Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Saturday, October 4, 2008

The End Is Near...and this time, we mean it.

Ray's latest post is another one of Richard Gunther's insipid little cartoons, which lists several things such as a rise in crime rate, Christians being persecuted, people claiming to be great spiritual leaders (irony alert!), disease, famine, stars falling (huh?), etc., and making the case that these are "signs" of "the end of the age", and that the Second Coming of Jesus is nigh.

Leaving aside for just a moment the small fact that stars are not only not "falling", but are incapable of doing so (as shown quite conclusively by germanmike in an earlier post), and that the more mundane "signs" have been present throughout history (as pointed out by kaitlyn in another earlier post), it occurred to me that the "end of the world" has been predicted more than a few times between the time of Jesus and now. On religioustolerance.org, I found the following list:

About 30 CE: The Christian Scriptures (New Testament), when interpreted literally, appear to record many predictions by Jeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) that God's Kingdom would arrive within a very short period, or was actually in the process of arriving. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 16:28: "...there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." In Matthew 24:34, Yeshua is recorded as saying: "...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Since the life expectancy in those days was little over 30 years, Jesus appears to have predicted his second coming sometime during the 1st century CE. It didn't happen.

About 60 CE: Interpreting the Epistles of Paul of Tarsus literally, his writings seem to imply that Jesus would return and usher in a rapture during the lifetime of persons who were living in the middle of the 1st century.

About 90 CE: Saint Clement 1 predicted that the world end would occur at any moment.

2nd Century CE: Prophets and Prophetesses of the Montanist movement predicted that Jesus would return sometime during their lifetime and establish the New Jerusalem in the city of Pepuza in Asia Minor.

365 CE: A man by the name of Hilary of Poitiers, announced that the end would happen that year. It didn't.

375 to 400 CE: Saint Martin of Tours, a student of Hilary, was convinced that the end would happen sometime before 400 CE.

500 CE: This was the first year-with-a-nice-round-number-panic. The antipope Hippolytus and an earlier Christian academic Sextus Julius Africanus had predicted Armageddon at about this year.

968 CE: An eclipse was interpreted as a prelude to the end of the world by the army of the German emperor Otto III.

992: Good Friday coincided with the Feast of the Annunciation; this had long been believed to be the event that would bring forth the Antichrist, and thus the end-times events foretold in the book of Revelation. Records from Germany report that a new sun rose in the north and that as many as 3 suns and 3 moons were fighting. There does not appear to be independent verification of this remarkable event.

1000-JAN-1: Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date. As the date approached, Christian armies waged war against some of the Pagan countries in Northern Europe. The motivation was to convert them all to Christianity, by force if necessary, before Christ returned in the year 1000. Meanwhile, some Christians had given their possessions to the Church in anticipation of the end. Fortunately, the level of education was so low that many citizens were unaware of the year. They did not know enough to be afraid. Otherwise, the panic might have been far worse than it was. Unfortunately, when Jesus did not appear, the church did not return the gifts. Serious criticism of the Church followed. The Church reacted by exterminating some heretics. Agitation settled down quickly.

1000-MAY: The body of Charlemagne was disinterred on Pentecost. A legend had arisen that an emperor would rise from his sleep to fight the Antichrist.

1005-1006: A terrible famine throughout Europe was seen as a sign of the nearness of the end.

1033: Some believed this to be the 1000th anniversary of the death and resurrection of Jesus. His second coming was anticipated. Jesus' actual date of execution is unknown, but is believed to be in the range of 27 to 33 CE.

1147: Gerard of Poehlde decided that the millennium had actually started in 306 CE during Constantine's reign. Thus, the world end was expected in 1306 CE.

1179: John of Toledo predicted the end of the world during 1186. This estimate was based on the alignment of many planets.

1205: Joachim of Fiore predicted in 1190 that the Antichrist was already in the world, and that King Richard of England would defeat him. The Millennium would then begin, sometime before 1205.

