posted
Sean--because it WORKS. Taking definitions of symbols from Bible prophecies written a thousand years apart, even in different languages, produces a consistently sensible meaning. In fact, this demonstrates that the New Testament is equally as inspired as the Old Testament, because the same is evident from the prophetic symbols used in Revelation, Matthew 24, Thessalonians, etc.--compared to Daniel and Zechariah 1-6, etc.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Janitor Blade--I used the term "cowards" reluctantly. But I could not think of any other way to say it. They have ducked four times now my direct, compeletely reasonable demand that they provide a specific example of what they claim, that I have not shown that Bible prophecy is accurate in every detail in foretelling the outline of future history, when I have already given them examples. I have also listed twice my methods of interpretation, by which I avoid making a "private" interpretation. All they do is quibble about the latter, trying to head off on a tangent. The fact remains that they have not backed up their claims with any specific example. I think it is entirely fair for me to question their unwillingness to do this.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm skeptical of your claim to reluctant name-calling in light of your frequent use of that kind of attack elsewhere, Ron.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taking definitions of symbols from Bible prophecies written a thousand years apart, even in different languages, produces a consistently sensible meaning. In fact, this demonstrates that the New Testament is equally as inspired as the Old Testament...
*facepalm* Yeah, see, that's one of those examples of "proof" that doesn't count as proof.
"This rock represents solidity in both these works of literature! They must have had the same author!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Janitor Blade--I used the term "cowards" reluctantly. But I could not think of any other way to say it. They have ducked four times now my direct, compeletely reasonable demand that they provide a specific example of what they claim, that I have not shown that Bible prophecy is accurate in every detail in foretelling the outline of future history, when I have already given them examples. I have also listed twice my methods of interpretation, by which I avoid making a "private" interpretation. All they do is quibble about the latter, trying to head off on a tangent. The fact remains that they have not backed up their claims with any specific example. I think it is entirely fair for me to question their unwillingness to do this.
Spend a few more moments phrasing your words then Ron. It's a good practice everytime you write out a pejorative to instead say what they are doing that bothers you. Here's some ideas*.
"It bothers me that people are not answering my challenge directly."
"I wish people would stop dancing around the meat of my statement"
"I'm annoyed that my statement X has yet to be responded to, I felt it was quite an apt point."
"I'm not talking about anything else until somebody answers the central premise of my argument."
It's really not that hard Ron. Please try harder.
*Of how to correctly say your idea, which I do not agree with necessarily.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
JanitorBlade, I agree with most of the alternate wordings you suggest. Of course, I have used them. One alternate wording you suggested I would not agree with, where you said: "I'm not talking about anything else until somebody answers the central premise of my argument." That strikes me as somewhat impudent and controlling, as if I were saying "Play my way or I won't play." I have always resisted allowing people to put their words in my mouth, or dictate to me what I have to respond to in order for them to listen to me, respect me, whatever the treatened punishment may be. Besides, that would lock me into one mode of behavior--not talking about anything else. I will not allow myself to be manipulated that way. I have plenty to say about a lot of things.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I am saying that I won't have this discussion with you, Ron, until you demonstrate that you actually know what "objectivity" is and how to recognize it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sean--because it WORKS. Taking definitions of symbols from Bible prophecies written a thousand years apart, even in different languages, produces a consistently sensible meaning. In fact, this demonstrates that the New Testament is equally as inspired as the Old Testament, because the same is evident from the prophetic symbols used in Revelation, Matthew 24, Thessalonians, etc.--compared to Daniel and Zechariah 1-6, etc.
This doesn't really answer my question. You're saying (if A then B)* is true. I'm asking why we should believe (A) is true to begin with. You went on to explain why (B) logically follows from (A).
*(A) = the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture. (B) = that the Bible can interpret all its own terms and symbols.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, allowing the Bible to interpret all its own symbols is essential for avoiding a private interpretation, where it becomes a competition to see who can come up with the most imaginative flight of fancy. What could be more objectively sound scholarship than to allow the Bible to tell you what its own terms and symbols mean? How can you not recognize this as a sound method of scholarship?
