>Rob makes this statement only as a biblical inerrantist, because he
>refuses to take the texts as I have honestly interpreted them (and
supported
>the interpretation). You see, I can make allegations too.
ROB
You are very observant that I am an inerrantist, but is this your excuse
for thinking that I live on another planet? You have yet to show me
conclusive evidence that you have cleanly refuted anything I have
presented thus far. I give you the passages and their fulfillments in
the NT. HAVE YOU NOT READ????? Of course not. You stick to your
pre-atheistic liberal Christianity presuppositions that are rooted in
the Documentary Hypothesis (which is based upon a hypothetical document
called Q or Quelle). I take issue with some of my undergrad profs and
you will be no different. However, this may be the underpinnings of your
leaving Christendom. German rationalistic roots will do that to you.
TILL
> Anyway, what kind of debate is Rob looking for, one where his
opposition rolls over and
>plays dead? He is claiming that biblical prophets made certain
Messianic
>predictions that were later fulfilled, but for his claim to have any
>force of argument, he must satisfy criteria of valid prophecy that are
>widely recognized. Whether a prophecy was fulfilled or not obviously
depends
>upon establishing that what the prophet meant when he made the alleged
>prophecy.
ROB
Expect you to play dead? If this is really you Mr. Till, I hardly expect
you to play dead. You are very perceptive of my claim that the prophetic
writers in the OT made certain Messianic predictions that were later
fulfilled. We are talking about prophecy now aren't we.
TILL
>That is so fundamentally obvious that it hardly needs discussion.
ROB
Me thinks that you are lost for words or is that you refuse to admit that
you are _____.
(Answer: WRONG). Why haven't you given me your reasons to prove that I
am wrong? All you are doing is making blanket statement. You are
telling me that I am from another planet for believing what I believe
about the Bible. Why don't you PROVE IT TO ME. You know why? BECAUSE
YOU CANNOT.
>ROB
>>Let's look at their quoted criterium.
>
>TILL
>> (1) The alleged prophecy must clearly mean what the one alleging
>prophecy fulfillment claims that it means; it cannot be so vague and
>obscure that the "prophet's" meaning cannot be established beyond
>reasonable doubt.
>
>ROB
>>This is a wish or an unrealistic demand, instead of the reality.
>
>TILL
>What! This is an unrealistic demand? I taught college literature for
>thirty years, so I think I know something about valid interpretation
>methods. Any statement, oral or written, has to be interpreted in
>order to be understood. As I said above, that is so fundamentally
obvious that
>it doesn't even need discussion. Rob needs to explain to us why it is
an
>unrealistic demand to insist that one who claims that a prophecy
>fulfillment occurred establish that he has properly interpreted the
alleged
>prophecy?
ROB
If you are stating that the prophets must in all cases state what their
prophecies mean, after they give the prophecy, then you do not understand
the genre of biblical prophecy or apocalyptic literature. You are
imposing upon the text, which is the normal tactic of antitheistic
eisogesis. You are forcing upon the prophet something that they only
forsee but as to the nitty gritty details. These were finite men. I
think Rudolf Bultmann and you would get along quite nicely for you appear
to be demythologizing prophetic writings where he demythologized the
miracles.
Another issue. Are you saying that your number of years teaching
literature gives you credibility? Authority? This probably includes a
popular course in our halls of academia called "The Bible as Literature."
I don't know one teacher teaching a course as such who really
understands what he or she is talking about when it comes to dealing
with the entire corpus of the Bible. Your rationale is indicative of two
informal fallacies of the misuse of authority and argumentum ad
verecudiam (the appeal to authority).
Is this the best you can do????
>ROB
>>This antitheistic imposition really doesn't show much thought.
>
>TILL
>I'm sure that Rob will accuse me of incivility and ad hominen attacks,
>but if anything doesn't show much thought, it is Rob's apparent
insistence
>that he not be required to show that he has properly interpreted the OT
>statements that he claims were prophecies that were later fulfilled.
ROB
You haven't proven that I have mistranslated. Get with the program.
Make the statement and prove it? By the way where does your epistemology
begin anyhow? Not to change the subject here, but it appears that your
epistemic roots appear a little twisted.
TILL
>This matter is rather simple. If someone claims that statement X was a
>prophecy that was fulfilled by event Y, he must necessarily show that
the
>meaning of statement X was such that there can be no doubt that it was
predicting
>event Y. Otherwise, he has not proven his claim of prophecy fulfillment.
If
>not, why not?
ROB
HAVE YOU NOT READ?? I don't think you have. You may have but your
hermeneutic is rather twisted.