*Alward: Collapsing the Foundations

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

M.BELL
 As you point out in your initial post there are claims that the OT
 prophesied certain events. I am asking you why it is necessary that these
 claimed prophecies be written in the manner that you imagine and no other?
 
 
ACHILLES

A "prophecy" which is so vague that any number of events could be, after the 
fact, interpreted as fulfilling the "prophecy" is no prophecy at all.
Otherwise 
we could all be prophets. 

==================
Joe Alward:

Isn't vagueness in prophecy what one would expect?  The fact that God chose to
communicate his message to us via a book is fairly strong evidence that God
wished to be enigmatic; otherwise he would have chosen the optimum way to
communicate with us:  he would have encoded his message onto our DNA.

The skeptic says the the Bible should be a perfect communication from God, and
the believer says it is. The one spends untold years digging out apparent
contradictions, and the other the same number refuting them, but never does
either stop to think that God obviously must have *wanted* his bible to be
confusing to man, else he would have chosen to make man's understanding of him
instinctive.

I think that until skeptics can explain why they should ignore the
implications of the very existence of  "God's bible", they have no business
questioning the presence in it of vague prophecy, or apparent contradiction;
they need to explain why mystery and vagueness and apparent conflict is not
*exactly* what should be expected of the Bible. By the same token, believers
who think they've found "God's truth" should think again:  why did he choose
papyrus as the medium, and the word as the mechanism, when he could have
imparted a perfect understanding through their DNA?

• Previous message: The Resurrection Debate
• Next message: Farmer (was Ending of Mark)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]