Submitted by Georgie Porgie
Any truly valid interpretation of Scripture must be based upon sound rules. These rules must then be applied consistently. The following are the most basic rules we attempt to always follow in our interpretation of Scripture. We do not feel at liberty to discard these rules when they lead us to a conclusion in contradiction to what ‘orthodoxy’ has taught us. We instead endeavour to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and believe by faith whatever conclusions they may lead us to.
I It will be assumed that the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 Books of the New Testament are the wholly inspired Word of God. “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim 3:17.
II The Bible itself will always be used to define its own terminology, symbols, etc. No appeal will be made to any man-made dogma, theory, or writing, such as the apocrypha or psudopygrypha, to explain Biblical terms which are already clearly defined within the Bible itself.
III The proper interpretation of any given passage will be determined, not only by that with which it stands immediately connected, but by considering all scriptures which have bearing upon the subject throughout the entire Bible . The truth of any given subject can only be determined by bringing together all scripture which sheds light on that subject.
IV Every passage will be given as literal an interpretation as possible, unless such a literal interpretation would render the meaning absurd, or bring it into disagreement with other passages which speak in positive language.
V No interpretation will be given to any scripture beyond what the fair meaning of the text itself allows. For Example: Carcass cannot in any case be interpreted to mean immortal soul burning in hell.
VI All passages belonging to any particular subject must contain one or more of the peculiar features of that subject, by which it may be identified as belonging to that subject.
VII The truth of any doctrine must be determined firstly by those passages which speak in clear and positive language, and not those which are symbolic or parabolic in nature. No inference should be drawn from any symbolic or parabolic passage which would bring the passage into contradiction with those which speak unequivocally on the same subject.
VIII No doctrine will be derived based on a single passage of scripture, a mere inference, or an argument from silence. Any true doctrine will found throughout the entire Bible.
Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture
1. Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.
2. Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.
3. When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.
4. Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.
5. Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.
6. The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfilment. Both complement each other.
7. For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words “allos” and “heteros”. Both are usually translated as “another” in English – yet “allos” literally means “another of the same type” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.”
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: “…for there be gods many and lords many…” as a “proof text” of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods “so-called”), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote – without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter’s own culture or society – then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
“What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge’s chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Saviour.
Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)
Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as “the art of finding the meaning of an author’s words and phrases, and of explaining it to others.” When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:
• Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
• Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
• Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
• Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
• Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
• Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
• See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
• Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.
These are all proven study methods and good guidelines of interpretation. Here are some other additional factors of correct Biblical hermeneutics?
1. Spiritual Perception Over Intellectual Understanding
The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14). Jesus Himself confirmed that Biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment. He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
This being the case, it is also reasonable to conclude that if a person who wants to interpret Scripture has sinful habits or practices in his life that grieve the Holy Spirit and quench His power, the Holy Spirit will not reveal the truth of Scripture to such a person. In fact, God warns that such individuals will take Scripture out of context to their own destruction. (See II Peter 3:16.) This result supports the axiom that a man’s morality will dictate his theology and his philosophy.
2. God’s Revelation Over Human Reasoning
In the final analysis, accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). They later recalled, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scholars of Jesus’ day carried out heated debates over the correct interpretation of Scripture, but Jesus counselled them to search the Scriptures on the basis that they testified of Him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).
3. Genuine Love Rather Than Justification of Selfishness
Since the Scriptures reveal the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, it also follows that the primary theme of the Bible is the love of God and how we are to live out His love in our daily words and actions.
When a clever lawyer tried to involve Jesus in a wordy battle, He began his forensic sparring with the question “Which is the greatest commandment?” The reply that Jesus gave is a profound principle for Biblical interpretation. All the Law and prophets are based on the command to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Therefore, we must interpret Scripture on the basis of how it teaches us to love God and to love others. Love is the theme of the Bible. All good character qualities are simply practical expressions of genuine love. When the Pharisees used the Law of Moses to justify their harsh and unloving treatment of wives, Jesus reproved them for hardness of heart and took them back to the Creation design of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for the rest of their lives.
The lawyer who tried to engage Jesus in debate then tried to justify himself by asking, “Who is my neighbour?” to which Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
4. Christ’s Commands Over Man’s Theology
Every interpretation of Scripture is based on some foundational structure of reasoning. Jesus provides the structure of truth in the commands that He gave to His disciples during His earthly ministry, and they are the guiding lights for correct Biblical interpretation. They clarify what was written in the Old Testament and are further explained in New Testament teaching. Jesus promises that if we keep His commands before our eyes, He will reveal more of Himself to us. This was the great goal of Paul: “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection” (Philippians 3:10). Jesus further promises, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31–32).
It is customary for a Bible scholar to base his interpretation of a passage on the theological position that he has accepted. The problem with this approach is that no theological system is totally without some human error, because it is not inspired. It is man’s explanation of Biblical truth.
This is not to say that theology is unimportant. Wrong doctrine leads to wrong behaviour. No one was more concerned about false doctrine than the Apostle Paul. He maintained a continual battle against false teaching. However, he did not base sound doctrine on the theological views of his day but on the words of Jesus Christ and that which leads to Christ like living.
He explains this in his epistle to Timothy. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Timothy 6:3–5).
5. One Interpretation and Many Applications
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. However, there can be many applications. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides us not only to the right interpretation of a passage but also to the precise application of Scripture to our daily lives. If our lives are in harmony with the Lord, we can expect the Holy Spirit to illuminate certain passages of Scripture for our personal application. When this happens, it is God giving us a “rhema” of Scripture.
In the New Testament, the Word of God is generally referred to by the Greek word logos. Jesus is identified as the Living Word (logos). However, there are many references that use the Greek word rhema to define the Word of God. A rhema is a precise direction of Scripture for a particular person or circumstance. When Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the other side of the boat, Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5). Jesus did not tell every one to cast their nets on the other side of the boat—only Peter.
It is on the point of the Holy Spirit applying a passage of Scripture to a decision that critics often rise up and claim that this is not acceptable hermeneutics. Their quarrel is not with believers who know in their spirits that God is directing them by the witness of two or three rhemas, but with the Holy Spirit Who confirms the application of rhemas.
Jesus used rhemas in overcoming Satan’s temptations, and one of the passages He used affirms rhemas. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
6. Correct Divisions of Truth Versus Truth Out of Balance
Paul gave Timothy wise instruction in hermeneutics when he wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
Scripture is a living, powerful instrument in the hand of God. It functions on what appears to us to be paradoxes. In a similar fashion, the muscles in our bodies are only able to function by opposing tensions.
On the one hand, Scripture presents the Law of God, but then it contrasts this with the grace of God. Scripture teaches the need for justice, but then it counters this with mercy. We are told to cease from our own labour and enter the rest that is in Christ. At the same time, we are commanded to work for the night is coming when no man can work and to labour for the Lord. We have freedom in Christ. However, we are to make ourselves servants to all people.
If we emphasize only one side of God’s Biblical equation, we can certainly support it with verses of Scripture, but we will come out with the wrong answer. Truth out of balance leads to heresy. For example, if we emphasize the “rest” that a believer has and fail to give equal and primary emphasis to the “labour” of a believer, we will view any emphasis on working for the Lord as legalism.
Paul put labour and rest together when he wrote, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Hebrews 4:9–11). Similarly, there is certainly freedom in Christ. However, if we focus on freedom, we will react to God-ordained authority as being oppressive and cultish.
Proper hermeneutics requires diligent use of all the above factors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Avoid Scripture Twisting: Eight Basic Rules Of Bible Interpretation
1. Begin with what the passage says, but always ask, “What does the passage mean?”, not what it “says.”
2. Pay attention to the Greek and Hebrew, (For those without language training, an interlinear Bible used in conjunction with a Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or Expository Dictionary of Bible Words is recommended).
3. Remember the context. Read verses in the context of the whole passage, the chapter and even the book. Finally, keep in mind the larger context of the New Testament or Old Testament.
4. The Bible is progressive revelation. This means that, generally, the New Testament specifically interprets the Old Testament.
5. Always interpret the incidental passage by the systematic teachings of that topic; consider all the passages dealing with the topic, A good topical Bible is a useful aid (e.g. Nave’s Topical Bible).
6. Interpret the unclear passages by the clear ones. A favourite ploy of the cults is to choose a difficult passage and build their unique doctrines on it.
7. Beware of novel interpretations, check various conservative commentaries on the passage. There is very little new under the sun. Many of the heresies of the cults have been dealt with thoroughly. Even though there are many Christian denominations, it is interesting that on the essential doctrines there is solid agreement. Always go beyond what the passage is saying to get at its intended meaning. Cult leaders are expert in isolating passages and imposing their interpretation on it.
8. Come to Scripture prayerfully, submitting to be taught by the Holy Spirit, allowing the Scripture to interpret itself and not be clouded by personal doctrinal presuppositions.
1. Pray! Pray! Pray! The Holy Spirit knows better then you do!
2. Always know what the verse actually says, not what you think you remember it saying
3. Take the verse in literary context, don’t just read what you want to read to prove your point and don’t forget the Bible is a mosaic of different kinds of literature meant to be read different ways.
4. Take the verse in cultural context, just like you saying “it’s raining cats and dogs” is not what you literally meant
5. Remember the Bible is a whole 66 books! Interpret all verses in relation the other 1000’s of verses
6. Check the other translations, The variations are complimentary and show the whole picture
7. The Bible was not originally written in English, go back to the sources
8. Theological presuppositions are bad, scripture determines doctrine, not the other way around
9. Check the Theologians’ opinions, The Ph.D, professor of heart surgery of Harvard is better then your uncle Ted’s heart removal service. Professional opinions matter! (but don’t assume they’re always right)
10. Assume nothing, be ready to learn, don’t give up. Remember, only God knows everything.
561 responses to “Hermeneutics And Exegesis”
maggie
You got me laughing so loud ………you give me goadies!!
You dont know one thing a bout me. Buse me some more. But I will tell the truth. Form is temporary, but class is permanent. Quality is quality. And the cream rises to the top always.
Let me share another one from an elder of my church .
Brother LSW – We missed you last Sunday. I want to thank you personally for your teaching on 1 John. It was a blessing. See you soon. Brother N K. That one just came in.
The only place that I ever get cuss for trying to share my knowledge of the Word is on BU.
Wuh nerve a hit now maggie? A central one or a peripheral one! Was it an autonomic nerve maggie dear? sympathitic or parasympatheic? sensory or motor? upper motor neurone or lower motor neurone?
Lol ROTFLMAO. Buse ma some more maggie. You think I will buse you back? No I will turn the other cheek and laugh cause I know that you talking bovine excrement like the other methane emitter.
