Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evidence: Can we trust traditional texts to be reliable?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It really depends on how much care has been taken to preserve them.

Recently, Barry Arrington posted on how we can be sure of something (for example, that bin Laden is dead). The burden of proof is on any who might claim otherwise.

For some, the question has arisen whether the oral transmission of the Torah (the books of Moses in Jewish tradition) could be reliable. What about memory lapses, deliberate alterations, etc., especially during the time when oral memory and transmission were normal, alongside scrolls (which were expensive and time-consuming to produce).

Well, I asked the ID community reb, Moshe Averick, author of Nonsense of a High Order: The confused and illusory world of the atheist, how do you know that the Torah goes back to the time of Moses? Here is what he says,

There are many safeguards in Jewish law and practice to preserve the integrity of the Torah scroll. However, the simplest and most obvious evidence of how well the system works, is that after the founding of the State of Israel, Jews from every corner of the world brought their own Torah Scrolls and the ones from Yemen ( whose community was over 2000 years old) matched the ones from Poland. This, despite the fact that there are over 300,000 letters in the Torah.

The scrolls are all handwritten, it is absolutely forbidden to use a printing press to create a Torah scroll, and a new scroll can only be copied from an already existent one. The scroll is read from publicly three times a week, Monday, Thursday and Shabbat. There are no vowels or punctuation in the scroll, if the reader makes a mistake (everyone follows from a printed edition) he is immediately stopped and must repeat the word properly.

If it turns out that there is a mistake in the text, even one letter, it is forbidden to read from it publicly and is immediately put back in the ark with a distinct sign that it is invalid, until it is repaired by a qualified scribe. Unless you have actually seen how quickly the reader is jumped on by the congregation if he makes a mistake, and unless you have actually watched a Torah scroll invalidated in the middle of the service and put back in the ark, it is hard to really understand how exacting this process is.

It is also important to understand the reverence that the community has for the Torah scroll. I’m not talking about orthodox communities, that goes without saying, I’m even talking about the most Reform, liberal congregations. They might eat on Yom Kippur, but no one, and I mean no one messes with a Torah scroll. It would be unthinkable (this is something that can only be known from experience) for the most liberal Reform congregation to write their own version of a Torah scroll, and this is despite the fact that they claim to believe that the whole thing is a bunch of man made myths.

There are 5-6 letter differences between the scroll of the Arab-Jewish communities and the eastern European Jewish communities. These are all letters that are silent in the words, and none change the meaning or pronunciation of a word or phrase. Example: Thouht and Thought , foreign and forein, etc.

Torah scrolls can easily used for up to 100 years, which means that the transmission process really only has to happen 30-40 times. This takes you back over 3000 years to the final writing of the Torah at the end of the 40 years in the desert.

I replied,

It is a good example of the use of an oral tradition to correct a written tradition as well as the durability of a written tradition – if anyone cares about it. Oral traditions are not necessarily so subject to corruption as the original commenter seemed to think. He is confusing situations where no one cares much with ones where they do and must care.Ancient Greek myths of the gods were examples of situations where no one cared much. There were many variant accounts of the soap opera lives of the pagan gods, and the only bottom to the confusion is that a good editor would sometimes fashion an account that – being a good story – would simply get told more often until it became the standard story. Somewhat like one soap opera being way more popular than others, but it was all just nonsense.  Think Homer. That was a Darwinian system! – the story was shaped for fitness, not for truth. Of course, after a while, people got tired of truth-optional religion, which is why you and I are where we are today and the Greek gods are just garden statues somewhere.

Readers, you decide.

Update: Re Dead Sea Scrolls, he also notes: “I is important to know that none of the Dead Sea Scrolls were of the type that are used in a synagogue. In other words they are unauthorized texts written by unknown scribes. It is obvious that in texts like these there will be quite a bit of variation. ”

See also “Detecting authenticity in lack of design. (Note: There, we are talking about authenticity, not conciseness = how inconcision can be a marker for authenticity.)

