text, you will see that the term in question is preceded by the conjunction "vav" (meaning "and"), i.e. ויברא (v'yibara)This is what is known as a "vav consecutive" and can be prefixed to imperfect verb forms to express sequence in the narrated past. This construction is sometimes referred to as the "vav conversive". It is used to denote consecutive actions that from the reader's viewpoint took place in past time. To denote the consecutive narration, the translation of this construction is usually preceded with the use of "and then" or "and so".Thus, rather than indicating a lengthy process of creation, Gen. 1:27 should simply be read, "And then , created God, the man in His image."A good example for comparison can be found in Gen. 1:3, "And then said God, let (there) be light, and (there) was light."Here the verb "said", אמר (amar), is also found in the imperfect tense, but again with the "vav" conversive construction, i.e. ויאמר (v'yomar). And, of course, rather than indicating that God took a long time to give the command, it simply indicates that the next event in the narrated sequence was, "And then God said . . .".Hope this might clear up some misconceptions.As always, namaste'Amlodhi[edited to correct minor typo]This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-05-2004 11:31 PM

Hello ROTB,I've tried to avoid simply "ganging up" on you here, but the point others have been making is important. That is, "after the fact" prophecy identification simply allows too much leeway for manipulation of the data.When I first read Grant Jeffrey's "The Signature of God" several years ago, there were several "selective applications" of numbers and scriptural references which immediately made me suspicious that such manipulation was operative here.Since there are several complexities involved, (which is why you post so many links), I will for now only refer you to this brief statement made by a studied Christian and mathematician:

quote:

---

Signature or Forgery?

​

An open letter to Grant Jeffrey, author of "The Signature of God"

​

Note: This letter was originally sent to brother Jeffrey (twice), who did not respond. In the interest of making these facts generally known, I have posted it publically. The letter should NOT be construed as an attack on brother Jeffrey or his ministry. The letter simply calls attention to what I believe are inaccuracies and faulty arguments in his book.

​

Point #3. In the chapter entitled "Precise Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy -- the Signature of God" you discuss a passage from the book of Ezekiel (chapter 4, verses 1-17), which you claim predicts the revival of the modern state of Israel in 1947. You base your time calculations on the passage's reference to 390 "years of iniquity" for Israel and 40 "years of iniquity" for Judah. But in the passage these are called years of iniquity (Ezek. 4:5), and not years of future punishment. They represent the period of time that Israel and Judah have strayed from the Lord. The total number of years is 430, the same number of years which Israel stayed in Egypt until the "iniquity of the Amorites" was full (Gen. 15:16). In the time of Moses, God drove the Amorites from Canaan when their 430 years had been fulfilled - and in the same way, God drove Israel from the land after their 430 years were fulfilled.

​

Ezekiel bore the iniquity of Israel and Judah for 430 days, one day for each year. These "days of seige" (Ezek. 4:8) are prophetic of the impending seige of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Jer. 52:4-7) and not of the future exile of the Jews from the land of Canaan. After the days of his seige are ended, then Ezekiel prophecies the exile by scattering his hair to the winds (Ezek. 5:2). There is no indication whatsoever that 430 years refers to the length of Israel's future exile.

​

Part of your argument depends on the application of Leviticus 26:18, which states: "If ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins." According to the clear, plain application of this principle, if the Jews do not repent after 70 years of punishment, God shall punish them an additional 7 times 70 equals 490 years. So the total punishment would be 560 years, 8 times the original punishment.

​

But instead of a straightforward application, you use Lev. 26:18 in a very arbitrary way. Although the Scripture clearly indicates that 70 years was to be the total length of exile (Jer. 29:10-14), you take the 70 years as somehow the initial segment of a 430-year sentence -- entirely without Scriptural justification. You claim that Israel did not repent after 70 years, so God multiplied their punishment seven times. However, you do not multiply 70 times 7, or even 430 times seven, but rather 360 (equals 430 minus 70) times 7. This is just playing with numbers. By similar reasoning, you could justify any of 40,70,390,430 years for initial the punishment period (because these are all numbers which appear in the passage), and add seven times any of 40,70,390,430,30 , 320, 350 or 360 . This alone gives 28 distinct combinations. Moreover, if this combination rule failed to yield the desired result, there are other rules and numbers in the Scriptures which could be taken and applied. It's not surprising that eventually a combination was found which worked.

​

1998 CrossPollen. CrossPollen articles may be copied without permission from the author AS LONG AS (1) the article content is not changed (2) the original copyright notice is included. Copyright 1998 CrossPollen. Last Revised: January 12, 2002

---

http://www.accuros.com/thornbush/pollen/bibcode.htmThe exampled quote above reflects only some of the "selective determinations" involved in indentifying "prophetic" dates and events ex post facto.Were these selections chosen before the fact and used to accurately identify a date in the future, this methodology might have some significance. Historically (and revealingly), however, such attempts at prior identification have a dismal track record.Again, I hesitate to "gang up" on you here, but the ex post facto interpretation of alleged prophecy is simply too susceptible to selective interpretation. Had the state of Israel been recommissioned in the year 1878, I have little doubt that the biblical data could be manipulated to incorporate that date as easily as 1948.Amlodhi