It is written my friend
JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND NOT BY THE APPEARANCE John 7:24 which being interpreted means that ONE CANNOT ADJUDICATE CORRECTLY WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS! ah gone to laugh some more
MORE ON DISPENSATIONS
First dispensation –
Name: Innocence
Duration: Creation to Fall of Adam and Eve
Man’s Condition: Gen. 1:26-29, 32; 2:7,8,15,25
God’s Requirements: Gen. 2:16-17
Man’s Conduct: Gen. 3:6
God’s Retribution: Gen. 2:17 3:6,8,10,16,19,23-24
Second dispensation
Name: Conscience
Duration: The Fall to the flood
Man’s Condition: Gen. 3:7-19
God’s Requirements: Gen. 3:21, 4:4, 8:20 Heb. 11:4
Man’s Conduct: Gen. 4:3,8. 4:17,22. 6:5,11-13
God’s Retribution: Gen. 6:13,17. 7:4,10-12,17-24
Third dispensation
Name: Human Government
Duration: Flood to Babel
Man’s Conduct: Gen. 11:2-4
God’s Retribution: Gen. 11:7-9
Fourth Dispensation
Name: Promise
Duration: Abraham to the Law
Man’s Condition: Gen. 12:1-3,7.d 13:14-17. 15:4,5,18. 17:6-8. 18:18. 22:15-18. 26:3. 28:13,14
God’s Requirements: Gen. 17:9-13
Man’s Conduct: Genesis 12 to Exodus 19God’s Retribution: Exodus 1-19
Fifth Dispensation
Name: Law
Duration: Giving of the Law to Pentecost
Man’s Condition: Ex. 2:23,25. 19:4
God’s Requirements: Ex. 19:5-8. 20:1-17,22-26. 24:1-8,9. Deut. 6:16-25. 27:26
Man’s Conduct: Ex. 32:1-4 II Kings 17:7-17 Math. 21:33-40 Acts 2:22,23. 7:51,52
God’s Retribution: 2 Kings 17:1-6,18. 24:11-16. 25:1-21
Sixth dispensation
Name: Grace
Duration: Pentecost to Second Coming
Man’s Condition: Rom. 3:9-19,23 John 3:16,18. 5:24 Matt. 18:11
God’s Requirements: John 1:12.d 3:16,18,36. 5:24. 6:29 Acts 16:31. 10:43 Rom. 4:5 10:9-10
Man’s Conduct: Matt. 7:13,14 Luke 19:12-14,26,27. 18:8 John 3:19 I Tim. 4:1-3 I Tim. 3:1-5
God’s Retribution: Matt. 24:37-41. 24:31-46 Luke 17:26-37 II Thes. 1:7,8. 2:3-11 Jude 14,15 Rev. 6:17 Rev. 4-19
Seventh dispensation
Name: Kingdom
Duration: Second Coming to Great White Throne
Man’s Condition: Is. 2:2-4 Amos 9:11-15 Micah 4:1-5 Micah 4:1-5 Acts 15:16-17 Rev. 20:1-6
God’s Requirements: Ps. 72:5,9-11 Is. 26:9. 60:12 Jer. 23:5
Man’s Conduct: Rev. 20:7-9 Is. 26:9-11
God’s Retribution: Rev. 20:9
Some Notes on Covenants- very necessary for understanding the Word.
The Adamic Covenant or Redemptive Covenant.
All the covenants
direct us toward what God willed for mankind all along, or from the beginning.
For Isaiah 42:6 reads, “I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for
the people and a light for the nations.” So when Christ comes, He rectifies the
Fall. He takes mankind back to where he was supposed to be: for when we eat of
Christ, we eat of the tree of life and enter eternal life.
And note that mankind still works, still marries, and still reproduces; but all
within the context of death and cursings: for work is debilitating, marriages
fail because of a paucity of agape love, and child-bearing is accompanied by
great pain. In other words, mankind works for himself, not for God. Me, me!
Self for self! And this is the direct result of the Fall and its consequences.
The Adamic Covenant presents the nucleus of a Savior. For when God cursed {122}
the results of the broken Covenant of Beginnings, He gave the next covenant,
that of redemption. First, God spoke to the serpent, then to the woman, then to
the man. And this was the order of disloyalty.
The serpent was possessed by Satan, upon this most scholars are agreed. Genesis
3:14 reads, “So the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl
on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” And God is
addressing Satan, saying, “dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Thus,
Satan will always be humiliated no matter what he does.
And note that God takes the initiative in this covenant. For the glory of God
has been assaulted. Satan has, as it were, declared war on God. Therefore, God
not only will vindicate His glory through this covenant, but also redeem
mankind. For Revelation 5:9 states, “You are worthy to take up the scroll and
to open its seals, because you…purchased men for God.” God, then, is
vindicating His glory and this vindication, as He willed it from the beginning,
involves and includes mankinds salvation. Satan and sin have ushered discord
into Gods universe.
Genesis 3:15 declares that God will put “enmity between you and the woman.”
This, then, is enmity between Satan and mankind, which is fascinating. Thus,
God is stating that Satans present (in the Garden) allies will, in the future,
become his adversaries. Satans defeat will come from the one Satan deceived,
Eve. And why is the enmity specifically related to Eve, and not Adam? Because
the woman was deceived, she was beguiled. She was guilty, but she was beguiled.
Adam knew precisely what he was doing. Thus, womankind is just a little less
guilty than man. She will produce the Christ-child. No physical father is
mentioned in this statement; and this is the first intimation of the Virgin
birth. {123}
And what of the word “seed?” Is this the whole human race? No, for Cain, Eves
first child, is defined, in I John 3:12, as “of the evil one.” Thus, by natural
birth mankind is on the devils side. But God places a supernatural “enmity”
against Satan through regeneration or salvation. Thus, the seed are those that
have faith in Christ, faith in the promise of Christ.
And “he will crush your head.” The seed narrows down to One who will destroy
Satan. Hebrews 2:14 states, “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too
shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the
power of death — that is, the devil.” Jesus Christ, then, in the final
analysis, is the “seed of the woman.” And Joshua 10:24 reads, “When they had
brought these kings to Joshua, he summoned all the men of Israel and said to the
army commanders who had come with him, Come here and put your feet on the necks
of these kings. So they came forward and placed their feet on their necks.”
Thus, “crushing the head” also signifies total defeat.
The “striking of the heel” refers to the Cross, as the nail was pounded through
the overlapped feet of our Lord. For only in crucifixion can the heel be so
“bruised” or “struck.”
Then God spoke to the woman. The blessing was that she would have children and,
specifically, that one child who shall be the Deliverer. The curse is that
“with pain you will give birth to children.” Then Genesis 3:16 also states
that, “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” The
Hebrew term for “desire” is TESHUQAH, which is also used in Gen. 4:7, and
therein may be rendered “dominate” or “overcome.” The question, then, is this:
is this intellectual, psychological, spiritual and sexual desire? Or is it a
desire to dominate her husband? Bishop Smith asserts that since the Fall, the
desire of the woman is to dominate the man. However, God continues, “he will
rule over you.” And according to Bishop Smith, this explains the mess the world
is in: woman says, “I want to rule.” Man says, “You will not.” Thus, marital
imbalance. However, it must be noted that many scholars do not sustain this
interpretation; most assert that it refers to the female longing for, or needing
the man. Nevertheless, both may indeed be true: she desires her husband, but
also, when the flesh commands, she desires to dominate him.
Note, too, that God placed man in control. Why? Many reasons are propounded,
yet none suffice or may be confirmed. God Himself must be interrogated for the
answer. But it is fascinating to note that the woman defeated man in about
three minutes at the Fall; if God had not classified man as the authority, one
suspects that the woman would have defeated him even more rapidly from a
position of equality. And is it not fascinating, although deplorable, that in
most cultures and in most nations, man not only “rules over” the woman, but
denigrates her.
To the man God said, you will have adequate food, but you will have to fight the
ground for it. Man will have to sweat when he works; for the first time, then,
work becomes debilitating. And to “dust shall you return;” i.e., separation
from God results in physical death. And it is interesting to note that this
verse, Gen. 3:19, explains mankinds fear of death. For mankind, as originally
created, was not to die physically. Mankind was presumably designed to pass
from time to eternity in the same manner as Enoch and Elijah, without physical
death. After the Fall, though, death entered. This clarifies why “that pious
rage” rises up inside mankind when he views the death of his kind.
And note, that life for most people is nothing more than work, getting enough to
eat, having and raising children, bearing pain, and facing death. However, Gen.
3:15 gives mankind hope; there is, then, more than just this. {124}
Notes:
{122} Based upon the scholarship of Bishop Smith, E.W. Bullinger, Robert
Thieme, Merrill F. Unger, and M. Weinfeld.
{123} For a fascinating dissertation on the Virgin Birth, please refer to
Robert Thieme, Romans.
{124} Based upon the scholarship of: Bishop Smith, Robert Thieme, Leon
Poliakov, H. A. Ironside, Merrill F. Unger, Allen Edwardes, and Bishop
Lightfoot.
NOTE THE NAMES OF THE SCHOLARS LISTED ABOVE.. No methaneogogues there.
==========
“Buse me some more maggie”
Isn’t that itself a sinful act to ask a person to commit blasphemy. Is that what christianity teaches.?
Doesn’t the WORD teaches to Let YOUR LIGHT SO SHINE?
How can a christian then be of good influence when they are asking people to do ungodly things?
Mr.Zoe et al can deceive people who have read the Bible alone as their source of all knowledge. We know more about the universe now than any of the writers of the Bible combined! Did they know about wave-particle duality? Did they know that the sun is the center of the universe? They thought a tower could be built to reach the heavens for crying out loud!
With regard to the trinity, no one has explained the concept in any succinct or lucid manner. Hence, I am convinced that most Christians don’t even understand this esoteric man-made concept. Mr. Zoe actually confuses the issue by attempting to make parallels between the trinity and water. That analogy may impress the “blind faithers”, but it certainly highlights to me a lack of critical thinking on his part. While water is manifested in three different forms, can a volume of water exist in a gaseous state, liquid state and solid state simultaneously? By contrast, one has to make the conjecture from the trinity doctrine that the father, son and the holy spirit have to exist everywhere in the universe at the same time, otherwise the concept cannot be considered to have validity. By the way wouldn’t the death of Jesus violate the existence of the trinity? When he died wouldn’t there have just been the father and the holy spirit? Further, if one uses the argument that man has a body, soul and mind shouldn’t it be the “pentaty” rather than the trinity. Jesus is a man and he has body, soul and mind, God would be the fourth entity and the holy spirit would be the fifth.
Mr. Dictionary et all
Please have a look at this site for your additional education. Of course that is whether you dare wish to face the fact that you (BU trilogy) are wrong about your false claims against the LDS Church!
http://www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=2&num=1&id=25
If we all graded ourselves we would all be super duper…. it would be all cream…
Unfortunately, the only really objective measures that we can use involves the assessment of the results produced by those wanting to be ‘measured’.
Great teachers can be expected to be able to cheerfully answer the questions of both the brilliant and the ignorant….and when they do not have answers, THEY SAY SO and seek to improve their knowledge. Everyone benefits.
Brilliant Doctors are always in great demand. They are highly sought after, greatly honoured, and have their pick of choice appointments.
Great Christians reflect the character of Jesus Christ. He was patient and forgiving of sinners, kind even to adulteresses, and even concerned for his very murderers (father forgive them…)
Good Bloggers are respectful of others. They are concise. They are relevant. They discuss ideas – thy go not copy and past old irrelevant notes and papers of others.