Comments
And that brings us back to "the parable of the fig tree." If, as some people would have us believe, the parable should be interpreted as follows: "When you see the fig tree sprout leaves, by which I mean when you see Israel become a nation again, know that my coming is near." Then it clearly follows that Israel must become a nation again before Christ would return, or Jesus was misleading the disciples, or just plain wrong. But that view has never been the view of the Christian Church. The modern state of Israel is meaningless as a "sign" of anything having to do with Bible prophecy.Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PST
BA77:
But please not take my absence for agreeing with your viewpoint.
Oh, I would never do that. :)
Mung, I don’t think it too far out of line to tell you that if you really believe the ‘second coming’ is already fulfilled, then your beliefs are severely, to put it mildly, out of line with reality!
I guess I put more emphasis on the need to be in line with the truth. If Jesus was a false prophet, and the apostles likewise were mistaken, it really doesn't matter all that much whether I am in touch with reality, does it.
...there is far too much ‘emotionally’ involved as to let clarity have its way.
Well, if you're right and I'm wrong, my faith is in vain. So yeah, I don't mind being "emotionally" invested. But the fact is my arguments have been quite well reasoned and supported by evidence in spite of any emotional involvement. Since BA77 is bowing out, let me put forth one final logically argued case against attaching any importance to the events of 1948. The same people who claim that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 is a "sign" that Jesus will return soon, also claim that Jesus could return at any moment, and that this has always been true. If it is true that Jesus could have returned "at any moment" in the past, then his return was not dependent upon the formation of the state of Israel. It follows that whether or not there is a state of Israel tells us nothing about when Jesus will return. The view is illogical, incoherent, and irrational. As such, it should be rejected on this basis alone.Mung
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST
F/N 2: A further on the record correction, to a turnabout rhetorical accusation.kairosfocus
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST
F/N: I have just had to correct commenter Flint at MF's blog, here -- for the record, on the now drumbeat strawman talking point that CSI is ill-defined and meaningless. It is obvious that MG's erroneous talking points are rapidly joining the long list of misinformed or outright willfully deceptive evo mat talking points such as: "ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo," "those who differ with evo mat are anti-science and are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked," and "to infer to intelligent design is to try to inject the supernatural into science, as an assumption."kairosfocus
May 7, 2011
May
05
May
7
07
2011
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PST
Mathgrrl, The question you have thusfar skillfully avoided is still as it was all along: The only way you could interpret the presence of an "equivocation" would be if you knew of a distinction. So please be specific. On what grounds do you make the distinction that one relationship acts as a code, while another relationship is a code? UD has been as gracious to you in terms of access as it could have possibly been. The question above stems from the remarks you yourself made on this forum. It was asked here, so answer it here.Upright BiPed
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST
MG: It so happens that I looked back at UD for a moment and saw an OT comment on this thread [which I am not monitoring], in the recent comments block. I think at this stage, MG, you have some fairly serious explaining to do. But, unfortunately, for several weeks now, all you have been doing is repeating long since seriously and cogently answered talking points. (In particular you need to explain how you are dismissing a log reduction as a simple probability calculation, and how you are brushing aside its application to the Durston et al results. In addition, you will need to explain the error Schneider made in trying to correct Dembski's usage of information on the Hartley -suggested neg log a priori frequentist probability metric that is commonly used in engineering. I think this attempt to dismiss a valid and widely used information metric [cf my remarks on both Connor and Taub-Schilling] is the root of many of the problems we have seen. Similarly, Mung's secondary vivisection of ev is something you need to address on the merits. As to MF's blog, kindly observe that for a long time he has taken some very flimsy excuses to studiously ignore what I have had to say at UD; which has led him inot many errors, most recently failing to see that there was a Tyranny ion Athens post Peloponnesian war, and failing to see the significance of the behaviuour of Alcibiades and co as rebuked by Plato in The Laws, Bk X. I will only make a for the record comment at his blog.) GEM of TKI F/N: It seems that after four weeks, UD threads now automatically shut down. Makes sense from a spamming issues perspective.kairosfocus
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST
Off Topic To Mung, kairosfocus, and Upright BiPed Sorry to intrude here, but I wanted you to know that comments have been closed on the two threads where we were discussing CSI. I put my responses on Mark Frank's blog and will be happy to continue the discussion there or when an appropriate topic turns up here, as you prefer.MathGrrl
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PST
Mung, as I said before, I am through with my part in this discussion. But please not take my absence for agreeing with your viewpoint. I just feel like it is not that important as compared to salvation in the first place, and that there is far too much 'emotionally' involved as to let clarity have its way.bornagain77