1284: Pope Innocent III computed this date by adding 666 years onto the date the Islam was founded.

1346 and later: The black plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Unfortunately, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague.

1496: This was approximately 1500 years after the birth of Jesus. Some mystics in the 15th century predicted that the millennium would begin during this year.

1524: Many astrologers predicted the imminent end of the world due to a world wide flood. They obviously had not read the Genesis story of the rainbow.

1533: Melchior Hoffman predicted that Jesus' return would happen a millennium and a half after the nominal date of his execution, in 1533. The New Jerusalem was expected to be established in Strasbourg, Germany. He was arrested and died in a Strasbourg jail.

1669: The Old Believers in Russia believed that the end of the world would occur in this year. 20 thousand burned themselves to death between 1669 and 1690 to protect themselves from the Antichrist.

1689: Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Baptist, predicted the end of the world for this year.

1736: British theologian and mathematician William Whitson predicted a great flood similar to Noah's for OCT-13 of this year.

1792: This was the date of the end of the world calculated by some believers in the Shaker movement.

1794: Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, thought Doomsday would be in this year.

1830: Margaret McDonald, a Christian prophetess, predicted that Robert Owen would be the Antichrist. Owen helped found New Harmony, IN.

1832?: Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was the founder of the Church of Christ, which became the Restorationist movement after many schisms. It now includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- a.k.a. the Mormons, and about a hundred other denominations and sects. He heard a voice while praying. He wrote, in Doctrines and Covenants section 130:

14: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:"

15: "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter."

16: "I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face."

17: "I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time."

The year in which this event occurred is not recorded. However, one commentator suggested 1832 or earlier. Smith is later recorded as having said:

"I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old."

Smith would have reached the age of 85 during 1890. Unfortunately, by that year, Smith had been dead for almost a half century, having been assassinated by a mob. Note that his prophecy is ambiguous. It can be interpreted that:

Jesus would return during 1890 (which did not materialize) or that

1890 would pass without Jesus' return (which did come to pass).

Some anti-Mormon sources quote only verses 14 and 15, and draw the former conclusion -- that Smith's prophecy failed.

1843-MAR-21: William Miller, founder of the Millerite movement, predicted that Jesus would come on this date. A very large number of Christians accepted his prophecy.

1844-OCT-22: When Jesus did not return, Miller predicted this new date. In an event which is now called "The Great Disappointment," many Christians sold their property and possessions, quit their jobs and prepared themselves for the second coming. Nothing happened; the day came and went without incident.

1850: Ellen White, founder of the Seven Day Adventists movement, made many predictions of the timing of the end of the world. All failed. On 1850-JUN-27 she prophesized that only a few months remained before the end. She wrote: "My accompanying angel said, 'Time is almost finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready.' ...now time is almost finished...and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months."

1856 or later: At Ellen White's last prediction, she said that she was shown in a vision the fate of believers who attended the 1856 SDA conference. She wrote "I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." That is, some of the attendees would die of normal diseases; some would die from plagues at the last days, others would still be alive when Jesus came. "By the early 1900s all those who attended the conference had passed away, leaving the Church with the dilemma of trying to figure out how to explain away such a prominent prophetic failure."

1891: Mother Shipton, a 16th century mystic predicted the end of the world: "...The world to an end shall come; in eighteen hundred and eighty-one."

1891 or before: On 1835-FEB-14, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, attended a meeting of church leaders. He said that the meeting had been called because God had commanded it. He announced that Jesus would return within 56 years -- i.e. before 1891-FEB-15. (History of the Church 2:182)

1914 was one of the more important estimates of the start of the war of Armageddon by the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). They based their prophecy of 1914 from prophecy in the book of Daniel, Chapter 4. The writings referred to "seven times". The WTS interpreted each "time" as equal to 360 days, giving a total of 2520 days. This was further interpreted as representing 2520 years, measured from the starting date of 607 BCE. This gave 1914 as the target date. When 1914 passed, they changed their prediction; 1914 became the year that Jesus invisibly began his rule.

1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975 and 1994, etc. were other dates that the Watchtower Society (WTS) or its members predicted.

Since late in the 19th century, they had taught that the "battle of the Great Day of God Almighty" (Armageddon) would happen in 1914 CE. It didn't.

The next major estimate was 1925. Watchtower magazine predicted: "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year."

The Watchtower Society selected 1975 as its next main prediction. This was based on the estimate "according to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE, likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation." They believed that the year 1975 a promising date for the end of the world, as it was the 6,000th anniversary of Adam's creation. Exactly 1,000 years was to pass for each day of the creation week. This prophecy also failed.

The current estimate is that the end of the world as we know it will happen precisely 6000 years after the creation of Eve. There is no way of knowing when this happened.

More details on the WTS predictions.

1919: Meteorologist Albert Porta predicted that the conjunction of 6 planets would generate a magnetic current that would cause the sun to explode and engulf the earth on DEC-17.

1936: Herbert W Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, predicted that the Day of the Lord would happen sometime in 1936. Nothing much happened that year, except for the birth of the compiler of this list -- who has been referred to as an Anti-Christ. When the prediction failed, he made a new estimate: 1975.

1940 or 1941: A Bible teacher from Australia, Leonard Sale-Harrison, held a series of prophesy conferences across North America in the 1930's. He predicted that the end of the world would happen in 1940 or 1941.

1948: During this year, the state of Israel was founded. Some Christians believed that this event was the final prerequisite for the second coming of Jesus. Various end of the world predictions were made in the range 1888 to 2048.

1953-AUG: David Davidson wrote a book titled "The Great Pyramid, Its Divine Message". In it, he predicted that the world would end in 1953-AUG.

1957-APR: The Watchtower magazine quoted a pastor from California, Mihran Ask, as saying in 1957-JAN that "Sometime between April 16 and 23, 1957, Armageddon will sweep the world! Millions of persons will perish in its flames and the land will be scorched.'

1959: Florence Houteff's, who was the leader of the Branch Davidians faith group, prophesied that the 1260 days mentioned in Revelation 11:3 would end and the Kingdom of David would be established on 1959-APR-22. Followers expected to die, be resurrected, and transferred to Heaven. Many sold their possessions and moved to Mt. Carmel in anticipation of the "end time". It didn't happen. The group almost did not survive; only a few dozen members remained.

Most Branch Davidians did die on 1993-APR-29 as a result of arson apparently ordered by their leader, David Koresh. They were not bodily resurrected -- on earth at least.

1960: Piazzi Smyth, a past astronomer royal of Scotland, wrote a book circa 1860 titled "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid." It was responsible for spreading the belief in pyramidology throughout the world. This is the belief that secrets are hidden in the dimensions of the great pyramids. He concluded from his research that the millennium would start before the end of 1960 CE.

1967: During the six day war, the Israeli army captured all of Jerusalem. Many conservative Christians believed that the rapture would occur quickly. However, the final Biblical prerequisite for the second coming is that the Jews resume ritual animal sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem. That never happened.

1970's: The late Moses David (formerly David Berg) was the founder of the Christian religious group, The Children of God. He predicted that a comet would hit the earth, probably in the mid 1970's and destroy all life in the United States. One source indicated that he believed it would happen in 1973.

1972: According to an article in the Atlantic magazine, "Herbert W. Armstrong's empire suffered a serious blow when the end failed to begin in January of 1972, as Armstrong had predicted, thus bringing hardship to many people who had given most of their assets to the church in the expectation of going to Petra, where such worldly possessions would be useless." According to an article in Wikipedia:

"The failure of this prophetic scenario to take place according to this Co-Worker letter scenario, which was often repeated over the years in print by Armstrong, may have been one of the initial reasons why the church organization began to decline as unfulfilled expectations led to great disappointment. As events unfolded, it became obvious 1972 did not have the biblical significance that the church had anticipated for nearly two decades."

1974: Charles Meade, a pastor in Daleville, IN, predicted that the end of the world will happen during his lifetime. He was born circa 1927, so the end will probably come early in the 21st century

.

1975: Many Jehovah's Witness predicted this date. However, it was not officially recognized by the leadership.

1978: Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel in Cost Mesa, CA, predicted the rapture in 1981.

1980: Leland Jensen leader of a Baha'i Faith group, predicted that a nuclear disaster would happen in 1980. This would be followed by two decades of conflict, ending in the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth.

1981: Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel taught an anti-Trinitarian belief about God, and Christian Identity. Back in the 1970's, he predicted that the Antichrist would appear before 1981.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church predicted that the Kingdom of Heaven would be established this year.

1982: Pat Robertson predicted a few years in advance that the world would end in the fall of 1982. The failure of this prophecy did not seem to adversely affect his reputation.

1982: Astronomers John Gribben & Setphen Plagemann predicted the "Jupiter Effect" in 1974. They wrote that when various planets were aligned on the same side of the sun, tidal forces would create solar flares, radio interruptions, rainfall and temperature disturbances and massive earthquakes. The planets did align as seen from earth, as they do regularly. Nothing unusual happened.

1984 to 1999: In 1983, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, later called Osho, teacher of what has been called the Rajneesh movement, is said to have predicted massive destruction on earth, including natural disasters and man-made catastrophes. Floods larger than any since Noah, extreme earthquakes, very destructive volcano eruptions, nuclear wars etc. were to happen. Tokyo, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Bombay will all disappear. Actually, the predictions were read out by his secretary; their legitimacy is doubtful.

1985: Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel predicted that the war of Armageddon will start on 1985-JUN 8-9 in "a valley of the Alaskan peninsula."

1986: Moses David of The Children of God faith group predicted that the Battle of Armageddon would take place in 1986. Russia would defeat Israel and the United States. A worldwide Communist dictatorship would be established. In 1993, Christ would return to earth.

1987 to 2000: Lester Sumrall, in his 1987 book "I Predict 2000 AD" predicted that JerusalemEurope, and that there would be a nuclear war involving Russia and perhaps the U.S. Also, he prophesized that the greatest Christian revival in the history of the church would happen: all during the last 13 years of the 20th century. All of the predictions failed. would be the richest city on Earth, that the Common Market would rule

1988: Hal Lindsey had predicted in his book "The Late, Great Planet Earth" that the Rapture was coming in 1988 - one generation or 40 years after the creation of the state of Israel. This failed prophecy did not appear to damage his reputation. He continues to write books of prophecy which sell very well indeed.

Alfred Schmielewsky, a psychic whose stage name was "super-psychic A.S. Narayana," predicted in 1986 that the world's greatest natural disaster would hit Montreal in 1988. Sadly, his psychic abilities failed him on 1999-APR-11 when he answered the door of his home only to be shot dead by a gunman.

1988-MAY: A 1981 movie titled "The man who saw tomorrow" described some of Nostradamus predictions. Massive earthquakes were predicted for San Francisco and Los Angeles.

1988-OCT-11: Edgar Whisenaut, a NASA scientist, had published the book "88 Reasons why the Rapture will Occur in 1988." It sold over 4 million copies.

About 1990: Peter Ruckman concluded from his analysis of the Bible that the rapture would come within a few years of 1990.

Sorry for the length of that list...but the length is the point. Nuts have been predicting the end of the world as long as there has been a world. So far, the accuracy of their predictions is ZERO.

30 comments:

  1. But they are bound to be right sooner or later in like a few billion years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A couple days ago Pat Robertson predicted that the eastern United States would be nuked by enemies before the presidential inauguration.

    Good piece, Tripster.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ha - I just posted all of that onto Ray's blog before I came and looked here. At risk of sounding like I'm praising myself, good call!

    ReplyDelete
  4. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 16:28: "...there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."


    Commentary:
    No expectation of the final return of Christ is involved in these words of Jesus. Because of the position this verse occupies in the text of Matthew, the reference is to the Lord's transfiguartion. Proximity of story is verified by the description given by Simon Peter in II Peter 1:16 of the "coming" of the Lord in power.

    It is enthronement language and has no necessary reference to the 'second coming' as such.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Freed,


    I disagree.


    I think the bible either means what it says or it doesn't. When people start saying 'Oh you have to read a certain verse this way or that' is when things go from ridiculous to...well, beyond ridiculous in my opinion. I think interpretations like the one you gave are just ways to make it seem like what Jesus said wasn't really the failed prophecy of someone who might not even have existed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I'm not a Bible scholar but the men I follow are, and this is their interpretation of this verse in context with the whole chapter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Freed,
    You said...
    Well, I'm not a Bible scholar but the men I follow are, and this is their interpretation of this verse in context with the whole chapter."

    You do need to consider the veracity of the 'men you follow' a bit more closely.

    And the fact that you 'follow' also pisses me off to no end.

    Respectfully submitted,
    /d

    P.S. Only where there is doubt can there be freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And the fact that you 'follow' also pisses me off to no end.


    Enlighten me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We all have people we 'follow,' furthermore angry drivers pisses me off to no end.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I know. You shouldn't be allowed to drive angry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You girls need to put on your burkas and shut up.....

    *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  12. Freed,
    You asked, "Enlighten me."

    Why in the world would you 'follow' someone?

    You have a highly evolved brain of which you should use to think for yourself. I have seen some qualities in your writing style and thinking that Make me think that if you were unencumbered by this irrational belief system, you might posess a quality that you have never cultivated properly.

    That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. /d

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, of course, this time their right!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why in the world would you 'follow' someone?


    In all honesty f/d, I have been guilty of blindly taking the word of someone I admire..if that's the correct word. But I learned my lesson.

    I really do think for myself. I take what these men say and search it out for myself. I don't blindly follow them. That's no different than what everyone here does.

    I wouldn't blindly take your word for anything either ;)



    ...you might posess a quality that you have never cultivated properly.


    I'm here to find that quality. I'm honing my Bible knowledge.
    Thanks for your concern :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Freed,
    You wrote, "That's no different than what everyone here does. "

    You're projecting. I personally don't "search it out for myself." I'm much too ignorant for that.

    I put my trust into others most of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kaitlyn, you are so full of it and you know it. ;P

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cynthia,

    You can put 100% blind faith in me. I promise I won't lead you astray.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (and an evil giggle.)

    Oh, I just had to.

    I'll answer your email tomorrow. I'm so sleepy and I've got a pounding headache, I think from sitting in the movie theater.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Freed:

         A literal of the passage yields the conclusion of the non-christians here. I submit that if the passage were in a "holy book" that you rejected, you would not accept it as referring to transfiguration. Simply put, anyone who judges the prophecy from a position of not caring whether it be true or false would conclude that it was false. (And I mean not caring in that either outcome is satisfactory, it being only important that a decision is reached.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pvblivs said...

    I submit that if the passage were in a "holy book" that you rejected, you would not accept it as referring to transfiguration.


    True, except that I only consider the Bible as a 'holy book' and I trust the Bible scholars who have commented on this text. Or, are you referring to your own consideration. Sorry, but being tired and sleepy, I'm not sure I'm following you.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Freed:

         What I refer to is the fact that had you not decided in advance that the bible was your god's word, you would not reinterpret the passage to try to make it true. "Bible scholars" do not try to understand the text. They try to construct an interpretation (no matter how twisted) in which they don't have to admit that it is false. My point is you would regard the passage as false if you weren't giving it special consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What I refer to is the fact that had you not decided in advance that the bible was your god's word, you would not reinterpret the passage to try to make it true.


    Ok so, when you say 'you' are you meaning me or 'you' in general? I myself did not reinterpret the verse. I read several sources, compared them, and yes, I chose to believe the scholars who give their summaries. When I went to that verse, I went to find out exactly what was meant with no pre-conceived idea of it. I had never questioned that verse before, so when it was brought up here, I searched it out and shared here what I believe is the truth of it.



    "Bible scholars" do not try to understand the text. They try to construct an interpretation (no matter how twisted) in which they don't have to admit that it is false.


    I honestly do not know how you can say this as if it's the absolute truth. You do not know their hearts and minds or intentions or to what lengths they went to 'reinterpret' this passage. This is only your opinion. Projecting, I could say the same of anyone that you read.



    My point is you would regard the passage as false if you weren't giving it special consideration.


    In your opinion only. You were not here or inside my head when I researched what I posted, so you are posting an assumption about me, or anyone, not a fact. Or, you are telling me how you approach interpretation.

    If you do not agree with me, I have no problem with that. I am sharing here what I believe to be the truth. You are free to disagree with me, as you know.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Freed:

         "Ok so, when you say 'you' are you meaning me or 'you' in general?"
         In this case, I mean you personally. The passage has a plain meaning. But the plain meaning is obviously false. If you personally had no interest in force-fitting the passage, you would simply use a plain reading instead of a reinterpretation.
         "I honestly do not know how you can say this as if it's the absolute truth."
         It's really rather simple. The sentence immediately prior talks about the "son of man" coming and repaying each man according to his conduct. The meaning is quite clear. The passage is saying that some of the people then present will still be alive when Jesus returns to earth to rule. But you don't need me to tell you this. You could see that for yourself. But you don't like that answer (conclusion drawn from your comments.) So, you "trust" people that tell you what you want to hear, that it really means something different.
         "In your opinion only. You were not here or inside my head when I researched what I posted, so you are posting an assumption about me, or anyone, not a fact. Or, you are telling me how you approach interpretation."
         Actually, it's by your own admission. "True, except that I only consider the Bible as a 'holy book' and I trust the Bible scholars who have commented on this text." You admitted that if the passage had been found in a different "holy book" (one you rejected and considered inauthentic) you would not accept that it referred to a transfiguration. The fact that you accept such a reinterpretation only for the bible is itself special consideration.
         My approach to interpretation is straightforward. I use the plain meaning of words. When an analogy is introduced, it usually explicit. But there is something more important here. If the bible really were the word of a loving god who wanted everyone to understand the message, there would no need for "bible scholars" to interpret the text for anyone. The meaning should be clear to anyone who reads it without any preparation, interpretation, or manipulation. When you say that you "trust bible scholars," it necessarily carries the implication that you don't think your god can effect that. Because if you did think your god could effect that, you would not need the scholars.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pvblivs said...
    Freed:

    If you personally had no interest in force-fitting the passage, you would simply use a plain reading instead of a reinterpretation.

    You are wrong. I do not understand how atheists can tell someone how or what they think yet wont accept the same for themselves. When I speak here I speak for myself on my beliefs, without telling you or anyone what you think or judging how you process information or even what you should or shouldn't do. I don't mind that you don't agree with anything I say but please don't try to tell me about myself.


    It's really rather simple. The sentence immediately prior talks about the "son of man" coming and repaying each man according to his conduct. The meaning is quite clear. The passage is saying that some of the people then present will still be alive when Jesus returns to earth to rule. But you don't need me to tell you this. You could see that for yourself.


    As I read Matthew 16:27-28, on my own, without looking at another work, I saw two separate events/subjects in those two verses.


    But you don't like that answer (conclusion drawn from your comments.) So, you "trust" people that tell you what you want to hear, that it really means something different.


    Please show me where I said I didn't like that answer. You are totally wrong and have clearly misunderstood what I was saying.

    "In your opinion only. You were not here or inside my head when I researched what I posted, so you are posting an assumption about me, or anyone, not a fact. Or, you are telling me how you approach interpretation."
    Actually, it's by your own admission. "True, except that I only consider the Bible as a 'holy book' and I trust the Bible scholars who have commented on this text." You admitted that if the passage had been found in a different "holy book" (one you rejected and considered inauthentic) you would not accept that it referred to a transfiguration. The fact that you accept such a reinterpretation only for the bible is itself special consideration.


    My point was that since I consider the Bible to be the only holy book, I would not be looking in another religion's book. I don't see how that is something to make note of.


    My approach to interpretation is straightforward. I use the plain meaning of words. When an analogy is introduced, it usually explicit. But there is something more important here. If the bible really were the word of a loving god who wanted everyone to understand the message, there would no need for "bible scholars" to interpret the text for anyone. The meaning should be clear to anyone who reads it without any preparation, interpretation, or manipulation. When you say that you "trust bible scholars," it necessarily carries the implication that you don't think your god can effect that. Because if you did think your god could effect that, you would not need the scholars.


    Again this is your opinion only. I believe one of the reasons people get 'saved' and then turn to atheism is because they didn't continue to seek His knowledge, especially after adversity. If it was simple, the way you would like it to be, then where is His authority and where is your choice? Easy or simple does not equal best.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Freed:

         You tell me that you use a reinterpretation. It is not I dictating that you reject the plain meaning (which is false.) I do state that reinterpreting the meaning is inconsistent with being willing to accept the truth or falsity of the passage as is. Having no interest in force-fitting the passage would mean being willing to accept it as false. In turn, that would mean not regarding it as holy.
         "Please show me where I said I didn't like that answer. You are totally wrong and have clearly misunderstood what I was saying."
         Are you saying that you do like the answer that the passage means that some of the people then present would still be alive when Jesus returns to rule? That is what it would mean for me to be wrong there. If you do like that answer, why switch over to "the transfiguration"?
         "My point was that since I consider the Bible to be the only holy book, I would not be looking in another religion's book. I don't see how that is something to make note of."
         Were it not for people locally trying to impose chistianity on the population, I would not be looking in your "holy book." You admitted that if faced with someone claiming "fulfilled prophecy" for his own "holy book," you would reject the "scholarly interpretations." You would regard other "holy books" as man-made texts. I regard yours in the same way.
         No, it is not my opinion. It is a fact. If someone has no restrictions preventing him from doing something and still does not do it, it means he does not want to. Authority is not diminished by my knowing what the authority figure says without having to take some third-party's word for it. The choice to accept or reject your god would then be plain. Instead there are many middle-men.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pvblivs...

    I cannot communicate with someone who keeps telling me "what you are really saying is...".

    I mean what freed says, not what Pvblivs says I am saying or whatever spin you want to put on it.

    I really don't agree with you on anything you've said and I'm fine with you not agreeing with me.

    However, if you believe that you have something to say that you think I should know, please speak to me and not down at me.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Freed:

         I have been speaking to you. Speaking down at you would be if I kept saying something like "that's just your opinion." But I suppose you'll say that's more "spin," considering that is what you have been saying.
         Quite frankly, I am not tryng to convince you to agree with me. I am, however, pointing out that your actions do not match your stated beliefs.
         Your actions are those of someone who wants to shield a priviledged text from falsification. You refer to "scholars" for "what it really means" instead of what it says.
         Now, I made judgement, based on your posts, that you did not like the literal meaning of a passage. You asked me to show where you actually said you didn't like it (which was not my claim) and asserted that I was wrong. I then asked point-blank if you do like the literal meaning. Instead of answering, you gave your post immediately preceding. I think it's because you were caught in a lie. That would certainly give you reason to say you can't communicate with me. But, if I'm wrong, simply answer the question from my previous post.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.