Scholars are logical, coherent, focused and interesting. They do not repeat the same drivel time and again as if repetition adds to the argument….. they do not post incorrect references which do not support their case……and they do not post long inconsiderate posts which are purely designed to derail discussion which appears not to be going in their favour…
In Bush Tea’s humble opinion, and in all honesty, it would be tenuous at the very least, in the above scenario to score GP anything more that a 3 out of 10.
What cream what??!!
Keep it up friends buse away.
But fortunately NONE of you will judge me at the Judgement Seat Of Christ (the bema).
I have shared what I was taught and what is relevant to the topic. And I wont be derailed from that by anyone’s opinion.
I have given over the last several days what I know to be good material on Exegesisis & Hermeneutics. It is sound doctrine that can not be condemned (refuted) as mandated by Titus 2:8.
And again @ the “BU trinity”
Here again you lot of deceivers………”Dr” Walter Martin’s agenda unmasked.
Fellow bloggers please read about the “authoritative” fount of knowledge, one Walter Martin, that the “BU trinity” love to quote re the truth of the LDS Church. Enough to make one puke with all the falseness presented as “truth” by Walter Martin” and his
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=34
Sorry for the error on the above link. Correction to the above link should be as follows:-
http:/www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=345
Maggie ma dear
Here is another one for your nerves
We send out course evaluation requests after a student completes a course. It is rare that I get feedback while a student is still in a course, unless it is negative. One of your current students sent me this. It is spirit lifting. Thanks for your excellent work.
—– Original Message —–
Dear M. M,
I just wanted to write to let you know how happy I am with the online course I am taking with Professor Wiltshire . He is incredibly prompt about returning my emails and giving me useful suggestions. Also, I am not sure if the other professors do this, but he posts power point presentations as resource guides for each chapter for every week that provide a good summary of the material and interesting additional information. I am very appreciative of his help, and so I thought it would be nice to pass along my feelings to you.
Re Walter Martin………….A man quoted by the “BU trinity” as a “fount of knowledge” about “cults”.
******************************************************************
Taken from a paper written by Louis Midgley entitled: “.A Tangled Web: The Walter Martin Miasma”.
**Neither consistency nor coherence were among Martin’s strong points. He was not a scholar or academic; he did no serious research, and he published no scholarly papers. He focused instead on rabble-rousing, on demagogic attacks on the faith of others. And this he did before admiring crowds of people who already hated those he was attacking and who had come in anticipation of hearing him blast away at those already identified as enemies. Therefore, his books, tracts, and tapes were simply a way to profit and feed from that enmity.
Right from the beginning, Martin played fast and loose with his self serving definition of the word cult. For him it was merely part of the rhetorical arsenal with which he could condemn another’s faith. What he did not seem to realize is that the word cult in its various forms originally identified merely the manner of worship of any believers. Hence Jews had a cult and the early Christians had their cult, just as Martin had his. How did he justify manipulating the meaning of the word cult into something so novel and obviously unbiblical? The fact is that he never did attempt to justify his definition of the word nor to account for his constant deviations from his own definition.207 **
Dear Georgie P –
(1) AGAIN I say, as I have indicated in each of my responses – I find your submissions very interesting. I actually like this blog (not that I understand all of it). But I don’t have a problem with seeking to understand.
(2) IMHO, knowing the Bible (which I appreciate) is NOT the same as knowing God – this might not be one of your goals – i don’t know.
(3) You are confusing my lack of enthusiasm for your shortcomings with a lack of appreciation for the discussion on religion/ Christanity/ Hermeneutics… However, I will try very hard to make this the last time I comment on my pet peeve – the impression you leave. I think you have done it for so long – you were probably unaware of it and either have never been criticized (in your hearing) or have never accepted criticism. Also, perhaps it is because I am not easily impressed by tone or testimonial – the first can obfuscate; the second, as we both know, can be a result of manipulation.
(4) Since you keep asking about it – the NERVE in question: my LAST one .
(5) Re: ROTFLMAO: You talk about being (at least) 22 years old in the 60’s. Therefore, at this point in your life I doubt that you would EVER ROTFLMAO; neither is it part of the vocabulary of the Mr. P I have so far seen. ROTFLMAO indicates a spontaneous gesture and you are far too controlled for that. Also the word “goadies” does not comfortably roll off your lips – these actions are akin to envisioning you with the drooping, unbelted pants claimed as “style” & worn by some of today’s young people. (shudder)
Be all of that as it may – I am leaving you to concentrate on what you set out to do. So as tempting as it is to point out certain things (& you leave me with so MANY openings) – I wont. I will try very very hard not to distract you from what you are doing.
David:
the above is truly sad, and sadly revealing.
Mr Sherman, as you can see at March 16, 2010 at 5:24 PM, has chosen to resort to not only slanderous accusations [for instance, I obviously am a Christian not a believer in the gods up on Mt Olympus, and neither did Plato, as would have easily been seen if he had done so much homework as was necessary to read the opening remarks in The Laws Bk X, in which Plato artfully distances himself from the Greek Mythology but makes sure not to invite Socrates’ fate], but has sought to use even more vulgar namecalling.
Meanwhile of course, failing to respond cogently on substance
Just thought you would like to know what your free for all policy is surfacing.
Dictionary
++++++++++++++
PS: To Mr Sherman::
By resorting to the most vulgar namecalling and to patent strawman fallacies [cf the opening remarks here on even Plato’s subtly worded view of the imaginary denizens of Mt Olympus], you have shown to all who will observe, that you have no answer on the merits to corrections to
(i) your attempt to dismiss the Biblical text, exp the NT’s historical core in Lk-Ac, as “fiction,” and
(ii) the expose of the underlying imposition of self-referentially incoherent evolutionary materialism that likes to call itself “science” in our day.
I trust that onlookers will duly note those pretty plain implications.
For, a man with your obvious level of education and articulateness would have immediately pounced if he had a sound reply on the merits.
So, you either know, or should know [onlookers, note how he has refused to engage specific serious discussions on the merits that I linked], that the Biblical record is not a matter of easily dismissed fiction, and that evolutionary materialism is self-referentially incoherent AND amoral. Thus it is not only necessarily false but a gateway to evil and a menace to our civilisation.
In short, the balance on the merits plainly is as I commented yesterday, starting here.
G’day sir
Dictionary
F/N: Let me excerpt those particular opening remarks in Bk X, so that all who are willing to see will see for themselves the failure to do honest research and the willingness to set up a patent strawman that Mr Sherman has indulged:
In short, Plato here hints that something is very wrong, but does not take the fatal step his mentor took that exposed him to the infamous cup of hemlock. (And let us not forget that in his older years Aristotle had to flee the same Athens so that it would not sin against philosophy twice.)
In short, since it is patent that neither I nor any other educated person for a great many centuries would defend polytheism, and that Plato himself was not happy with it, Mr Sherman has indulged in a maliciously sneering smear, expressive of an inner irrational — for he cannot justify it on the merits — hostility. A sad index of what has been going on in our region.
+++++++++++++
F/N 2: Mr Hood’s gleeful latching on to vulgar namecalling and strawman twisting instead of addressing the serious issues that researchers who document their findings from relevant and credible literature and serious level former Mormons testifying as witnesses have to say, is highly revealing on his own want of sound basis for what he has advocated.
OOPS: I forgot to link the rebuttal to Mr Sherman’s earlier dismissive remarks, above, that stands as the uncontested record on the merits.
David, I see I am again in Akismet’s bad books. D
Barbados Underground – bringing news and opinions to the people
You are now logged out.
Inna Sanctuary
@Dictionary
Please note the Spam Queue is reviewed periodically, if your comment is trapped in the Q please be patient.
Dictionary is most definitely a propafandistic genius (plural genii or geniuses, adjective ingenious) a person, a body of work, or a singular achievement of surpassing excellence. …
Onlookers:
It is time again for a corrective run-through of several remarks above:
1] Scientist: We know more about the universe now than any of the writers of the Bible combined! Did they know about wave-particle duality? Did they know that the sun is the center of the universe? They thought a tower could be built to reach the heavens for crying out loud!
Here, we see a confusing of categories. As has been repeatedly noted, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, and it describes matters phenomenologically — i.e when people set up to build a Ziggurrat to indulge in astrological divination etc, it describes such a very high tower with understandable hyperbole.
What he Biblical worldview does do brilliantly, is that it sets up a context in which not only is Science possible, but which is the one in which modern science was born, as was linked on long since to CH, but conveniently ignored. As Dan Peterson observed:
2] With regard to the trinity, no one has explained the concept in any succinct or lucid manner.
Of course, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the key insight required to understand the triune nature of God is that oneness is not as simplistic a concept as many imagine. So, if one imposes a key mis-concept on the discussion, s/he will find that that which is well-founded bout cuts across one’s intuitions sounds absurd.
But then, Scientist already knows that, as s/he knows that wave-particle duality is a context where one and the same electron or photon etc — it in principle obtains for any particle — has characteristics of waves heading for Long Beach under one head, and those similar to a cricket ball heading for the stands after a spectacular shot, on the other.
Hard for us to grasp, but plainly we are seeing complex unities all over the realm of reality.
On this, the apocryphal words of St Patrick are appropriate on this day, when the pagan people of Ireland reportedly challenged him on the strange notion that God could be triune. Bending down, he plucked the now iconic shamrock, and then stood up:
In short, neatly fitting into one’s current conceptions is not a proper criterion of truth. Nor is patently obvious simplicity, as any student of serious mathematics or physics can tell you.
Many true things and many credibly true things are anything but simple, e.g. Why is it that he cardinality of the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, . . . is the same as that of the proper subset, the evens: 2, 4. 6 . . .; namely aleph-null? How is this a smaller transfinite [“infinite”] number than c, the continuum number, and are there transfinite numbers between these? What is the quantitative relationship between these two numbers, on what warrant?
3] Mr. Zoe actually confuses the issue by attempting to make parallels between the trinity and water . . . While water is manifested in three different forms, can a volume of water exist in a gaseous state, liquid state and solid state simultaneously?
Let’s see, a particular volume of water is — at the triple point [used to define the absolute scale of temperature] — simultaneously manifest as solid, liquid and gas, all of which has the core substance H- OH, hydrogen hydroxide.
Sounds rather like an example of complex unity in action where one and the same substance is manifest in diverse forms under the same set of circumstances. Now, let us compare a classic statement of the triune understanding of God:
[And, onlookers, amidst all this debating on isolated perceived “weak” points, let us recognise that NONE of the objectors has done what I repeatedly requested above: first address the warranting context of the Christian worldview, the prophesied, witnessed and transforming resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In that context, the scriptures that predicted up to 700+ years ahead of time what would happen, are credibly the Word of God and are to be taken as normative guides to our understanding as God’s knowledge is higher than that of mere men, however scientific or educated. And, similarly the writings of the men whom that same Risen Lord of Life commissioned and empowered by his Spirit will be likewise the word of God. It is from that word that we see that there is a complex unity understanding of God, starting with the implications of Echad in Dt 6:4, th great creedal prayer of Israel. And, when we turn tot he vexed philosophical problem of unity and diversity in the cosmos, we find that only redemptive triune theism has a satisfactory answer, of the major alternatives on view.]
4] By the way wouldn’t the death of Jesus violate the existence of the trinity? When he died wouldn’t there have just been the father and the holy spirit?