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PST
I just don’t get your slant,, are you trying to say that Jesus has already returned???
Is that what you think Jesus is saying in the passages I've been quoting? That he would return before all his disciples had died? If that's the way you read the texts, then you have to decide whether Jesus was wrong. I will say that it seems to me that these are clear and unabiguous statements. I believe Jesus was telling them he would return within the span of a single generation. I aslo think it's clear from other New Testament texts that that is also what the earliest Christians believed. So were Jesus and the apostles were wrong? Yes, I choose to believe that what Jesus said would come to pass did in fact come to pass within the time frame he said it would come to pass.
...for yet a very very little, He who is coming will come, and will not tarry (Heb. 10:37)
http://bible.cc/hebrews/10-37.htm http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/10-37.htm Be sure to read the commentaries. They are all well-known commentators and most of them agree with what I am saying. Example:
He did thus come very soon after and ended Jewish persecution by the overthrow of the nation. This is a frequent sense of oft-repeated allusions to the coming of the Lord found both in the Old Testament and New Testament. See Hab 2:5-20. The passage there quoted refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and is here applied to the destruction by the Romans.
Mung
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PST
Mung, I don't think it too far out of line to tell you that if you really believe the 'second coming' is already fulfilled, then your beliefs are severely, to put it mildly, out of line with reality! As well you sure seem to have a lot tied up 'emotionally' in all this. Just why is it so important for you to deny the prophetic fulfillment of Israel becoming a nation??? Here is a detailed discussion on (Matt 10:23) http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/pretjv08.htm of note; I think I shall leave this discussion for now, as I am not so much concerned with these details, as I am very happy that we are both Christian in the first place. To me accepting Christ is far and away more important.bornagain77
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST
Mung, I just don't get your slant,, are you trying to say that Jesus has already returned???bornagain77
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST
Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matt 10:23)
Who was Jesus talking to?
Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matt 16:28)
Who was Jesus talking to?Mung
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PST
This may be of interest to Mung: 10 Prophecies Fulfilled in 1948 http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/1948PropheciesFulfilled.htmbornagain77
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST
This looks like an interesting site: Confirming The Exile Prophecies of 606 BC and 587 BC 606 BC The Servitude of the Nation (Loss of Israel's independence). Fulfilled on May 14,1948. 587 BC The Desolation's of Jerusalem (Destruction of Jerusalem and loss of Jewish Rule in Jerusalem). Fulfilled on June 7,1967. http://www.watchmanbiblestudy.com/Articles/ConfirmingEzekielExileProphecies.htm What immediately jumped out at me about the dates is that the ancient dates and modern dates are both separated by 19 years!?! What else jumps out at me is that someone, who is very anti-ID, seems very interested in questioning the dates. For me that sends up a red flag.bornagain77
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PST
paragwinn, "The bible really doesn’t define a year in precise terms. You probably are thinking of the Jewish year, which is adapted from the Babylonian calendar, which culture also celebrated the 'seventh day' and the 'week of weeks'." I think in this case, the Bible does define a "prophetic" year in precise terms as 360 days or 12 months of 30 days each. This is implied both in Revelation and in Daniel. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_YearCannuckianYankee
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PST
Mung, "Have you noticed that dispensationalism itself has changed in the recent past? It’s just taking some time to trickle out to the mass public." I'm aware that there is less of a tendency to encourage the thinking of a Hal Lindsey (for example), who I'm told was a student of Pentecost at Dallas Theological Seminary. What specifically have you noticed? I could say the same about Reform theology, Catholic theology, etc., and it would be expected as our understanding evolves of a God who does not. "The clear teaching of Scripture is that the Gentiles are 'grafted in.'" I don't see this as clear by scripture - at least not in that sense. There does seem to be a difference between God's interaction with the Jews than with the Gentiles. Otherwise, why even make the distinction? Two covenants in my view are much more clear by scripture than the "grafting in" of the Gentiles to the one. One covenant is of salvation of all through faith in Christ, and the other is concerned with the reign of Christ through his rightful lineage as a son of David and as the Son of God, as well as through his obedience to the law. It's not like God had this grand plan to save the Jews by their obedience to the law, but since they failed to obey, he would extend His covenant with the Gentiles by becoming the man Jesus - we're talking about two different covenants - one of the reign of Christ by obedience to the law and one of grace extended because of the sacrifice of Christ. According to scripture Jesus' coming was planned before the foundation of the world. It was planned all along by divine will. So I firmly believe that each covenant is distinct; they are different in that they each have different goals. They both are really