The miraculous thing is that when you find a definition for "waters" as a prophetic symbol, like the explicit one given in Revelation 17:15, and then "plug in" that same definition in Daniel 7:3 (where sea obviously is a synonym for waters), it makes perfect sense--and so also for everywhere else in the Bible the symbol is used. Mountains as a prophetic symbol always means kingdoms or empires. All throughout the Bible. "Smoke" as a prophetic symbol, or the related symbol "clouds" always means manifestation of supernatural power. It makes perfect sense everywhere in the Bible where these symbols are used. We even see it in the "pillar of cloud" by which the Lord led the children of Israel through the wilderness by day. The smoke or cloud is not always divine, though. Context informs us whether it is divine or Satanic. But the basic meaning is always consistent.
Once you have seen this, then you have to come to terms with the fact that the Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years by a multitude of different people, in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and koiné Greek). Since it is evident that in most cases the Bible writers who wrote down the symbolic imagery given to them in the visions they were shown did not always understand what they meant themselves, the only way to account for this consistency of meaning is to recognize that the visions given to the Bible prophets were genuine, and all came from One Mind, the Spirit of God who gave the prophets these visions.
In what way could this fail to be compellingly persuasive to you? What other explanation is there for these things?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that the whole issue of private interpretation could have been addressed much more easily and efficiently by avoiding the use of symbols in the first place.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, it seems to me now that when I ask why should we accept (A)= true, you are saying "Because (B)".
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In what way could this fail to be compellingly persuasive to you?
I ... am, well, pretty much convinced you have no idea how it couldn't be!
But if you were capable of it, someday, like, you woke up and realized these little things, it would blow your mind and .. I don't know, cause a life crisis or something.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So questions like "how on earth could that work" are sort of beside the point unless you think God must follow some rules beyond his own will.
Funny, this is what I believe. God has rules he has to follow. I for one believe that God used evolution to create life.
To me, the whole "Let there be" phrase wasn't a "snap His fingers and it just happened" thing, it more of a planning/delegation thing. God told his Lab Assistants to do something, and they took care of it.
I use those terms loosely, but you get the idea. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So questions like "how on earth could that work" are sort of beside the point unless you think God must follow some rules beyond his own will.
Funny, this is what I believe. God has rules he has to follow. I for one believe that God used evolution to create life.
To me, the whole "Let there be" phrase wasn't a "snap His fingers and it just happened" thing, it more of a planning/delegation thing. God told his Lab Assistants to do something, and they took care of it.
I use those terms loosely, but you get the idea.
Eminently sensible, but it's not the traditional idea. The tradition, going back to the earliest Catholic metaphysicians and affirmed by the first Protestants, holds that God is all powerful and has no limits. Except perhaps the laws of logic.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eminently sensible, but it's not the traditional idea. The tradition, going back to the earliest Catholic metaphysicians and affirmed by the first Protestants, holds that God is all powerful and has no limits. Except perhaps the laws of logic.
But, as far as I know, that tradition is not held by the LDS church. No idea if that's what Geraine's affiliation is, but with the demographics of this site its something to always try and keep in mind.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The longer this discussion goes on the more it reminds me of that recent Denzel Washington/train movie, except that no one here is stopping the collision from happening.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In what way could this fail to be compellingly persuasive to you? What other explanation is there for these things?
An easy alternate explanation to pick out is that these were all pre-established culturally as symbols for the things they are symbols for in the Bible. That, and centuries of editing made sure nothing contradicted the cohesive message. That, and the taught interpretation which enforces the notion of that consistency was developed alongside the actual text.
Do you think the widespread use of the heart symbol, everywhere meaning relatively similar things, is an example of divine intervention? Or the smiley face? We have about a bazillion iconic images and symbols in our culture that have no well defined source, but are not claimed as divine symbols. Rather, and most especially with elemental symbols, anthropologists have fairly convincing theories of why these symbols are universally understood in strikingly similar ways by so many cultures. Unsurprisingly, basic mythological concepts and symbols are as universal as basic hunter-gatherer tribal life experience is. Water in the valley brings life. Smoke from fire is powerful, as is the thundercloud. Shoooocker! I suppose you think that the greeks were also inspired by the One God, since they modeled their multiple gods on the same symbols, and the same meanings for those symbols. But the fact that writers will likely be agreeing on their symbolic significance for a thousand more years is not incredible, really. It's sort of mundanely self-evident.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might accept the similarity of symbols as some sort of proof of a divine hand if all of the references in the Bible had been written without ever seeing any of the other references. But words written when the author had access to the earlier words, as well as years of teaching of those words and their interpretations? It would be surprising to me if they didn't match.
If a biblical scholar decided to write a new book today, it would doubtless contain the same symbols with the same meanings and yet that wouldn't necessarily mean divine authorship. It might just mean he paid attention in class.
So how about specific prophecies? Want to take a swing at Ezekiel 26?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far, most of the prophecy claims I've seen go something like this:
Everything has come true in every particular! Surely it was divinely-inspired prophecy!
Except for these verses over here, but they're actually metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally. Or these verses, but you have to study the context to understand that. Or these verses, where predictions seem to name specific people but really they actually refer to the peoples that one person represents, or something. Or these verses, where specific predictions about specific cities being destroyed really did come true because those cities had a kind of a low point economically a thousand years later or so, even though they're fine now, but it still totally counts. Or the ones about practices or lineages or named cities lasting forever even though they ended later on, because they continue in heaven or somewhere we can't see. Or the one about the Nile drying up, or the numerous nations God promised to cast out which never quite happened, or the places where Matthew misquoted previous prophecies to make them come true, those don't count either.
But everything else was true in every particular!
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I explained why the method of allowing the Bible to interpret all its own terms and symbols logically derives from the assumption that One Divine Mind inspired all of Scripture, and some of you inaccurately try to claim I am using circular reasoning or something.
Since your explanations boil down to "the Bible is true because the Bible proves it's true," then yes, I think "circular reasoning" covers that nicely.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Chris. You may think you are being logical, but you are not. You are just rationalizing, trying to squirm and dance around the real significance of the things I have pointed out.
Guess what. These issues are a matter of life and death for eternity. You need to take them more seriously, and be more honest and responsible in your analyses. I confidently stake my life on everything that I have said. The Truth does exist. The Truth is knowable. And I know Him personally. I have peace over these matters. You could, too--if you were not so determined to resist. God will prove Himself to anyone who is willing to give Him a fair opportunity.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: These issues are a matter of life and death for eternity.
Uh... no, they're not.
You might think they are, and some might agree, but assuming this position for everyone else is demonstrating both ignorance and arrogance (or is that ignorant arrogance or arrogant ignorance?).
Or intentional trolling... I'm still not sure which category you fit into.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, see, Ron, in order to demonstrate that someone is speaking illogically you must actually show in what way they have done so. Not say they've done so and then make whoopie about the afterlife. And, of course, I doubt very much whether you know anything about Chris's state of spiritual welfare, anymore than you know about my politics about which you so repeatedly, factually prove almost totally ignorant.
At this point, having been told so many times by so many people, that you don't know what they're thinking, having been asked directly to address claims you've made (not these Biblical prophecy claims, mind, that's a rigged game as you've admitted, though you won't admit you've admitted it), you're just chickening out. Again, as usual.
If the Bible is so provably true, it's true when anyone looks at it. Not just someone using the Bible to verify its authenticity. What an absurd, silly standard. You don't gauge an individual's integrity by asking him if he's being honest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I confidently stake my life on everything that I have said. The Truth does exist. The Truth is knowable. And I know Him personally.
From related litanies, I've heard that fear is the mind-killer, and passion leads to anger, and lowering the tax rate leads to increased federal revenue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
May the Laffer anoint us with his holy curve.
quote:What an absurd, silly standard. You don't gauge an individual's integrity by asking him if he's being honest.
You have to keep in mind that you are mentioning this to an individual who gagues his own correctness on a similarly flimsy standard. If I say it, ron says, it is not only true, but it should be evident; that, and lack of agreement shows weakness and even corruption of the mind and soul.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eminently sensible, but it's not the traditional idea. The tradition, going back to the earliest Catholic metaphysicians and affirmed by the first Protestants, holds that God is all powerful and has no limits. Except perhaps the laws of logic.
But, as far as I know, that tradition is not held by the LDS church. No idea if that's what Geraine's affiliation is, but with the demographics of this site its something to always try and keep in mind.
I am LDS. The church does not really have an offical stance on evolution. Bruce R. McConkie didn't believe in evolution, but James E. Talmage did. James E. Talmage presented the idea that since plant and animal life had been on the earth far before man and that death DID exist prior to Adam. He even thought that there could have been a Pre-Adamic race.
The churches official stance is something along the lines of "We don't know how God did it, He just did. He'll tell us how he did it when we are ready to learn it."
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Xavier meant is that God is not omnipotent according to LDS theology. That's my understanding as well.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There needs to be a word for being able to do all that can be done, but not anything.
When you say can be done, what do you mean? The reason logic has historically been seen as the only limit to God's power is because we can't imagine a being doing something logically impossible. It doesn't make sense. But we can always perfectly well understand what it would be for a being to do anything (at all) that is in accord with logic.
So if there's something logically possible that God can't do, the idea of a being more powerful than God makes total sense. Among other things, this makes it inappropriate to call God "perfect," since better beings are possible. The idea of an imperfect God being worthy of worship starts to look questionable as well.
"All that can be done, but not anything" -- that could just denote the most powerful being who happens to exist. It would apply to Superman in the DC universe for instance, even though Superman is obviously not God.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There needs to be a word for being able to do all that can be done, but not anything.
When you say can be done, what do you mean? The reason logic has historically been seen as the only limit to God's power is because we can't imagine a being doing something logically impossible. It doesn't make sense. But we can always perfectly well understand what it would be for a being to do anything (at all) that is in accord with logic.
So if there's something logically possible that God can't do, the idea of a being more powerful than God makes total sense. Among other things, this makes it inappropriate to call God "perfect," since better beings are possible. The idea of an imperfect God being worthy of worship starts to look questionable as well.
"All that can be done, but not anything" -- that could just denote the most powerful being who happens to exist. It would apply to Superman in the DC universe for instance, even though Superman is obviously not God.
It's not as complicated as you might suppose. Lets take God's description of his relationship with morality.
"God is not a man that he should lie."
and,
"And though the heaven and the earth pass away, these words shall not pass away, but shall be fulfilled."
So according to God, that which he has said will happen, and he cannot lie or speak amiss. Therefore in a sense God cannot lie, and therefore cannot do all that can be done, for we (and this kinda blows my mind) can do what he cannot, lie. Unless of course those original statements are lies or mistakes in of themselves in which the whole point is moot.
Either way, for Mormons. God can do untold numbers of things that we cannot even imagine, and yet there are most definitely things he cannot do and still be God.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Destineer, the basic postulate for belief in God is that God IS existence. (The only alternative is that in the beginning, nothing became everything, all by itself.) God Himself determines what is. As the Psalmist declared, "By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9.)
When Moses asked God what name to call Him by, God replied, "I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14; NKJV) Bible scholars generally agree that by this statement, God was declaring Himself to be "The Self-Existent One." When Jesus, the Son of God, was asked by unbelievers how He could have seen Abraham's day, Jesus replied, "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)
Since God creates existence itself by His very word, there cannot be anything that He cannot do. What natural law could prohibit His action, when He ordains natural law in the first place?
God does have free will, just as He created us to have. God could choose to do evil. He could choose to go against His own perfectly righteous nature. But He has chosen not to, forever, which He revealed at Calvary as an assurance to all of us.
God could force everyone to worship Him and force everyone never to harm anyone--but that would violate the free will of His creatures, and He wants His universe to be governed by love, and love requires free will. God chooses to put up with great vexation and aggrievement, so that His creatures who have erred in their choices might have a chance to make better choices, and accept restoration to His favor before it is too late.
There is nothing that God could not do. But He chooses to do certain things in certain ways.
[ January 20, 2011, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is nothing that God could not do. But He chooses to do certain things in certain ways.
The big problem with the claim that God is omnipotent, is that it renders all other beings impotent. If God has ALL power, then it naturally follows that no one else can have any power.
If man has the power to resist the will of God, then it's logically impossible for God to have the power to force people to do things. If you argue that God could have, for example, chosen to compell Kermit Gosnell not to murder babies, but chooses not to -- doesn't that mean God wanted Kermit Gosnell to murder babies.
Either we have real power to resist God's will, in which God isn't omnipotent, or everything we do IS God's will.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why should our imagination be a limit to God?
I'm not necessarily saying that it should be. What I was saying is, perhaps God should be at least as unlimited as our imagination. And on the Mormon picture, he isn't.
quote:God could force everyone to worship Him and never harm anyone--but that would violate the free will of His creatures, and He wants His universe to be governed by love, and love requires free will.
Fair enough, but there are lots of other ways that God could make the world a better place without curtailing our free will. For instance, he could have made humans invulnerable to injury, immune to disease, and not require food.
It would still be our free choice whether or not to love God, but the world would be a far better place than the one he chose to create. (Of course, in my imaginary world it would also be much easier to love God -- just as it's easier to love a parent who actually shows, with deeds as well as words, that they love you back.)
quote: If you argue that God could have, for example, chosen to compell Kermit Gosnell not to murder babies, but chooses not to -- doesn't that mean God wanted Kermit Gosnell to murder babies.
This is a big problem. I like your way out of it better than Ron's more orthodox way. But you must admit that the God who results doesn't deserve the label "perfect."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, none of those things you suggest logically follow. You are just playing word games.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer, God already created the angels. They are the super-beings you describe. One of them was the first to invent sin and turn toward evil.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, perhaps it would've been better if he'd stopped there.
One Christian meme I very much agree with: our mortal life is, in a sense, pathetic and terribly limited. Creating us was like intentionally fathering badly crippled children.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: He wants His universe to be governed by love, and love requires free will.
You know, I don't think it does. We created dogs to fulfil a purpose. The vast majority of dogs love their owners devotedly, and in return are given manna (or dog food) by their beloved. The dogs don't get a say in this, they assume that their beloved is kind and will take care of them. Most of the time, if their owners chose not to feed them, or are cruel to them, the dog assumes it must have done something wrong. This don't affect love, just adds to it an element of fear.
None of this love has anything to do with freedom. Humans are not dogs, but compared to a God who can do anything, they might as well be.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that the Bible implies that God deliberately created first the angel whom He knew would invent sin--Lucifer. He is called in the Bible, "Son of the Morning," which could imply he was the first intelligent creature. God created him first so that the problem of sin could be dealt with as soon as possible. God believes in being proactive.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is nothing that God could not do. But He chooses to do certain things in certain ways.
The big problem with the claim that God is omnipotent, is that it renders all other beings impotent. If God has ALL power, then it naturally follows that no one else can have any power.
If man has the power to resist the will of God, then it's logically impossible for God to have the power to force people to do things. If you argue that God could have, for example, chosen to compell Kermit Gosnell not to murder babies, but chooses not to -- doesn't that mean God wanted Kermit Gosnell to murder babies.
Either we have real power to resist God's will, in which God isn't omnipotent, or everything we do IS God's will.
Or that power is allowed to us. Also you are supposing that God is an entity that is separate from us. That's okay but it doesn't cover the possibility of, say, panentheism. If I am part of God and God of me, than I am not impotent if God is omnipotent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just looking at this sentence grammatically, this has to be a misuse (or some funny non-literal use) of the word "part."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit, none of those things you suggest logically follow. You are just playing word games.
Heh, no it doesn't. You said, "God has the power to do anything," but then go right on and say, "Man, exactly like God, has the power to choose."
You believe there is at least one thing God cannot do: forcibly violate the free will of a human being. It's pretty straightforward...but perhaps not when you start from a moral position of complete, utter certainty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