Tis of course implicitly assumes that death implies cessation of existence, i.e it projects unto one worldview the assumptions of another, erecting and knocking over a strawman tissue of misconceptions. FYI, in the Judaeo- Christian worldview, physical death is separation of the vivifying spirit from the body, and spiritual death is separation and alienation of our human spirits from their ground of being, God. That is why eternal life is defined in Jn 17:3 as reconciliation and rightly related knowing of God.
(Cf my earlier warning on the power of misconceptions to mislead us into perceiving non-existent absurdities. For, contrary to our first impression, it is possible to stand at one point on the surface of the earth and be simultaneously due north of London England, B’town B’dos, and Kgn Ja. And BTW, what is the time at the No Pole?)
5] Further, if one uses the argument that man has a body, soul and mind shouldn’t it be the “pentaty” rather than the trinity. Jesus is a man and he has body, soul and mind, God would be the fourth entity and the holy spirit would be the fifth.
Further conceptual errors.
I am sure that Scientist understands himself to be a unified whole, never mind that he is spirit, soul and body. Complex unity again. That ever so challenging but fundamental concept.
6] TH and a book review of a critique of he Bk of Mormon etc:
TH of course fails to address the fact hat Mormonism is a complex system with many sources that are foundational and incorporated in the doctrines taught to initiates at different levels [and BTW, that esoteric-ness is a clue that we are dealing with a manipulative system.]
To see that Mr Petersen here — unlike when presumably the same person has done his work right on investigating a less emotionally involved matter, the roots of Modern Science and the debates over design [BTW, a pattern noted by Aristotle in The Rhetoric when he warned us on how our emotions can affect our judgements; which is part of why I keep on calling us to the merits of credible facts and logic at BU] — fails to highlight that there is a well-known radical divergence between Bk of Mormon sites and fauna etc and New World Archaeology (by sharp contrast with the convergence between Biblical descriptions and the dug-up facts on the ground for over 100 years . . . )
[ . . . ]
@ Dic
You said……”Mr Hood’s gleeful latching on to vulgar namecalling and strawman twisting instead of addressing the serious issues that researchers who document their findings from relevant and credible literature……….”
*****************************************************************
Yeah sure, Mr. Dic. Researchers like one “Dr.” Walter Martin (et al) who has been exposed for the fraud that he was! A man who purchased his PHD degree from a Californian university! A man who sets store by unchecked and unresearched statements from other fraudulent “experts”.
So you think that because I haven’t been bringing proof about these frauds that you and Zoe and GP have been parading here for the last few months as men whose word should be trusted as gospel, that there was no evidence to expose them for what they are! You thought that you could pull the wool over the eyes of those who did not know better! Well let me tell you there are lots more proof against your fraudulent claims than you realise. Including proof against your fraudulent so called “serious level former members” ! You would not be referring to Sandra & Jerald Tanner by any chance, would you?
All you, or anyone, need to do, who SINCERELY want to see the rebuttals on ALL of these frauds, is just visit the web site linked in my most recent posts above and then judge for yourselves if any of these so called “experts” being paraded here can be trusted to even give anybody the correct time of day!!
I want to just say one more thing to you, “BU trilogy”, and that is that much better than either of you have been trying for nearly 200 years to “expose” the LDS Church as false. But, you know what? They have an utmost IMPOSSIBLE task since they are trying to interfere with that which has been ordained of God!! So, you and anyone else who wish to continue trying are welcome. I wish you ‘good luck’ for you will surely need it!!
For instance, while “Large architectural complexes forming the centres of Maya cities were fundamental to their civilization. The plan of such ceremonial centres was established in the earliest days of the Maya, dating back to 2000 B.C.” it is equally plain that Mayan civilisation and other early American cultures simply do not reflect the patterns in Bk Mor, as was long since acknowledged by BYU’s own Archaeology Dept. And When we then go on to see:
This is in fact a subtle concession that the promotion to godhood polytheism of Mormonism as described by former Mormons and as traceable through key documents is really a teaching of Mormonism; though of course one that is hardly likely to be headlined, given the rather strong statements in say Isa 40 – 45 on just how many gods exist or will exist; some of which I already cited above.
The Judaeo- Christian view of God is staunchly and biblically monotheistic, not polytheistic.
And that fundamental contradiction in worldviews is why Mormonism is not and cannot be a truly Christian religion.
7] Attacking the man instead of addressing the issue, re the late Dr Walter Martin:
TH has linked a list of BYU attempted rebuttals, including by Midgley to WM.
This starts with an atmosphere-poisoning mischaracterisation of evangelical Christian faith, then proceeds to motive mongering and strawmanising — of course he is wrong that repentance is not a crucial component of saving faith [cf the sermons in Ac!], and then turns to more direct well-poisoning on WM and the Southern Baptist Convention.
2/5 of the way in, we finally come on a substantial point:
Of course, what is artfully being dodged here is that he creeds are precisely the result of generations of serous biblical scholarship and reflect precisely – and demonstrably — the teachings of the Bible. (Of course, in turn, the matter hinges on the key warranting evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Midgley also seems to not understand that full comprehensibility to humans is both not a criterion of truth as we see from modern physics, and that the Bible actually explicitly teaches that there are things of God beyond human ken, e.g. cf Is 55.)
Beyond that his discussion turns on a rejection of the triune understanding of God, i.e it is a clear case that Martin is right that the Mormon faith is not well aligned with the historic, Bible based Christian faith.
Lest we get utterly too long let us just excerpt one more pivotal point:
Strawman distortion and red herring led away to dismissal of the views of a group the well has been poisoned on in the first 2/5 of the essay. For, the locus classicus on this is in fact Eph 2:8 – 10 (with strong echoes from Rom 4:4 – 5, etc etc and with a key case in point that played a decisive role in the first church council in Jerusalem AD 48 – 9, Ac 10 – 11 as decisively reflected on by Peter in Ac 15:7 – 9):
In short, Midgley’s derided “evangelical cliche” is a precisely apt summary of explicit NT teaching on the basis of our salvation: by grace through faith — not by works — but UNTO good works laid out in advance for us to do.
That is, true saving faith leads to the transforming presence in one’s heart of the Spirit of God who through the word of God, the discipleship of the church (and one’s personal devotional life and prayer life and Bible study life and walk in the way of growing virtue in direct intimate relationship with God in the face of Jesus, etc) and the walk of increasing purity and good, transforms from within.
So important is this that 1 Jn makes it plain that if one is not being so transformed then that is a strong sign that one is not saved.
Transformation is a necessary result of salvation, but not its sufficient or component cause. For, our tainted “righteousness” is like filthy rags in God’s sight; for all too good reason relating to the plank in our eye syndrome. So, God by his Spirit is working on us, step by step, progressively, to transform us in the likeness of Jesus the standard of true righteousness.
And in fact 1 Jn 1:5 – 10 makes it plain that one who pretends to being perfect here and now is a liar, even as the one who walks in the light will grow in the grace of God.
8] Neither consistency nor coherence were among Martin’s strong points. He was not a scholar or academic; he did no serious research, and he published no scholarly papers. He focused instead on rabble-rousing, on demagogic attacks on the faith of others.
Observe the pattern: not addressing the merits but namecalling and dismissing the man on a strawman distortion of what he taught.
But, debates on WM notwithstanding, I have already shown enough on points through the very excerpts TH points to, for us to see that the issues raised by CARM, are very much on target.
And, observe carefully folks: Nowhere does TH address a demonstrable case fo actual religiously motivated racism, in the Mormon doctrine of the origins of dark skinned peoples through the alleged hostile neutrality of these spirit children of the god of our planet in their pre-mortal life, and the context of the convenient “revelation” of 1978 that suddenly allowed dark skinned people to access the priesthood, thus also the temple rituals preparatory to the Mormon scheme for apotheosis.
So, he does not address the glaring case in front of him but seeks to distract.
++++++++++++++
Enough on corrective points for now.
Let us turn instead to something more directly on the focal issue of this thread.
G’day
D
PS: I see the excerpt from Petersen somehow was omitted:
>> Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science [in the modern science sense as just outlined and highlighted] arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.
There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered . . . . Far from being inimical to [modern] science, then, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced it. Scientists who (in Boyle’s words) viewed nature as “the immutable workmanship of the omniscient Architect” were the pathfinders who originated the scientific enterprise. >>
David: More stuff in Akismet’s mod pile. Sorry. D
@ maggie // March 17, 2010 at 1:11 AM
You said…….”(2) IMHO, knowing the Bible (which I appreciate) is NOT the same as knowing God – this might not be one of your goals – i don’t know.”
*********************************************************************
Maggie, I cannot imagine anyone else saying it better! I want to also include his two sidekicks of the “BU trinity” in those sentiments you so masterly articulated.
It is also well known how good SATAN is at quoting scripture in which he is so well versed. Forgive me if anyone thinks that I am inferring that there is a satan on BU but I am quite sure we will find some of his agents here!
Onlookers:
Back on topic.
One of the biblical terms that is often deeply misunderstood is “faith.” So, let us do some simple exegesis and related general reasoning to help us understand what is meant.
1 –> As a preliminary, let us note that we finite, fallible thinkers cannot “prove” everything and so are forced back step by step to a faith-point of first plausibles that shape our worldviews. This, I have described here in Section E of my often linked discussion on selective hyperskepticism and related issues.
2 –> In effect when we look at a claimed truth A, we ask why we accept it, and end up at B, supporting evidence. But in turn B breaks down into claims we are accepting as so, so we go on to C, D, etc in turn. Since we cannot carry out such a vicious infinite regress, we stop at some faith-point Fn. And then the issue is to compare difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power to see the reason why we accept this particular worldview, Fn as opposed to others from the set F1, F2, . .. as most credible. [Cf Sections F and G.]
3 –> In short, it is adequately shown that we all walk by faith, the question being in whom or what, why. So, to object to someone as a “faither” or a “faithist” etc is self-referentially incoherent, i.e selective hyperskepticism. Similarly, to object to the project of warrant for worldviews — as opposed to proof — is to invite closed minded obstinacy and to indulge in self-referential inconsistency as we all have reasons why we think our own worldview is well-warranted.
4 –> So, now, let us look to the particular way the Bible in a key NT text speaks of faith:
6 –> the key word being used, in Gk is: πιστις — pistis. As the Strong’s Bible Dictionary concisely sums up:
7 –> That is, the essence is that one has an abiding conviction and trust one is willing to habitually act on, the quality of which rests in turn on the object of such confident trust. (For instance, as a rule we trust int the love of our mothers implicitly.)
8 –> So, we may have moral certainty that is well warranted in the love of our mothers. And we are willing to habitually act on that trust, as a right which has been earned. (Do you insist that a lab certify that food served by your mom is not poisoned, every time? Do you insist that that lab and its work on the food in question — and how was the chain of custody demonstrated beyond all doubt — be certified by another ad infinitum? What about he relevant theories of science and the reports on which the facts that he theories account for rest? Do you see that at some point — indeed, at many points — you are at a faith-point of first plausibles?)
9 –> going on, Hb 11 speaks of how by faith — trust in God based on his Word [warranted by a chain anchored on the resurrection as described and linked many times . . . ] — “we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” That is, the God of the Bible is the Creator.
10 –> And here, a telling side-light from Job 238 lets us see the power of comparing scripture with scripture. For, here god answers Job and his friends out of the storm with words that would be well heeded by those who ever so confidently pretend to detailed knowledge of the unobservable past on reconstructive techniques that often embed some pretty astonishing circles of argument; and too often the a priori imposition of self-contradictory (i.e. necessarily false) evolutionary materialism :
11 –> But that is not the most relevant issue, which is in Heb 11:6: “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him [note the direct implication that here is but ONE true God, the Creator of the Universe] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
12 –> So, we see that the point of faith is to come to God in penitent faith, on the strength of much else in the Scriptures, through the risen Saviour and Lord Jesus, in his name.
++++++++++++++
G’day
D
TH: You are skating on very thin ice. I counsel you to be very careful in judging Another’s servant. We are reasonably called to look at arguments and at the ways of life (bearing in mind not only the issue of growth across time, but also the planks in our own eyes) but we are in no wise in a position to dismiss another person eternally. Which is why a certain often encountered profanity is so blasphemous, BTW. In your case it is very clear from the above and previous threads that you have made some serious conceptual and biblical errors, and need to correct them, seeking forgiveness for sins: do not let foolish wounded pride get between you and the truth and the right. For all of us, there is need to grow in penitent faith that turns from wrong to right and from discovered error tot he truth, instead of resisting correction. G’day. D
F/N: Since TH has spent so much time in personal attacks on the character of Dr Walter Martin [while ducking dealing with the substantial issues he needs to face on the increasingly plain want of warrant for his LDS faith], in fairness, I excerpt the Wiki article on him on the subject of his response to the critics he faced from many directions:
____________________
>> Martin was a figure of controversy who inspired great love and loyalty among his colleagues and students, and deep animosity from many of his detractors. He was applauded by many for his genuine love for people, and criticized by some fundamentalist Protestants for his affiliations with Pentecostals and Charismatics (even though he was a Baptist), and for his refusal to classify the Roman Catholic church as a “cult”.
Throughout his lifetime, he dealt patiently for the most part with scathing criticism and personal attacks, invariably directing the critics to primary source materials and ancient biblical documents.
In the 1980s, Martin was involved in critical debates over the positive confession success theology (also called Word of Faith) of Christian charismatic teachers such as Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin. [49] While Martin was critical of these teachers’ claims concerning their views of Christ, healing, faith, and prosperity, he believed in the perpetuity of charismatic spiritual gifts in the Church. To that end, Martin presented his positive appraisal of spiritual gifts in several audio lectures . . . ., and by editing with chapter end-notes, a fresh reprint edition of 19th century evangelist Dwight L. Moody’s book Secret Power.
Martin was often involved in many public confrontations with Mormon leaders and apologists who could not successfully refute his evidence against Mormonism. During the 1980s his tertiary credentials and ordination status as a Baptist minister were called into question by Mormons Robert and Rosemary Brown, who used a “tabloid” journalism approach to Martin’s personal life, in an attempt to damage his reputation. They noted that his “doctorate” was granted by California Coast University, a school they labeled a diploma mill, despite the school’s repeated claims to the contrary. (CCU is now nationally accredited by the Distance Education and Training Council, which is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.)
Since his death Martin’s eldest daughter, Jill Martin Rische, has answered these allegations via the Walter Martin Ministries website that she founded and administers, along with her husband, Kevin. Martin Rische documents Walter Martin’s ministerial status as a recognized pastor within the Directory of the Californian Southern Baptist Convention, and provides evidence to support the academic validity of his doctorate. http://www.waltermartin.com/about.html
Walter Martin also claimed to be a descendant of Brigham Young, a statement that continues to cause consternation among Latter Day Saints. The fact remains, however, that Walter Martin was told this by his mother from childhood–long before he became involved in Christian Apologetics. Martin claimed on the dedication page of The Maze of Mormonism that he was a descendant of Brigham Young on his mother’s side;[50] however, such a claim is difficult to verify due to the fact that the Mormon Church has not released the marriage information from the early days of Nauvoo, IL. >>
______________________
I trust that this will help to clear up the poisonous, confusing and polarising smoke of personal attacks that TH has spread across this thread, in his attempts to distract us from the main focus and even the secondary matters he injected, then put5 up distortions and indulge in denigration.
F/N: Ah well, it seems that an excerpt from the Wiki bio of WM has been swallowed by the spam system, which has not been gentle to me this morning. Kindly cf here, to balance some of the claims above including especially the allegations of poor scholarship in general and of a fraudulent Doctorate from a so-called degree mill in particular. D
F/N 2: To follow up further, from the WM site, here is some documentation on polytheism as taught by Smith himself in 1844, shortly before his assassination; , from a major sermon preached before 20,000 people and recorded by four scribes adn published in the more or less authoritative Mormon paper:
__________________
>> . . . The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which disagrees with the Utah church on the subject of polytheism, steadfastly maintains that Joseph Smith Jr. never taught or practiced either polygamy or polytheism, but the following direct quotation from Smith, relative to the plurality of gods and the doctrine that Mormon males may attain to godhood, vexes the Reorganized Church no end. But, it is fact, nonetheless.
The following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, 5:613–614) four months after Smith delivered it at the funeral of Elder King Follett, and only two months after Smith’s assassination in Carthage, Illinois.
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith notes that the King Follett sermon was given at the April conference of the Church in 1844 and was heard by around 20,000 people. The argument that Smith was misquoted is discounted by the fact that it was recorded by four scribes, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and Thomas Bullock. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Smith’s two-hour-and-fifteen-minute message “may be one of the Prophet’s greatest sermons because of its doctrinal teachings.”
It is significant that the split in Mormonism did not take place for more than three and a half years. Apparently their ancestors did not disagree with Smith’s theology, as they themselves [the re-organised group — there is a key and embarrassing split in the Mormon movement, with the splinter group sitting on the key real estate in IL] do today. Nor did they deny that Smith preached the sermon and taught polytheism, as does the Reorganized Church today. But the facts must speak for themselves. Here are the above mentioned quotes:
Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different planets, “Elohim” being the god of this planet (Brigham’s teaching that Adam is our heavenly Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but they hold firm to the belief that their God is a resurrected, glorified man). In addition to this, the “inspired” utterances of Joseph Smith reveal that he began as a Unitarian, progressed to tritheism, and graduated into full-fledged polytheism, in direct contradiction to the revelations of the Old and New Testaments as we have observed. >>
_____________________
Multiply that by the further doctrine of the hostile neutrality of the premortal spirits of the dark skinned peoples in the war in heaven between Lucifer and Jesus, and you see TH has a lot to answer to and explain.
David, I am sorry to have to bring up so much that is patently painful and unpleasant, but it is plain that only something this strong will help stop the rhetorical barrage going on above. D
PS: I separated the link in an attempt to get through with less problems.
Thanks David. Let us hope I will not have to reproduce the substance of a certain letter by prof Charles Anthon of Columbia U on Feb. 17, 1834; on the claimed transcription of the writings on the famous golden tablets that are the source of the Book of Mormon. D
Fellow bloggers,
Please bear with me but this guy Dic(k) is proving himself to be as fraudulent as one Walter Martin whom he just loves to quote as gospel truth against the LDS Church. A man, by the way, who has already been exposed as a fraud/charlatan of the worst kind! Now he pulls another charlatan out of the woodwork, one Peter Bartley, who uses some of the same material from writers who have failed to do proper research and cross checking as the infamous Walter Martin!
Read what Dic(k) says now…………… “Of course, what is artfully being dodged here is that he creeds are precisely the result of generations of serous biblical scholarship and reflect precisely – and demonstrably — the teachings of the Bible.”
*************************************************************
The “creeds” that this fraud Dic(k) referring to here is none other the the ecumenical creeds that resulted from that meeting at Nicaea when Constantine locked away 300+ churchmen of the day with the understanding that they had to come to common agreement or else!! Or else heads would roll. So what would one expect under such conditions? Given such a choice most if not all of them “agreed” quite rapidly with whatever was put forward for the “VOTE”.
For anyone interested, this week’s “eSkeptic” is now available:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-03-17/
@ The Hood, Man, the depth of the ‘spiritual’ deception that has a grip on your mind, is exceeded only by your ignorance to defend such utter false, pagan idolatry as found in Mormonism.
The vast maze of Mormon idolatry and rampant polytheism, can be summarized by the following 10 FACTS of Mormonism.
1. Mormons can become *gods* and *goddesses*.
2. Goddesses will spend eternity in *full* submission to
their *god-husband*.
3. Mormon women will give birth “forever and ever” to
spirit-babies.
4. Mormon men can have multiple wives in heaven –
eternal *lolygamy*.
5. Heavenly Father is an exalted man who lives with his
*goddess* wife, Heavenly Mother, on a planet near
the great star Kolob.
6. American Indians are the descendents of the wicked
Lamanites, who were Israelites that God cursed with
dark skin.
7. God the Father had sex with Mary to conceive
Jesus, who is the half brother of Lucifer.
8. All christian churches are an abomination.
9. Mormons need 4 hankshakes to get into the Celestial
heaven.
10. Joseph Smith revealed that the actual Garden of
Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri.
The above citations from Mormon Scriptures, which DIAMETRICALLY oppose and vehemently contradict the Word, of God, the Bible, are taken from authorized Mormon Leaders
[1] Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; J of D 8: 115, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:20
[2] Doctrine and Covenants 84: 33-9; Goddesess are always subject to a god. Women are denied the Priesthood (meaning ther are denied ‘authority’ – not the same as Catholic priesthood). “In the LDS universe, theologically described as the ‘real’ universe, each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman, even the women who qualify at the highest Celestial level, because each man who achieves godhood-level may have numerous god-wives, but each god-wife may only have one husband. This can only mean that each “heavenly father” is worth many times more than each “heavenly mother.” And, even if the ratio were strickly one to one, the male god, not the female god, holds the priesthood authority and is the only one of the god parents to whom his earth-mortality children are allowed to pray. So Mormon women can never, NEVER achieve equality with men, no matter how outstanding or righteous the women are. That’s just the way it’s set up.” MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC and THERAPY by Kent Ponder, Ph.D. e-mail address kponder@swep.comhttp://home. teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm.
[3] LDS Apostle Orson Pratt wrote, “Each father and mother be in the condition to multiply forever and ever” (The Seer, 37).
[4] Doctrine and Covenants 132; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11: 269; Men can stil be sealed for eternity (not time) to women other than their wives; “Their practice of polygamy has been discontinued, but the doctrine of polygamy HAS NEVER been revoked. D&C 132 is STILL part of the LDS canon. And some current church practices are STILL based on polygamous principles.” See pro-Mormon site http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/08/02eternal-polygamy/ (accessed February 25, 2007).
[5] Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3: 2-4, 9; J of D: 214.
[6} Book of Mormon: Alma 3: 6-19; 3 Nephi 2: 14-15;
Enos 1:20; J of D, 7: 290-292.
[7] Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8; 211: J of D8:
115; Mormon Doctrine p. 546-547.
[8] Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1: 19,
Smith claimed God sent him to ‘restore’ true
Christianity.
[9] Clestian Kingdom is the highest of 3 levels in the
Mormon heaven (need handhakes to get past the
angel guarding the veil); See ex-Mormon site. http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_templeceremonies.html#pub_1816881347 (accessed February 25, 2007); David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, http://lds-mormon.com/buerger/shtml (accessed February 25, 2007).
[10] Doctrine and Covenants 116; Journal of Discourses, 10:235; Smith named the Spring Hill Daviess County, Missouri area Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
All of this disguisting, completely, pagan doctrine of polygamy, idolatry, and the denial of women being equal with men, IS utterly *FORIEGN* to the Word of God, the Bible, and came though that deceived FALSE prophet Joseph Smith Jr, and other Mormon false prophets, all documented in authorized Mormon literature.
Hood, which ‘likkle’ Mormon *god* do you expect to become, and exactly how many polygamous *wives* are you hoping to have in the Mormon universe of *gods*?
And you have the GALL, to utter the name of The Holy Spirit as the one leading you?
You are a decived FOOL!
@Dictionary: (Quoting St Patrick) “Is this one leaf, or three? If one leaf, then why are there three lobes of equal size? If three leaves, then why is there just one stem? If you cannot explain so simple a mystery as the shamrock, how can you hope to understand one so profound as the Holy Trinity?
Is this your answer to me about what the Bible has to say about the Double Slit Experiment?
Middle East Peace Treaty
We are told by Zechariah and other prophets that Jerusalem will be a matter of great controversy to all nations in the last days.
The only peace Israel has ever known was in the days of Solomon, and since it became a nation in 1948 there has been no peace, even though there have been more than 50 peace treaties or agreements negotiated and signed, some of which were the Wye River Memorandum and the Sharem El-Sheik Agreement of October 2000.
As written in Daniel 9:27, the Antichrist will confirm or guarantee a peace agreement or treaty between Israel and its enemies. However, there will be no peace.
In fact, this false peace treaty initiates the Great Tribulation period. From current news reports, this treaty could be signed by the Antichrist at any time.
This is clear from my understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics.
Happy days ahead!
@Georgie Porgie…
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read your immediate above to mean that you actually look forward to war.
Please tell me I’m wrong.
@ The “BU trinity”
Maybe we should rename you three the “Bajan Inquisition” after the style of the Spanish Inquisition!
It seems that anyone having a different opinion to either of you three are instantly condemned to be “hung, drawn & quartered”! Or rather, condemned to the pits of hell!
So what would the “bajan inquisition” have me do?
OK guys, you are so right with whatever you say. Because you are so learned and so lettered. It was very dumb of me to put up any defense for my beliefs when all I had to do was “kowtow” to the “superior” knowledge and “enlightenment” of the “BU trinity”. So continue freely with your “enlightenment” of the masses and just leave me here as a dumb, ignorant fool (as was so eloquently pointed out previously) to wallow in my “unbiblical” understandings. OK? Yeah, yeah cheers for the “BU trinity” who know it all! Amen!
My dear dear Maggie
I am glad to hear that you find my submissions very interesting. Hurray! That means that you are smarter than the average bear on this bog here (You will now tell me that I never watched Yogi bear cartoons with my sons or grands)
I am happy to hear that you actually like this blog even though you don’t understand all. I am happy that you don’t have a problem with seeking to understand. Hurray! That means that you are doing much better than most who have posted.
I can assure you that I both know the Word well, and the God that I serve, and continue to seek diligently according to the precepts enunciated in Hebrews 11 and Philippians 3:1-15 (especially the section that starts “That I might know him…..etc).
As you can see I do not care to hoots about your pet peeves. You are just joining the bandwagon of the GP bashers. And its very hilarious.
I cannot see why you should be enthused about my shortcomings. Since you enjoy the bog and confess to have benefitted from my submissions, it might be best for you to focus thereon. Don’t you think?
I have not commented at all on your appreciation for the discussion on religion/ Christanity/ Hermeneutics. Rather I have sought to understand and ascertain which of your nerves that I ascended on. The last nerve is not documented in any of the Anatomy texts that I have read. Rotflmao! You really are a source of some amusement.
I however, understand your veiled attempt to call me a liar. In your note “perhaps it is because I am not easily impressed by tone or testimonial – the first can obfuscate; the second, as we both know, can be a result of manipulation.”
I was 22 in 1974 I can still ROTF. And it is the internet jargon used by the young people with whom I communicate and play tape ball cricket including my sons and their peers. You see I am very down to earth. But I love the language. My vocabulary has developed from much reading and my study of Latin at school. But I am not unwilling to add some of the jargon used by my youthful friends. You need it to communicate in teaching youth and communicating with the children of your friends and the youth in the church. Did you think of that magggie dearest?
Why are you so interested in the impression I leave. Concentrate more on the information that I have shared.
I am as spontaneous as any one else. But I can also be controlled, my friend. There is no need to be fiery when folk who do not know you judge you without the facts. I have been subjected to the greatest condemnation by folk on BU in the last week, who have never met me, watched me teach or serve. Must I lose control?
Maggie I cant win with you can I? I remind you that I was born and bred in Barbados, and the word “goadies” roll comfortably off my lips . I just got a loud guffaw in this room when I read that aloud. You see “goadies” is one of my favorite words. If I had spoken of bilateral inguinal hernia you would have spoken a bout the impression I leave. When I use “goadies” you associate it with actions are akin to envisioning you with the drooping, unbelted pants claimed as “style” & worn by some of today’s young people. (shudder)
Maggie “goadies” has nothing with the above ma dear. “goadies” is just pain ole “goadies”. The use of the word “goadies” long predates the common practice of the youth spawned in US jails. But “goadies” is synonymous with strain! LOL and even ROTFLMAO
Maggie I come from a family that loves to laugh and make people laugh. I actually actively search for cartoons and other aspects of mirth to insert in the middle and end of my power points for my lectures. And at church, I introduce my chats with appropriate jokes.
You are a smart lady though. You appreciate that it takes lots of self control not to respond to the attempted harassment and harrange addressed a me on this blog.
Why don’t you use your time to construct questions about the issues about exegesis and hermeneutics that you do not understand. It is a very interesting subject. It is a joy every summer to hear the young inexperienced chaps in our church give their first sermons, and to see how well they have learned to exegete and use hermeneutics by just listening to older folk.
Last night I introduced the concept of dispensations and covenants, because RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH is best done by understanding these concepts.
As this dispensation (the Age of Grace or the Church Age) draws to a close rapidly, contemporary earth dwellers ought to be interested and concerned about Bible predictions about the dispensations that follow as adduced or exegeted from the relevent and associated passages of the sacred Scriptures.
Here we go with a few notes on the wonderful eras that is about to dawn for many.
The Tribulation
In the chronological order of eschatology, the Tribulation is a seven-year period of war, pandemic plagues, earthquakes, astral catastrophes, and other judgments that will kill approximately three-fourths of the population of the world.
Daniel said of this period, “…. and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time ….” Daniel 12:1 Jesus said, “For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” Matthew 24:22 The Tribulation period will end with the coming of Jesus Christ at Armageddon.
The Rapture
Unfulfilled prophecy number three is the Rapture. Rapture is an inclusive word used to describe the resurrection of Christians who have died in the past, along with the changing of Christians who are alive from mortal bodies to immortal bodies, all rising to meet Jesus Christ in the air, or the heavens.
This event occurs immediately after the Antichrist confirms the peace treaty and the Tribulation begins. Daniel 9:27 (see also 1 Thessalonians chapters 4 and 5) I believe there is prophetic evidence the church will not go through the Tribulation.
Antichrist’s Appearance
Unfulfilled prophecy number four is the revealing of Antichrist’s indentity. For the first half of the Tribulation, the Antichrist solidifies his leadership and advantage. He will be a great orator; Daniel 11:36 a political and commercial genius;
Daniel 11:41 Revelation 13:16-17 he may be homosexual; Daniel 11:37 and a clever liar and deceiver.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-10
At the middle of the Tribulation (after three and a half years), he gains political and economic control over all the world,
Revelation 13:7 Revelation 13:16-17 and then demands on penalty of death that everyone worship him as God. Revelation 13:8 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 The last half of the Tribulation, the Antichrist will be the most cruel dictator the world has ever known. Although Christians may never know who the Antichrist is, he is probably in the world today.
Abomination of Desolation
Unfulfilled prophecy number five is the Abomination of Desolation. The Abomination of Desolation is referenced many places in scripture, four times in the book of Daniel alone. The “abomination” is when the Antichrist stands in the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on worldwide television and declares himself to be God. Daniel 12:1 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Matthew 24:15
The “desolation” will be atomic wars which follow in which all grass will be burned up; one-third of the trees will be burned up; oceans and rivers will be contaminated; cities will be burned; and nations like Egypt will be so wasted and poisoned that no one can live in the country for forty years. Ezekiel 29:9-11 (see also Matthew 24; Luke 21
and Revelations 5-19)
Mark of the Beast
Prophecy number six that has not as yet been fulfilled is the mark of the beast. After the Antichrist becomes the dictator of the world and is worshipped as God, he will demand that every person be assigned a number and a mark (code). Only those who are assigned a number will be able to work, buy, or sell.
Only those who acknowledge Antichrist as God will get the mark, and an attempt will be made to kill everyone who does not have the mark. Revelation 13:16-17
Only in our day does the technology exist to employ and enforce the mark of the beast.
The Coming of Elijah
and the Two Witnesses
The seventh unfilled prophecy is the coming of Elijah. Elijah and Enoch are the only two men who have escaped physical death by being taken up to Heaven alive. According to the prophet Malachi, Elijah must come back to precede the Messiah when He comes in power and glory to bring in the Kingdom.
Malachi 4:4-6
Malachi mentioned Moses also in conjunction with the coming of Elijah, and both Moses and Elijah were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration when He revealed to James, John, and Peter His glory when He would come again. According to Revelation 11, God will send two witnesses to bring judgments against the Antichrist. It appears that the two witnesses will be Moses and Elijah.
Israel’s Hiding Place
Unfulfilled prophecy number eight is the flight of israel at the middle of the Tribulation to a place of safety. Jesus foretold that after the Antichrist commits the Abomination of Desolation, he will make a final attempt to kill every Jew. To escape, the Jews in Jerusalem must immediately run for the mountains.
Petra, a large cave city (Mt. Seir; Mt. Hor) is the only hiding place that fits the Biblical description of Israel’s hiding place in the last half of the Tribulation. Petra is in ancient Edom, the city of Esau, the ancient home of modern Palestinians. “Who will bring me into the strong city? Who will lead me into Edom? Wilt not thou, O God ….”
Psalm 60:1 Psalm 60:9-12 (see also Ezekiel 35)
The Battle of Armageddon
The ninth unfulfilled prophecy is the Battle of Armageddon. Revelation 16:16 The Battle of Armageddon will terminate the Tribulation period. This last battle will include armies from all nations. Millions of men will be involved, we can read in revelations 9:13-21 that the nations of the East will send an army of 200 million men.
There are scores of prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments that describe the coming conflict. (See Zech. 14:2-3; Zeph. 3:8; Isa. 65; Rev. 19, etc.)
This battle will continue from Megiddo near modern Haifa to Bozrah (modern Beseira) in Jordan, a distance of 176 miles (1,600 furlongs). The evident purpose of this battle is to destroy Jerusalem and prevent the return of Jesus Christ. However, the entire army is destroyed by Jesus Christ and the armies of Heaven. The Antichrist and the False Prophet will be cast alive, without being judged, into the Lake of Fire.
THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST
The tenth unfulfilled prophecy is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “If I go away, I will come again.” Angels on the Mt. of Olives at His ascension to Heaven said that He would come back to the Mt. of Olives. Acts 1:9-12
Zechariah said at that time the mountain would split, Zechariah 14:1-5 Ezekiel 44:1-3 and the Eastern Gate that had been shut would open.
At the Rapture, Jesus will not come to the Earth. At the Second Coming at the Battle of Armageddon, He will come down to earth, and every eye of every person who survives the tribulation, including the Jews, will see Him. Revelation 1:7 Matthew 24:27
During the Tribulation two thirds of the Jews in Israel will have been killed, but after the Battle of Armageddon, Jesus will go to Bozrah north of Petra, and lead the remnant back to Israel. (see Isaiah 65)
Then Jesus will establish His Throne upon Mt. Zion in Jerusalem and Judge (rule) the nations with a “rod of iron.” Revelation 2:27 Matthew 25:31-32 Revelation 12:5 Revelation 19:15
The Millennium
The eleventh unfulfilled prophecy concerns the Millennium. Six times in Revelation 20 the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth over the nations is mentioned. This will be the seventh millennium since Adam. During the thousand year reign, all nations will destroy their armaments and there will be no wars.
Isaiah 2:4 Leaders of the nations will be required to go to Jerusalem and worship the Lord and learn of His laws. If any go not up as commanded that nation will be judged.
Matthew 25:31-32 Revelation 12:5 Zechariah 15:16-21
Solar changes in the Tribulation will revert Earth’s ecology back to the pre-flood time and people during the Millennium will live to be hundreds of years old. Isaiah 65:25
The devil will be bound and God’s curse upon the Earth for sin will be removed, and the ground will once again yeild everything that man will need. Ezekiel 34:27
Isaiah 65:25 Romans 8:18-23
The law will be enforced and criminals swiftly executed. Isaiah 65:20
The Millennium ends with another rebellion of the nations, the earth, and everything in it will be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 Revelations 20:9-11
The Great White Throne Judgment
We now come to the twelveth unfulfilled prophecy, the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelations 20:11. The chronology of resurrection for those who inherit eternal life is given in 1 Corinthians 15:23: “…. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.” However, Paul preceded this revelation with a qualifying phrase: “But every man in his own order.”
The resurrection of the “saved” is: Jesus Christ …. all members of the church of the dispensation of grace …. Old Testament saints …. martyrs of the Tribulation period. “This is the first resurrection” Revelations 20:5
The saved of the Millennium will live to be almost 1,000 years old (no man has yet lived to be a 1,000 in the flesh), then they will go into the New Heaven and New Earth without experiencing death. All the unsaved dead of the ages will be raised to be judged.
All those raised at the Great White Throne Judgment without Jesus will go into the eternal Lake of Fire because their names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Revelations 20:5 Matthew 25:41
The New Heaven and New Earth
We come now to the final, unfulfilled major prophecy of the Bible, a New heaven and a New Earth. Revelations 21:1
Neither the heavens nor the earth are clean in God’s sight. Isaiah 34:4 Job 15:15-16
Revelations 6:14
At the beginning of the eighth millennium, God who created the first heavens and the first earth with the Words of His mouth will create new heavens and a new earth where the redeemed, who had chosen Him because they wanted to, not because they had to, will love and worship Him forever.
John, in Revelation 21-22, describes in earthly language the New heavens and the New Earth where the redeemed will live forever. (see also Eph. 1:1-14)
But no language is sufficient to describe, or our minds visualize, the unfathomable beauty and glory of God’s new creation.
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come …”(Rev. 22:17)
Everyone reading this can come to the New Heaven and New Earth by receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
Jesus said, ” …. I go to prepare a place for you …. that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2-3)
Why do serious students of the sacred scriptures believe that Jesus is coming soon
There are many prophecies concerning the triumphant return of Jesus Christ, His millennial reign, and His eternal Kingdom.
You can be 100% sure that if all the prophecies relating to Jesus Christ at His first coming were fulfilled, then all the prophecies concerning His second coming will be fulfilled.
Moses prophesied that because of spiritual apostasy Israel would be scattered into all nations, not just Assyria or Babylon, (Deut. 28). Moses likewise prohesied that in the end of the age Israel would be joined again together out of all the nations, (Deut. 30).
After Moses, prophet after prophet all the way to Jesus Christ foretold the dispersion (diaspora) of Israel into all the world, and then their return.
The following prophecies concerning Israel have all been fulfilled in this generation.
• Hosea prophesied the Diaspora would last for 2,000 years
Hosea 3:4-5 Hosea 5:15 Psalm 90:4 Hosea 6:1-3
• Returning Israel would have to buy back the land Jeremiah 32:44
• Hebrew would return as the official national languageZephaniah 3:8-10
• Israel would be reborn in a day
Isaiah 67:7-9
• At the return, three world leaders would die in one month Zechariah 11:8 Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Franklin Roosevelt all died in one month in 1945.
• The order of return would be: east (mideast); west (Europe); north (Russia); and south (Ethiopia). Isaiah 43:3-22 The return was in exactly that exact order.
• Cities of Israel would be renamed according to Biblical namesEzekiel 36:11,24
• Desolate land to again become abundantly productive Isaiah 27:6 Isaiah 62:4
• Scientific irrigation resulting in annual crop rotation Amos 9:11-15
• Barren mountains of Israel to be covered with many varities of trees
Isaiah 41:8-20
• Increased rainfall …. both the latter and former rains restored Joel 2:1,23
• Jerusalem an international problem Zechariah 12:1-3
• Restored Israel to be a democracy with governors (Knesset) Zechariah 12:5-6
• Small Israeli army to win amazing victories Zechariah 12:6
• Israel to have continued problems with Edomites (Palestinians)
Amos 9:11-12
In the days of Peleg, at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel,Genesis 10:25 God divided the land mass of the earth into continents and islands. In Acts 17:24-27 God purposed to disperse mankind into islands and continents to establish nations. As the nations grew into empires, God said that the empires would fall and be broken up again into separate nations until His own King of Kings would reign supreme. The second chapter of Daniel gives us the prophetic course of empires and nations from the image of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
• Babylon, the head of gold, would fall to Medo-Persia. Fulfilled in 538 B.C.
• Medo-Persia would fall to Greece. Fulfilled in 333 B.C.
• Greece would be divided into four empires: Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia.Fulfilled in 320 B.C.
• The four part division of Greece would be absorbed by Rome, the iron empire, and the last world empire.Fulfilled approximately around 165 B.C.
• The Roman Empire would split and break into pieces. Fulfilled in A.D. 500
• The pieces of the Roman Empire would continue to rule the world until the end of the age: the Spanish, French, British, German, Portuguese, Belgium, and Italian empires, etc.
• The separate pieces (chunks)[empires] would bruise, or war, between themselves Daniel 2:40. English-Spanish war; French and English wars; Napoleonic wars; World War I and II, etc.
• In the latter part of the age, the chunks [empires] would be broken into smaller pieces.Daniel 2:41Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin forced Winston Churchill to agree to a break up of the Roman colonial system. The number of nations in 1945 of 70 rose to approximately 200 by the year 2000.
• A combination of European nations within the original Roman Empire would form a revived Roman Empire to bring forth the Antichrist. This is now is the stages of final completion with the European Union.
To list all of the prophecies of the 66 books of the Bible would require a considerable amount of time and space. In order to capture the meaning of the prophetic Word for today, I have listed some that relate to a contemporary eschatological setting.
• Increase of wars and rumors of wars Joel 3:9-10
Matthew 24:6-7
• Extreme materialism2 Timothy 3:1-2 Revelation 3:14-19
• Lawlessness Proverbs 30:11 2 Timothy 3:1-3
• Population explosion Genesis 6:1 Luke 17:26
• Increasing speed and knowledge Daniel 12:4
• Departure from the Christian faith 2 Thessalonians 2:3 1 Timothy 4:1-4 2 Peter 3:3-4 2 Timothy 3:5 2 Timothy 4:3-4
• Unification of the world’s religious, political, and economic systems
Revelation 13:4-8 Revelation 13:16-17 Revelation 17:1-18 Revelation 18:1-24
• Universal drug usage (“sorceries” here can also refer to drugs)
Revelation 9:21
• Abnormal sexual activity
Romans 1:17-32 2 Peter 2:10,14 2 Peter 3:3 Jude 18
• Intense demonic activity
Genesis 6:1-4 1 Timothy 4:1-3
• Mass slaughter of innocents by unconcerned mothers (abortion)
Romans 1:31 2 Timothy 3:3
• Widespread violenceGenesis 6:11,13 2 Timothy 3:1 Revelation 9:21
• Rejection of God’s Word
2 Timothy 4:3-4 2 Peter 3:3-4,16
• Rejection of God HimselfPsalm 2:1-3
• Blasphemy2 Timothy 3:2 2 Peter 3:3 Jude 18
• Self-seeking and pleasure-seeking 2 Timothy 3:2,4
• Men minus a conscience1 Timothy 4:2
• Religious cons2 Peter 2:3
• Outright devil worshippers
Revelation 9:20 Revelation 13:11-14
• Rise of false prophets and antichrists 2 Peter 2:1-2 Matthew 24:5 Matthew 24:11
• False claims of peace 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3
• Rapid advances in technology
Genesis 4:22 Luke 17:26
• Great political and religious upheavals in the Holy Land
Matthew 24:32-34
Along with these we could add the development of weapons of mass destruction; space travel, increase of deceivers and lying wonders; depreciation of nationalism; and a “back-to-Babel” world government (New World order).
When we consider that over 90% of all the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled exactly as foretold, the less than 10% that apply to the future will also be fulfilled exactly as foretold. We shall now consider thirteen of the most important unfulfilled prophecies.
Again due to time and space constraints these prophecies we will presented in less detail.
It is up to you to take this information and continue to study on your own as taught in 2 Timothy 2:15
It is up to you to be like the saints at Berea described in Acts who searched the scriptures for themselves to see if the things that Paul and Barnabas were teaching were true or not.
Dont take my word for anything Study the word for yourself. Techniques of exegesis and hermeneutics that bible scholars have used for centuries have been given at the beginning of this blog to help you in your personal study.
Do not depend on your church to study the word. Dont take my word for anything Study the word for yourself.
Onlookers:
CH long since knows that he has been adequately and substantially answered on the quesiton he hopes to use asn an irritant on Young’s Double Slit experiment. He simply refuses to pauy attention to it,
I see TH has not had the grace to see that I was being forbearing, and has resorted to unjustified accusations of charlatanism. (i womnder if he understands that he is exposing BU to the possibility of a slander suit if he continues in this vein, falsely slandering people like that.)
I find I have but littel choice to postt he inquiry and reply on teh fraudulent foundations of the Book of Mormon.
But first, let us note that I already linked Wiki’s remarks on Dr Martin. Excerpting briefly (and noting thathe tactic of the Mormon apologists was to slander him rather than answer the documetation he and otehrs brought tot he awareness of this generation, it having been a commonplace of the founding era of Mormonism, which was seriusly exposed as early as 1834):
In short, this school was hardly a degree mill.
We will follow with the letter.
G
@Dictionary: “CH long since knows that he has been adequately and substantially answered on the quesiton he hopes to use asn an irritant on Young’s Double Slit experiment. He simply refuses to pauy attention to it,
Please don’t tell me what I know.
I ask the questions because I haven’t been answered.
Why do solid sound students of the sacred Scriptures believe the predictions advanced in my two previous posts?
Because the Bible is the only book known to man that has dared to prophecy of events that will occur hundreds or even thousands of years in the future.
Bible scholars have found that one-third of the Bible is prophecy, the foretelling of events that will come to pass in a future time.
Fulfilled prophecies are proof beyond a doubt of the Living God who knows all things from the beginning to the end. There are hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, fulfilled in accordance with God’s time table. Every prophecy of the Bible that should have been fulfilled to this date has been fulfilled.
There are hundreds of fulfilled prophecies about people mentioned in the Bible. It is impossible to pursue this particular area of prophecy to any great degree due to the time and space constraints of this web site.
However, let us consider the central character of the Bible, Jesus Christ.
There are over 100 prophecies in the Old Testament relating to the birth, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. I will list just a few here, these are beautiful scriptures to share with non-believers and those of the Jewish faith who still wait for the Messiah.
• He would be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14
• He would be an Israelite from the tribe of Judah Genesis 49:10 (compare with) Luke 3:33
• He would be from the lineage of David 2 Samuel 7:12-13
• He would be called Emmanuel, God with us Isaiah 7:14
• He would be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 (compare with) Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7
• Wise men would worship Him with gifts
Psalm 72:10 Isaiah 60:3-9
• He would be in Egypt for a season
Hosea 11:1 Numbers 24:8
• His birth would result in the massacre of infants Jeremiah 31:15
• He would be called a Nazarene Isaiah 11:1
• He would make the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk Isaiah 53:4-5
• He would be rejected by His own nation
Psalm 69:8 Isaiah 53:3 (compare with) John 5:43 John 1:11 Luke 4:29
• He would ride into Jerusalem on a donkeyZechariah 9:9 (compare with) John 12:13-14
• A friend would betray Him for 30 pieces of silver Psalm 55:12-14 Zechariah 11:12-13 Psalm 41:9 (compare with) Matthew 26:15 Matthew 27:3-10
• He would be a man of sorrows
Isaiah 53:3
• He would be forsaken by His followers Zechariah 13:7
• He would be scourged and spat upon Isaiah 50:6 (compare with) Mark 14:65 John 19:1-3
• He would be crucified between two thieves Isaiah 53:12 (compare with) Luke 23:33 Matthew 27:38 Mark 15:27-28
• He would be given vinegar to drinkPsalm 69:21
• His feet and hands would be pierced Zechariah 12:10 Psalm 22:16 (compare with) John 19:37 John 20:25-27
• His garments would be gambled for at His death Psalm 22:18 (compare with) Mark 15:24 John 19:24
• He would commend His spirit to the Father Psalm 31:5
• Although crucified, no bones would be broken Psalm 34:20 Exodus 12:46
• He would be buried with the rich
Isaiah 53:9 (compare with) Matthew 27:57-60
• He would be raised from the dead Psalm 16:10
• He would ascend to heaven
Psalm 24:7-10
• He would be seated at God’s right hand to intercede for manPsalm 110:1
Since all these predictions came too past sound solid students of the sacred scriptures believe that the others remaining to be fulfilled will also be fulfilled.
F/N: The decisive letter on the foundations of Mormonism (cf link above, Mar 17 ):
Backdrop: Attempting to create an air of authenticity for his book, Mr Joseph Smith “put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:62–64, 1982 edition),” and we may cite:
_________
>> I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.” >>
____________
This is utterly at variance with the reply of the said professor, in 1834, to the author of the first major expose of Mormonism, as is contained in the Howe collection:
______________
>>New York, N.Y.
Feb. 17, 1834
Mr. E. D. Howe
Painsville, Ohio
Dear Sir:
I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain and apparently simplehearted farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money toward the publication of the “golden book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the rogues. He then left me.
I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.
Yours respectfully,
Charles Anthon, LL.D.
Columbia University >>
______________
In other words, the very expert cited in “proof” of the book has denounced it.
And this was published by Mr Howe in 1834. An expose that has never been adequately and cogently refuted by Mormons.
In terms of the Spaulding Hypothesis that Mormon apologists are ever so eager to denounce as discredited, this is what the Mr Martin they would characterise as a charlatan actually has to say in Kingdom of the Cults, with a particular focus on the Mormon Apologists’ setting up and knocking over of a strawman (pardon my earlier conflation of memories of this work and another — the Chaos of the Cults if I recall correctly — which actually exhibits the parallel columns):
_______________
>>The question quire naturally aerises in summing up the background of the book of Mormon — Where did the book come from . . . ? The answer to this had been propounded at greart length by numerous students of Mormonism, particularly E D Howe, Pomeroy Tucker and William A Linn.
All concur that that the Book of Mormon is probably an expansion upon the writings of Solomon Spaulding . . . The Mormons delight to point outt hat one of Spaulding’s manuscripts, entitled “Manuscript Sotry,” was discovered in hawaii more than 100 years ago, and it differed in many respects form the Book of Mormon . . . [But] James D. Bales makes the following observation, which is of great importance and agrees in every detail with my research over the last decade:
Let us not forget that the manuscript Story itself contains at least 75 similarities to what is now the Book of Mormon and this is not to be easily explained away. >>
[Kingdom of the Cults, 1985, pp. 191 – 193, with some explanatory notes.]
__________________
In short, we can see the credible explanation for he source of the Book of Mormon, and a fairly obvious context for its origin and propagation, including denunciation by the academic expert named in another foundational Mormon book as the confirmer of the authenticity of the claimed translation and language of the reported golden plates.
This of course stunningly contrasts with the wealth of archaeological support, internal coherence and external corroboration of he documents of the NT. Nor does the story of Mr Smith compare with the prophetic expectation of Messiah and the fulfillment in details up to and including rising from death with 500+ witnesses that underlies the historic Christian gospel.
I trust that his suffices to show the serious onlooker where the real balance on the merits lies; especially when we combine it withthe issue of the premortal sins of the dark skinned peoples in historic Mormon teaching, and witthe polytheistic concetpion of God.
One may become a Mormon if one wishes, but let it not be said that this is a genuine form of historic, NT-anchored, C1 rooted Christian faith as taught by the Apostles and our Lord, who rose from death with 500+ witnesses. And, on basic broughtupcy: TH owes some serious apologies for slander. D
@Georgie Porgie…
That’s impressive. 4389 words between my above message directed to you and this one.
And I thought I typed quickly…
Perhaps I should rephrase my above as questions…
Dr. Georgie Porgie: Do you look forward to war?
Does war fullfill a prophecy?
Please reply.
@Dictionary: “Christian faith as taught by the Apostles and our Lord, who rose from death with 500+ witnesses.
Were these “witnesses” under oath?
Are the transcripts available?
@All… The immediate above is meant to be funny. It might not be taken that way by some….
CH:
Kindly stop willfully, deceitfully and slanderously misrepresenting the truth,
in further and further efforts to poison the atmosphere and divert the thread.
As recently as yesterday when you last brought up this dead horse for more flogging, it was pointed out that the last time you were answered previously, above in this thread was March 10. You and I both know what physics books are and what is to be found in them. You and I also both know that the Biblical worldview provided the worldview framework in which a great many of the key founders of Modern Science operated:
_________________
>>Dictionary // March 10, 2010 at 4:26 PM
Onlookers:
CH is plainly playing at rhetorical games, with the underlying line being that he — improperly — demands the right to distract threads though irrelvant rhetorical ranging shots that if they hit something, he then plainly wishes to use to hijack the thread.
On this latest topic he has been directly told — many times — by several people, that the Bible is not a Physics textbook [which is of course where the Double Slit experiment on interference of light waves — and sometimes of electrons — is commonly discussed], though it does set the context in which we can be confident that the Creator God of order created a world in which nature is orderly and intelligible. (And, this comes from careful exegesis . . . )
That Biblically anchored view is a basis for doing Science: thinking God’s creative thoughts after him.
Indeed, it is the historically demonstrable framework for the likes of a Newton or a Boyle or a Pascal or a Pasteur or a Kelvin or a Maxwell. This too, for many practitioners of science today who are utterly uncomfortable with the self-referential incoherences and amoral context of the reigning orthodoxy of today’s neo-magisterium, Lewontinian a priori evolutionary materialism.
Indeed, contrary to many secularist myths, it is in Judaeo-Christian worldview soil that modern science was born. >>
_________________
In short, the Bible is not a physics textbook so is not to be expected to discuss operational science topics like the double slit experiment.
However as a book that addresses the origins of the cosmos and the ground of our existence in our Creator God and loving Lord and Saviour, it does have some very telling things to say about the ultimate origin and nature of the cosmos, which grounds true science and in interesting ways points to the designer of the cosmos.
In so doing, it warns us against so-called “science,” which is in reality speculative and deceptive philosophy that as we have seen has from time to time been imposed on science and scientific issues on and off for the past 2300+ years. In particular, in Rom 1 and related texts, it warns against those who would exclude God from the province of knowledge, cautioning us that — never mind professions of brilliance — they suffer an endarkened understanding and loss of control over their moral compass, i.e the same basic point that Plato also observed on Alcibiades and co from a different perspective
This precisely fits what evolutionary materialism is, and on this, with reference to the pretense that evolutionary materialistic origins science allows us to accurately reconstruct the remote, unobservable past of origins [and imposes Lewontinian a priori materialism to block effective rebuttal in the institutions dominated by the ideological materialists] the Bible in Job 38 is very plain:
So, especially since evolutionary materialism — as shown above in reply to Mr Sherman [who like the other open or evident advocates of this ideology has been unable to reply cogently] — is inherently self referentially incoherent on the credibility of the materialistic brain to ground reasoned thought, we should not be intimidated by the materialists, never mind how they shake out their Lab coats at us.
G’day
Dictionary
PS: CH knows or should know that we have the clearly identifiable record of 20 of these witnesses,and their trial was not merely under oath but in the face of horrible death, by beheading, crucifixion, battering to death, and the like. There is no good reason to doubt that these witnesses, not just 20 but 500+ definitely believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus of Nazareth, and all too many of them died horribly because of that witness, being viewed as traitors to Israel on one hand and threats to Rome on the other. He should be ashamed of his snide selectively hyperskeptical dismissive evasions of the 12 minimal facts and the challenge to address the core warranting case for the Christian gospel, e.g cf here as a basic intro.
@Dictionary: “Kindly stop willfully, deceitfully and slanderously misrepresenting the truth
I might reasonably ask the same of you and yours.