Christian covenants in that the first is to actualize the divine lineage of the Messiah (Christ) by law, and further to bring about His Kindgom of righteousness, while the other is to establish grace through faith in Christ as part of the fulfillment of the former covenant. And I believe that both covenants are still in operation today, and both have been in operation since the resurrection (and even before as I explain below). God intends to fulfill the former covenant by Christ reigning in His kingdom, which will include both Jews and Gentiles (by grace through faith) - that's where the "grafting in" really occurs (The new covenant is grafted into the former), and that should answer your question: "How do you explain the New Jerusalem?" I deal with it exactly as I've explained. And to further clarify, the reign of Christ is the fulfillment of not one but two covenants, the old and the new. And incidentally, I should point out something that William Dembski inferred in "The End of Christianity." That is that the covenant of Grace extends not only forward in time, but back in time, such that grace is granted according to a new covenant not yet actualized by Christ's sacrifice, to the Jews who believed God through faith. "Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness." As I stated and further clarify, one covenant is of law, and the other is of grace. The law really points to Christ. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets. The old covenant is of law and the new is of grace, but they both relate to Christ. Jesus fulfilled the law through his lineage as a Son of David (A king over Israel), and also through obedience; which makes him the rightful heir of the first covenant - to be actualized in his second coming as reigning King. In my view God's ultimate purpose is the actualization of a perfect and harmonious universe with Christ as the reigning King (I'm certain that it will be much more involved than just my brief depiction) - but it has less to do with our needs, and more to do with God as King over all - exercising His supreme sovereignty as He intended all along with the added benefit of the free expression of those who choose to worship Him. You could say that much of that is already happening, and I would agree. God is sovereign even if his ultimate plan is not yet actualized. Dispensational thought observes that in order to actualize this, there are separate and distinct dispensations by which God interacts with His people and by which He actualizes the ultimate purpose of the reign of Christ - you can clearly see several of the dispensations by reading scripture - clearly God's interaction with Adam was different than His interaction with Abraham, and different again with His interaction with Moses, with the kingdoms of the Hebrews starting with the kings and then with the later prophets and those in exile in Babylon, with the second temple period and beginning with Christ, different with the Apostles and then with the Church. These are not separate covenants (as you imply), but separate dispensations of God's grace - not because God was different at different times, but because human beings were different at different times and in different circumstances. And you can see throughout all of this history the unfolding of the purpose of the former covenant, culminating not in Christ as suffering servant, but as reigning King. Also in my view the New Covenant with Israel is just that. It's a new covenant. It's not the same as the old, and it includes the Gentiles not simply through the grace given to the Jews, but given directly to Gentiles and Jews alike through faith in Christ. So we're not "grafted in" as you say, but we're included in a new covenant. You might say "well yes, but the new covenant is with Israel, not with Gentiles." True, but it's goal is not simply to save the Jews with the added benefit of the Gentiles, but to also actualize the Kingdom of the former covenant through grace rather than simply by law. Grace is not really grace if it extends to Jews only. Otherwise it looks an awful lot like law. So the old covenant is to the Jews by law so that Christ can claim his rightful heir to the throne (a model which even earthly governments have haphazardly followed), but the new extends to everyone (Jews and Gentiles) by grace through faith (a model not at all followed by earthly governments). A problem I have with much Reform theology is that it seems to forget that there is a purpose beyond our earthly existence, and when one conflates the two distinct covenants it invariably leads to the misapprehension of the distinction between law and grace. We are not currently in the Heavenly Kindgom of Christ's reign. That is a future event, and it matters to Christianity. Furthermore, you seem to be hung up on the idea that when Jesus talks to certain groups or individuals, his message is necessarily intended for only them. Such a view seems to overlook the purpose for the early Christians to have carefully accounted for what he said and written his words in the gospels. If they were intended simply for a few peasants who happend to be within earshot when he spoke them, then it couldn't have mattered that they took the time to record his words as if they might be important to us. I gather you don't really believe that, but that is what you seem to imply. I believe that the Olivet Discourse and the parables of the kingdom were intended for everyone, and they bear immense importance to God's ultimate purpose and not simply as pithy sayings for Jesus' direct followers. To sum up all of this, I think what's ultimately important here is that salvation is by grace through faith, which we all (at least in this discussion) apparently believe; and despite our difference of opinion on theological matters, we all seem to agree on the common ground that Jesus lives, and it matters.CannuckianYankee
May 6, 2011
May
05
May
6
06
2011
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PST
bornagain77 @ 19: "For 70 biblical years (approximately 69 years on the Gregorian calendar)," The bible really doesn't define a year in precise terms. You probably are thinking of the Jewish year, which is adapted from the Babylonian calendar, which culture also celebrated the "seventh day" and the "week of weeks". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_calendar Plus, the Gregorian calendar dropped 11 days when replacing the Julian one..more recalibratingparagwinn
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PST
bornagain77 @ 19: "Prior to 1948, Israel last existed as an independent nation in 606 B.C. when the first captives of Israel were taken by Nebuchadnezzar." Israel was an independent kingdom from 167 BCE to 63 BCE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean Might have to recalibrate your calculations.paragwinn
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PST
I don’t believe “This generation,” for example is entirely clear that Jesus believed he would come again within a few decades of his resurrection – I think you’re doing a little eisegesis there.
Eisegesis would mean I was reading something into the text that the speaker did not intend. (For example, trying to calculate to 1948 from a passage in Ezekiel.) But the words of Jesus are quite plain, and not only that, but attested to by many other similar passages both in the Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament. I think the burden of proof is upon those who would say that these words, when spoken to the original audience, would have been understood any differently. again, it's clear from the testimony of the New Testament just how those words were understood. But here's another passage for you:
But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Matt 26:64)
Did this come to pass? Did Jesus lie? Or when Jesus said, I say to all of you did He not really mean those to whom He was speaking. This is the problem with the critics. They have to pretend that Jesus was not talking to the people he clearly was talking to, or that his words were not really meant for them but for some far distant (in time) group of people. That is just not sound exegesis.Mung
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PST
CannuckianYankee, I'm sure I have Things to Come, I don't recall whether I have Thy Kingdom Come but I would not at all be surprised to find out that I do own it. Most of my dispensationalist books are now in storage, unless it's something pretty recent. To be sure I know who J. Dwight Pentecost is. Have you noticed that dispensationalism itself has changed in the recent past? It's just taking some time to trickle out to the mass public. Dispensationalism is precisely the background that I came out of and have come to reject. The reasons are many. We've touched on two. The Dispensationalist view of the Church and Israel. The Dispensationalist view on "future things." The latter is to a great extent influenced by the former.
...that God did not transfer his election of the Jews onto Christians as though the New Covenant displaces them...
A Dispensationalist misconception. I would agree. Unfortunately, Dispensationalism creates two different people of God and two different groups of elect. There is but one elect, Christ. Who is Abraham's seed. There is but one elect, and it's not Abraham's seed after the flesh, but after the Spirit. That includes BOTH Jews and Christians. The clear teaching of Scripture is that the Gentiles are "grafted in." There is no displacement. Who was the New Covenant promised to? It was promised to THE JEWS. The Gentiles were allowed to partake, as they always had been. Dispensationalism teaches two different covenenants with two different people (actually I think it teaches 7 different covenenants, but hey, who's counting). How do you explain the New Jerusalem?
and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
One City. Not two.Mung
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PST
Mung, now you have ‘tortured’ a scripture to make it mean what you want! I’ll not press the issue since you seem to have much emotionally invested in it, but just one thing, Jesus did say this:
Who was he talking to? You flat out ignore who his audience was. And you leave out what else he said, which includes:
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Mark 13:30)
NOw here is the very simple quesiton for you. Does "all these things" include the destruction of Jerusalem which took place in AD 70? Hint:
1 As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down." 3 As He was sitting on (C)the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"
Jesus gave a clear time frame.Mung
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PST
Mung, Sorry, his more recent "Thy Kingdom Come" would be the better read: http://www.amazon.com/Thy-Kingdom-Come-Covenant-Throughout/dp/0825434505/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304653995&sr=1-11CannuckianYankee
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PST
Mung, For a good read on Dispensationalist eschatology, I recommend "Things To Come" by J. Dwight Pentecost. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Aj+dwight+pentecost&keywords=j+dwight+pentecost&ie=UTF8&qid=1304653686 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Dwight_Pentecost He covers the issues thoroughly.CannuckianYankee
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PST
Mung, "See also: The Last Days According to Jesus" I rather like RC Sproul as a theologian. I met him in person once at a church I attended here in Southern California. I disagree with much of his echatology, but he is a clear thinker and has contributed much valuable thought on the issue of divine election and free will. I recommend his book "Willing to Believe" along with Geisler's (sometimes disagreement between the two is quite apparent). Really, all of this debate regarding eschatology stems from differing views on divine election and free will. I know that it's difficult to see the correlation, but it's there. An observation I've made in all of this is that most Reform thinkers I've met apparently know that they are Reform and why; while many Dispensationalists do not know that they are Dispensationalists and why. There's a tendency to jump on the end times bandwagon without understanding the scriptural basis for why it's important.CannuckianYankee
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PST
Mung, Thanks for your thoughts. I think it's safe to say that some of us are more influenced by Reform or "Covenant" theology, while some are more influenced by Dispensationalist or even Catholic theology on these matters, which could lead to some very long threads if we keep it up. :) As a Protestant Christian, I lean more towards Dispensationalism than Reform, but I'm not a die-hard in that regard. I accept parts of TULIP, and disregard other parts. Regarding TULIP, I rather like Norman Geisler's approach to divine election in "Chosen But Free." However, getting down to the nitty-gritty regarding eschatology, I'm more inclined to agree with the Dispensationalists: that God did not transfer his election of the Jews onto Christians as though the New Covenant displaces them. It's a different kind of election altogether (one election as a chosen people in whom the divine geneology of the promised Messiah (as both suffering servant and reigning King) is realized through certain prophetic events and covenants - and another election in which God's ultimate plan is realized - which is open to both Jew and Gentile), and God is not entirely done with the Jews as far as the former kind of election is concerned. God keeps His promises. All of this has a bearing on how I interpret scripture regarding the second coming. I don't believe "This generation," for example is entirely clear that Jesus believed he would come again within a few decades of his resurrection - I think you're doing a little eisegesis there. It's far more involved than that simple interpretation, and I would guess this might be an area where BA77 is more inclined to elaborate on than I am at present. That there are many zealous individuals setting dates for Christ's return does not in any way diminish my faith that he will return some day (whether in my lifetime or in a distant future) - just as the fact that certain zealous individuals do other erroneous deeds in the name of Christ does not diminish my faith that Jesus meant certain things by his words to the contrary, and that he would have us do certain good and beneficial deeds in his name; which can ultimately lead not just to the good of humankind, but are also reflective of the divine purpose.CannuckianYankee
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PST
Mung, now you have 'tortured' a scripture to make it mean what you want! I'll not press the issue since you seem to have much emotionally invested in it, but just one thing, Jesus did say this: Mark 13 34For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. 35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: 36Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. 37And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.bornagain77
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PST
Wherein is evidently shewn the Accomplishment of the Predicted Events, As Especially Of the Cutting Off of the Messiah after the Predicted VII Weeks and LXII Weeks, according to the Express Letter of the Prophecy, and in most exact Agreement with Ptolemy's Canon; So Also Of the Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, in the LXXth, or separate One Week, in the Litteral, Obvious, and Primary Sense
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Mung
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PST
It can lead to disillusion, mockery, division, and much more.
Absolutely. Which is why I found it odd that they were engaging in the very "Jesus is coming back any day now" sort of behavior that leads to those very things. As their own page shows, people have making that claim for hundreds of years. They have all been wrong with a single exception, and that's the only one that matters. Because if Jesus and the apostles were mistaken about when he would return, any date that anyone else cares to set is so much garbage.
What I do know is we are to love our God and Love our neighbor. Those two commandments on which everything hangs. And we are to practice “true religion”: Help the orphan and widow who are in need and remain unpolluted by the world.
And the sooner we accept that Jesus is not going to come back any day now and snatch us out of here, the sooner we might be inclined to do more of what you are talking about. Getting back to the Gospel, that is.Mung
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PST
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
And you think this means what? That Jesus prophesied that Israel would become a nation in 1948? That there would come a time when no Gentile would be allowed to set foot in Jerusalem? Any chance this is a reference to Daniel's prophecy? Breaking news! There is only one Israel. And it's not in some tiny nation over in the middle east. See also: The Last Days According to Jesus Last Days MadnessMung
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST
Mung, What worries me is what will happen to the Camping followers afterwards... It saddens me to think so many will fall away because of such false-hoods. As far as the link I left. . .whatever your beliefs on the Second Coming are I believe the core of what he said is important. Date-setting is dangerous and one of the most spoken against practices mentioned in the bible. It can lead to disillusion, mockery, division, and much more. What I do know is we are to love our God and Love our neighbor. Those two commandments on which everything hangs. And we are to practice "true religion": Help the orphan and widow who are in need and remain unpolluted by the world.MedsRex
May 5, 2011
May
05
May
5
05
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply