Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > Prophecy


Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Oct-2005, 11:50 AM
I know many of you already know this, but for those who don't, I am a believer in God, proclaimer of the Son Jesus Christ as my personal savior, and hold to every little word in the Christian bible. So for me, there is much relevance in my world in light of bible scriptures. I think about it often, and see the wisdom in what I have read as it applies not only to my life, but in the lives of believers and non-believers alike. One thing I see as being glaringly obvious is bible prophecy being fulfilled, almost daily!

Ok, for the unbelievers or the fence squatters, last year's tsunami may well have been a wake-up call. I wasn't altogether alarmed by it other than its catastrophic effects, but many were. It was apocalyptic; a natural disaster like no other, yet alone it did not warrant doom's day accreditation.

Then there is Katrina to consider. Wow, one storm actually wreaking that much havoc! But alone, she was just another cycle of spinning wind and pressure.

What must be considered is the big picture. Bible prophecy speaks to a variety of conditions that would be present in the "last days", and weather is just one of them. There are political situations, moral and ethical issues within our society, and the stage getting set for a one-world government, a single form of currency, and eventually a cashless society. More specifically, the bible refers to nation rising against nation, kingdom against kingdom, brother against brother. It speaks of earthquakes and famines in various places. The apostle Paul, in 2Timothy, Ch. 3, offers a detailed laundry list of social ills to be in existence during this time, and I think a quick review of that will reveal today's situation in toto. I think most of us can see how some of those prophecies are becoming more and more possible; much more so than in our parent's and grand-parent's time. But the earth is a clear, observable part for the masses to consider; both the learned and the unaware alike. Pssssss~ earthquakes are not often weather related. smile.gif

So I ask you, do you believe that the planet is trying to tell us something? Are earth events of late just random occurrences, or do they tell a tale of things set in motion thousands of years ago?

Posted by: CelticCoalition 10-Oct-2005, 07:15 PM
Well, I hit the wrong button and gave a null vote instead of a no vote, so i'll just say that I was going to vote no.

I think that so called "prophecies" can be attributed to many different time periods, and it isn't until after these events occur that people say, oh wow, the bible said this was going to happen.

The bible's prophecies have been warned about throughout history when large events have occured. Does the bible predict all these events, or is it simply 20/20 hindsight? I think it's the later.

Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Oct-2005, 09:10 PM
Sean,

I see your point, and to some extent I agree although I did make the same mistake you did with the "null vote", but it would have been for the affirmative. Here's my reasoning. The bible compares the fulfillment of end times prophecy to labor pains of a pregnant woman. As we know, when a woman goes into labor, the pains are moderate, and spaced rather far apart. But as she gets closer to birthing the baby, the pains become more intense, longer lasting, and closer together. Some research I would love to see, although I don't have the patience to do it myself, would be a graph of the earthquakes and other natural disasters, plus famines, sickness, wars, etc., over the last, say, fifty years. I would bet that there is a trend toward a continuous increase in all these areas. Just a thought there.

QUOTE (CelticCoalition)
The bible's prophecies have been warned about throughout history when large events have occured. Does the bible predict all these events, or is it simply 20/20 hindsight? I think it's the later.


Yep, every time a big, awful even occurs, there are people everywhere crying "the end is near!" I don't buy that. I'm more interested in the greater number of successive events rather than those isolated ones.

Posted by: WizardofOwls 10-Oct-2005, 09:35 PM
Well I, of course, voted yes, absolutely! (Was there ever any doubt? wink.gif ) I too am a Christian, and am a full believer in a literal translation of the Bible. Yes, we have had tragedies and catastrophes in the past, but have there ever been so many within such a short time span, combined with signs and wonders in the heavens (how many times in the past few years have we heard the words "never happened before... or first time in thousands of years... won't happpen again in thousands of years) as well as talk of citizen ID cards, smart chips, chip implants and on and on and on. Sorry, I don't see here how there can be any question that He is coming soon, jsut like He said He would!

Posted by: dundee 11-Oct-2005, 10:08 AM
me thinks.... if anyone read the scriptures ..... you would certainly be pulled to believe that prophesy is being fulfilled...... aye i am a firm believer that they are....

the thing is as Christ fullfiled the prophecies of His coming... the Religious of the time refused to or couldnt see it... they interpreted prophecy as they wanted in their finite minds to interpret it...

i think.....

Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Oct-2005, 10:29 AM
One thing that is known about us as a species is that we are more anxious when there appears to be no pattern to what we perceive, and we adapt by creating pattern cognitively, whether it can be substantiated or not. Does this mean there is not a greater pattern? Not necessarily. But the fact that it is we humans who see it (or think we see it) makes it suspect, without some kind of verification from outside the human system. I understand there are some who will say that verification has been provided from outside the system in a revelatory fashion, which kind of closes the loop and precludes any further discussion.

People who study long periods of geological and meteorological activity see patterns that greatly predate human existence, according to their research presumptions as to the world's age, so if they are right this is not primarily a human-centered pattern. (There is also a tendency for humans to interpret events in reference to themselves.) As far as wars, famines, and plagues and their effects on us go, I believe we play a tremendous part, indeed the main part, in creating or failing to avert those ourselves, without any help from outside the system.

Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Oct-2005, 12:44 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 11-Oct-2005, 11:29 AM)
As far as wars, famines, and plagues and their effects on us go, I believe we play a tremendous part, indeed the main part, in creating or failing to avert those ourselves, without any help from outside the system.

One thing I would be interested in is your opinion of those events, as relevant to the prophecies of the Bible, when it is seen that they are ever increasing in intensity, frequency, and diversity of locale.

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 11-Oct-2005, 02:25 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 11-Oct-2005, 11:29 AM)
I understand there are some who will say that verification has been provided from outside the system in a revelatory fashion, which kind of closes the loop and precludes any further discussion.


Precognitive revelations are themselves within the human system since they occur within humans, as is the concept and interpretation of personal revelation itself pursuant to the precognition of events. If this is a reference to some intelligent universal force extramural to human consciousness thought to generate such revelations, these distinctions cannot be so easily made. If generator and recipient are separate, then what is omnipresence?

Religious justifications are predicated on circular arguments in lieu of independent corroboration I agree, hence the reliance on faith. Not only do humans play a tremendous part in wars, famine, plagues etc, but a great deal of denial is maintained when responsibility can be placed upon a capricious universal overseer and human suffering is justified as harbinger of the return of Superman. Convenient if the illusion of plausible deniability is something to which humanity wants to commit itself.....even when the delusion is not particularly plausible. wink.gif Collective humanity chooses the conditions of its social order. What does one say when the attributing of responsibility for these particular human events and the vicissitudes of their rectification is predicated upon quixotic fantasies?


Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Oct-2005, 05:00 PM
QUOTE (Antwn ap Ioan @ 11-Oct-2005, 03:25 PM)
If generator and recipient are separate, then what is omnipresence? 

Religious justifications are predicated on circular arguments in lieu of independent corroboration I agree, hence the reliance on faith. Not only do humans play a tremendous part in wars, famine, plagues etc, but a great deal of denial is maintained when responsibility can be placed upon a capricious universal overseer and human suffering is justified as harbinger of the return of Superman.  Convenient if the illusion of plausible deniability is something to which humanity wants to commit itself.....even when the delusion is not particularly plausible.  wink.gif  Collective humanity chooses the conditions of its social order. What does one say when the attributing of responsibility for these particular human events and the vicissitudes of their rectification is predicated upon quixotic fantasies?

Fair enough, a good question. It sounds like you're talking about ideas of transcendance versus immanence, which is an old theological debate, and how God could be both outside the system as agent, and completely permeated through it at the same time. Apparently it never stops being an important contradiction to resolve:

http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/articles/article/1544043/17479.htm
http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/readers/doc178.htm

I'm content to let the theologians keep working on the apparent paradox. smile.gif
But Antwn's point is well taken -- given what else we know about the way humans manage their aversion to chaos, if the signals are not completely independent of us, what do they really signify? I'm afraid I have to emphasize something else, as a teacher of psychology: We don't experience the majority of our cognitive functions in an aware state. It would be much too slow. Awareness is more like the tip of an iceberg really. So there are times when the human mind does things the human owner can't explain, and this is not comfortable. Am I denying the existence of God, or claiming that God is a human invention? No. I am saying, however, that you need to examine alternative explanations for phenomena like prophecy, or the experience of the prophet, and hold them in mind.

Also, we have a couple of terms on the table about which we may not be thinking in exactly the same way, and the first is prophecy itself. The first definition you encounter in a dictionary is that it is the inspired utterance of a prophet of God's purpose and will. This could be a simple directive. The second definition is prediction of future events. Needless to say these two meanings don't have to be mutually exclusive, but I'm thinking we are talking more about the second meaning here: is what the Bible predicted, however many years ago, coming true int he present? (And then, what other inferences can we make given the apparent accuracy of its predictions?)

Then, the words cognition and precognition don't quite match up in intention, though they look as though they should be predictably related. Cognition is the act or process of knowing, including both awareness and judgement (meaning comparison with previous experience already in memory). Precognition is defined as clairvoyance relating to an event or state not yet experienced. You would think that it means a state of knowing something that is knowable by cognitive processes, only it happens before typical perceptions are processed in the usual way, but I don't think it does mean that.

Now, to get to Rob's question: It certainly does seem, from our present perspective, that big stressors on the human population are increasing in intensity and frequency. One non-prophetic explanation for this might be that the population has reached a critical density and is beginning to overwhelm its resources. (I grant you it might not look like that from "here" -- our western developed vantage point -- because of the uneven distribution of population density and resources, which we're on the optimal end of.) Most any species that stresses the environment begins to regulate itself with decreased birth rates, diseases (proximity helps that solution), starving out, and other ways of cutting itself back. We do war, pretty much uniquely. War is a human behaviour, always was. Is it a God-given human behaviour? A gift of sorts, for our self-regulation, that may be the only match for the intense, expansive capacity of our frontal cortices? Then it would make sense, within the created ecosystem of some agency of -- let's say -- intelligent design, that that agency would be able to predict it. You don't even have to posit it as a punishment, just a predictable periodic regulatory state, very natural.

But that is problematic when we want a God whose name is Love. And I think we can't want anything else, as a function of our developmental features, our vastly extended childhoods, our long, intense experience of the nurturing family unit. It programs us to think that the intelligence must know us and must care. Circle that around, and we have to infer that the intelligence made us this way, uniquely, so we could be aware of it and its intentions, even while it also made us to be within natural animal laws.

And things are getting pretty overwhelming for humans, noxiously so, so it's very natural to think in teleologic terms that not only rescue but bring a halt to the conditions altogether in some way that transcends the natural balance of self-destructive forces.

What do I think? I think we've run out of control as a species. In fact, I think we may be an evolutionary experiment that is failing, and not the first. Does that negate the existence of God? Not at all. But it may mean that we are not as special or uniquely favored in the overall design as we think we are. It's very painful to entertain that thought, but if we could, we might be able to pull ourselves back from the edge.

Assuming we could accept that perspective even provisionally, could that have been predicted? I think anyone of extraordinary insight who had been watching the progression, with an added leap of poetry, could have predicted the signs and portents of war, famine, pestilence (which can and do apply to more than one era of our historical experience, but that's no secret. I give you freely that we keep getting more and more adept technologically at transgressing natural laws and warning signs, though . . . which may be reaching the end of tolerance). It is extraordinary to do that, to prophesy I mean, out of some pressure you aren't consciously aware of and can't explain, especially when the news is bad and folks want to kill you for saying it out loud. (Psychologists call behaving in a way that seems like someone else is directing your actions as "ego dystonic" -- basically , "not-me.") You could call it the Divine within the system, the immanent, expressing through a human. You could call it temporal lobe seizures too, and prophecy has been called that. I'm not coming down on either side. Antwn has some opinions about human motivations for understanding prophecy the way we tend to, and to be honest I'm not really in disagreement with him, but I prefer to stay neutral about that, at least for now.

Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Oct-2005, 05:05 PM
Antwn ap Ioan and Stoirmeil,

I would be interested in hearing your views about the likes of Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce.

Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Oct-2005, 05:24 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 11-Oct-2005, 06:05 PM)
Antwn ap Ioan and Stoirmeil,

I would be interested in hearing your views about the likes of Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce.

Haven't engaged their ideas in any depth. unsure.gif Point me to something you want me to look at.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 11-Oct-2005, 07:33 PM
Well, I would say that the reason these disasters appear to be getting worse and worse are based on the destruction of human buildings, etc and human death. I believe these are increasing more due to the increase in human population and density rather than increases in the severity of these disasters.

Posted by: dundee 12-Oct-2005, 08:21 AM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 11-Oct-2005, 08:33 PM)
Well, I would say that the reason these disasters appear to be getting worse and worse are based on the destruction of human buildings, etc and human death. I believe these are increasing more due to the increase in human population and density rather than increases in the severity of these disasters.

Prophecy..... it doesnt matter how it is fulfilled, but that it is fulfilled.
we are but pawns in the game.

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 12-Oct-2005, 04:55 PM
Stormeil - Thanks for the distinction between prophecy and precognition. I liked your post. Your tact is probably wise.

Shamrock - While I know who Cayce and Nostradamus were, I've not read any of their writings so can't venture an opinion.

Posted by: reddrake79 15-Oct-2005, 08:53 AM
Hello all, I belive that Bible prophecy is being fullfilled.
Paul, who wrote most of the new testament, thought bible prophecy was being fulfilled in his own time and that he would see the return of Christ during his life. The prophecy about wars, rumors of wars, famine, and natural disasters ( found in Matthew and other books) has always seemed applicable to every era in time. When I was younger the US thought world war 3 would happen with the soviet union. A major earthquake destroyed much of san fransisco or LA ( I cant remember which city) People in Africa were experiencing (and still are) famine. However that was close to 20 years ago. Has Bible prophecy been fulfilled, certainly. My bible class and I have recently talked about this very topic. Daniel, captive and later cabinet member, of the babylonian nation once interpreted one of Nebuchadnezzers dream. That dream involved a statue of Neb. (Im shortening the name smile.gif ) That statue was sectioned by metal. Daniel said the metal described the nations that would come after Neb. He predicted the rise and fall of the roman empire before romulus and remus were ever born. Sure sometimes we don't understand a prophecy until we are in the midst or after the event. That is because the prophet may not have understood what he was seeing. Do you think John could have understood what tanks, a-bombs, or missles were just by seeing them? Or some other weapon that hasn't been invented yet? They had to give their best understanding of what they saw. Other times the prophecy is very clear and specific. All the prophecies about the messiah were fullfilled by Jesus Christ. there are so many prophecies about the messiah that statistically speeking it would have been impossible for one man to manipulate himself into a position to fulfill, also some of those prophecies a man would have been unable to fill because it relied on someone elses actions. I believe psychologically speeking (now I am not a psychologist, so someone please correct me if my assumtions are wrong smile.gif ) that if a person claims to see the future and those events do not come true then he is at the least a liar, perhaps crazy. If the events do come true then he is either lucky, or a prophet. One time could just be luck, more than that could be skill (he knows his football teams), events that he will never be able to witness (roman empire) he is probably a prophet. Since the bible does claim to fortell the future, the real question is has it been right before. I say yes. Now, does that mean it will be right in the future. Yes. Prophecy is being fullfilled now Wars- war on terorism, rumor of wars-doesn't have to be with the US, famine- Many third world countries, plague- bird flu epidemic, natural disasters- tsunamis, hurricans, earthquake.

Posted by: Raven 19-Oct-2005, 01:48 PM
Good post Red Drake

When I saw this post I immediatlly thougth of
Daniel and the statue of the vision of Nebucanezzer and how Daniel interpreted for Beltshazzesar the handwriting on the wall as the change of the kingdom predicted by the statue dream.

A prophecy so compelling that scholars until recently said that the book of Daniel had to be written after the events to have been so accurate. A stand that has been refuted by the discovery of the Quamram tablets (aka the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Are end time prophecies being full filled today? It certainly looks like this may be the case. But I would hesitate to stick my neck out on that one.

We have had a record amount of hurricanes this year with Wilma being the strongest ever recorded. I know that the frequency of earthquakes it reputed to have increased to unprecidented proportions. These could be cycles that these elements in nature go through and since accurate records of these type of events are relatively recent things (when you consider the age of the earth) it may or may not be a true indicator. I personally believe that a lot of the political factors are in place to fulfill end time prophecy. The only thing that I know for sure is that we are getting closer all the time wink.gif

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: SCShamrock 19-Oct-2005, 03:30 PM
QUOTE (Raven @ 19-Oct-2005, 02:48 PM)
 

When I saw this post I immediatlly thougth of 
Daniel and the statue of the vision of Nebucanezzer and how Daniel interpreted for Beltshazzesar the handwriting on the wall as the change of the kingdom predicted by the statue dream.
 

Are end time prophecies being full filled today?  It certainly looks like this may be the case.  But I would hesitate to stick my neck out on that one. 

Great point Mikel!!!

That story is an awesome example of the power of God to reach his people. I think that it amounts to a smack on the cheek saying "hey, I'm here, and I'm giving you all you need to know so as to be with me." But it's up to us, isn't it.

Here is a great explanation of that prophecy from Daniel.



http://www.pacinst.com/efh/chapter7/nearness.html



Also, since I first started this thread speaking of "signs" of the times, I would like to include some of the information from the previous link:




QUOTE
FREQUENCY OF MAJOR EARTHQUAKES

CENTURY
 

NUMBER
   
First  15
Second  11
Third  18
Fourth  14
Fifth  15
Sixth  13
Seventh  17
Eighth  35
Ninth  59
Tenth  32
Eleventh  53
Twelfth  84
Thirteenth  115
Fourteenth  137
Fifteenth  174
Sixteenth  253
Seventeenth  378
Eighteenth  640
Nineteenth  2119

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Oct-2005, 09:06 AM
What's the source of the earthquake frequency data?

Posted by: SCShamrock 20-Oct-2005, 09:24 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Oct-2005, 10:06 AM)
What's the source of the earthquake frequency data?

My source is as indicated in the post. Where they got it I don't know.

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 22-Oct-2005, 10:51 AM
According to the link provided, its the British Association for the Advancement of Science Stormeil, but I couldn't find anything on their site to verify it. Personally I'm kind of skeptical about the accuracy of data from the early centuries.




Posted by: SCShamrock 22-Oct-2005, 11:40 AM
I am skeptical as well, but don't doubt the likelihood that it is accurate. Ancient Polynesian, Mayan, Greek, Egyptian, etc. texts and hieroglyphics record all sorts of natural, devastating disasters from floods, to plagues, to volcanoes. However, there isn't much ancient history about earthquakes and for that reason I feel they were very uncommon. How the aforementioned source may have arrived at their figures could be an estimated, regressive scale using what information we do have on earthquake history.

I would be very interested in learning for myself more about earthquake history if anyone can provide a link or two. I've looked and ran out of ideas. Thanks.

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 23-Oct-2005, 12:14 PM
According to the USGS, you're right that earthquakes are very common... estimated to be over a million per year, yet that doesn't mean they're more common. Until recently humans had few resources to accurately measure earthquakes.

Simply because there's little ancient data doesn't mean earthquakes were less frequent. In geologic time, changes occur extremely slowly, I see no reason not to assume that earthquake consistency was no different then than now. Tectonic plates would have moved and shifted then as now. So the more important question is one of their detection, accuracy, and to what extent records survived through the centuries.

Many earthquakes occur in remote areas or in the oceans which would not have been recorded in ancient times. According to the following sites, the number of seismic stations to record them have increased from 350 in 1931 to over 8,000 now worldwide. That's just in the last 74 years. With this level of sophistication in location, it may seem like they're more frequent, yet that doesn't mean that they are. The whole question is academic since we'll never be able to go back to the first 5 centuries AD to determine earthquake frequency, yet that doesn't mean a reasonable hypothesis can't be extrapolated from what we know about geology.

According to the USGS, earthquakes of 7.0 or higher have been pretty consistent in frequency. My money's on the theory that they always have - throughout recorded history at the very least, and most likely much further into antiquity than that.

http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html

http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/general/increase_in_earthquakes.html



Posted by: SCShamrock 23-Oct-2005, 04:21 PM
Antwn, thanks for the links.

Ok, I think you have established your opinion of earthquakes as they may pertain to bible prophecy. Now how about other bible prophecy. Where do you stand with the events and conditions that were prophesied about?

Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Oct-2005, 09:47 AM
QUOTE (Antwn ap Ioan @ 23-Oct-2005, 01:14 PM)
Until recently humans had few resources to accurately measure earthquakes.

I just want to point out in the most general fashion that this kind of thing is true across the board in the sciences, and not just in geological studies. You always have to be careful about how phenomena are understood or interpreted, and whether people are even interested in objective mesurements of them (and why).

Then again -- human history is incredibly short compared to geological time. If there are great cycles of tectonic shift happening, or even if the progress is more linear, it is happening over much vaster time periods than the entire span of existence of our species (regardless of how we may prefer to interpret our species' derivation smile.gif ). The Himalayas are very young in earth time and they are still forming. This earthquake in Kashmir is directly attributable to that. The long fault line in Scotland (the "Great Glen") that resulted from the whole top half of Scotland coming in on a plate from further west had similar activity, but much, much longer ago. None of that has anything to do with human time -- it was all here and happening in its own patterns before we were ever dreamed of.

I'll have to bite the bullet on this one -- the earth has been around too long and its activity is too complex for us to presume to use it as a diagnostic tool for any human-based teleology. This is one of the main problems that causes so much controversy about signs and portents -- they are all centered around God's plan for man. I am not convinced that we are such a great big deal in the greater picture, and the greater picture would be in better shape in the here and now, on the superficial ecological levels we can and do affect, if we would stop being so self-centered as a species.

Posted by: SCShamrock 24-Oct-2005, 11:03 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 24-Oct-2005, 10:47 AM)
  You always have to be careful about how phenomena are understood or interpreted, and whether people are even interested in objective mesurements of them (and why).

If there are great cycles of tectonic shift happening, or even if the progress is more linear, it is happening over much vaster time periods than the entire span of existence of our species (regardless of how we may prefer to interpret our species' derivation smile.gif ). 

I'll give you that Lynn, that you have to be careful how phenomenon are interpreted. The earthquake patterns in the here and now may well indicate to us, in our perspective of time at least, to either be random, consistent, declining, or increasing. When the prophecy about the end time was put forth, I believe it was a set of circumstances that when they occurred, would leave the "interpreter" with no doubts as to their genuineness. And while it is nice to hear you and others postulate over the age of our planet (sarcasm) or the history of earthquakes, you haven't adequately addressed the question of are we possibly living in those prophetic times we were warned about? There are other signs that the bible mentions. I don't have the time to look up chapter and verse, but I also don't doubt that there are those who can cite them for you at a moment's notice. The bible mentions our society in 2Tim Ch3, and tells of the social ills of the generation that would be in the "last days." However, the bible also mentions that 1) man's knowledge would increase {interpreted by many to indicate our advanced technology}, 2) that man would be running to and fro {meaning the speed and efficiency of travel}, and 3){this is a favorite of mine}, that the earth would wobble on its axis like a drunkard. Of course, those scientists that are so highly thought of to the atheist and agnostic, well they told us last year that the earthquake that caused the tsunami in December caused also the earth to wobble on its axis.

These are the kinds of things that, while they don't necessarily make me run screaming "the end is here", do make me think that I may be privy to a great revelation.

Posted by: stoirmeil 24-Oct-2005, 11:53 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 24-Oct-2005, 12:03 PM)
And while it is nice to hear you and others postulate over the age of our planet (sarcasm) or the history of earthquakes, you haven't adequately addressed the question of are we possibly living in those prophetic times we were warned about? . . .


Of course, those scientists that are so highly thought of to the atheist and agnostic, well they told us last year that the earthquake that caused the tsunami in December caused also the earth to wobble on its axis. 

These are the kinds of things that, while they don't necessarily make me run screaming "the end is here", do make me think that I may be privy to a great revelation.

As to the first point -- if you want to hear me say categorically yes or no, I'm going to be a disappointment to you, and I do sincerely regret that. What I am saying is that I doubt it, not because ample signs are not there for those who want to interpret them, but because I don't believe the whole show rests on how it may affect the human race. And I really don't believe the whole space-time continuum is going to change radically if we do manage to bring armageddon-like conditions on ourselves. We may well wipe ourself out, but as it is written:

"One generation goes, and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever.?
(Ecclesiastes 1:4)

And that is where my expectations lie, even though I know there is something about entropy in astrophysics that would seem to counter even that. The prophecies themselves, if prophecies they be (and I'm in no more of a position to categorically state they are false than you are to state they are true smile.gif ), may be warning something like what you think, but if they are I think it might be worth considering whether it's simply and grandly an announcement of God working through natural occurences as always. What I don't think is that it's an announcement of privilege and divine rescue of a fragment of the human population while the rest of the humans and the whole planet go down the drain.

I hope that addresses it more clearly.

The other comment makes me kind of sad. Science does not oppose metaphysics or claim superiority to it. It is just not addessing the same thing, unless you try to make it do so. If the tsunami was cause for or evidence of an axial wobble, then that's what it was. If that appears to concur with something in scripture, then fine. Was it specifically predicted? There have been others, and there will be more. Why this one? I think there may be an element of human need to see a resolution coming in the face of extremely uncomfortable uncertainty that would hope so.

Also -- not to be a tweaky pest, because I really recognize and have a great deal of respect for what faith accomplishes for humans -- why would the Bible say the earth will wobble on its axis? I mean, how did they know it has one? (That isn't in 2Tim3, by the way, though I must say the description of certain aspects of the modern human personality with its social flaws in 2Tim is pretty convincing -- but again, far from unique to our times.) Does the passage you refer to not say, for example, that the earth will reel like a drunk, or something? It can be a matter of translations being made to conform to expectations too.

Posted by: Raven 24-Oct-2005, 12:06 PM
For what it's worth, the 19th century looked to be in line with the stats from the USGS

Mikel

Posted by: SCShamrock 24-Oct-2005, 04:08 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 24-Oct-2005, 12:53 PM)
1......I doubt it, not because ample signs are not there for those who want to interpret them, but because I don't believe the whole show rests on how it may affect the human race.  And I really don't believe the whole space-time continuum is going to change radically if we do manage to bring armageddon-like conditions on ourselves.  We may well wipe ourself out, but as it is written:

2."One generation goes, and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever.?
(Ecclesiastes 1:4)..........

3. ........The other comment makes me kind of sad.  Science does not oppose metaphysics or claim superiority to it.  It is just not addessing the same thing, unless you try to make it do so.  If the tsunami was cause for or evidence of an axial wobble, then that's what it was.  If that appears to concur with something in scripture, then fine.  Was it specifically predicted?  There have been others, and there will be more.  Why this one?  I think there may be an element of human need to see a resolution coming in the face of extremely uncomfortable uncertainty that would hope so.

Also -- not to be a tweaky pest, because I really recognize and have a great deal of respect for what faith accomplishes for humans -- why would the Bible say the earth will wobble on its axis?  I mean, how did they know it has one?  (That isn't in 2Tim3, by the way, though I must say the description of certain aspects of the modern human personality with its social flaws in 2Tim is pretty convincing -- but again, far from unique to our times.)  Does the passage you refer to not say, for example, that the earth will reel like a drunk, or something?  It can be a matter of translations being made to conform to expectations too.

1. Assuming, Lynn, that bible scripture is truly the inspired word of God, and all those red words are truly the words of Jesus, then of course these matters would be specific to the human race, for those are the ones to whom the message was given. I personally believe that there are others, on other planets, but that's an entirely different discussion.

2. I appreciate your sentiments here. Bible scripture is a funny thing. For years I thought that the story of Saul of Tarsus contained a blatant contradiction. In the scriptures it says that Saul, on the road to Damascus, was visited by (an angel), and that he was surrounded by a bright light and heard a voice. I will loosely paraphrase as I am still not able to get to my bible because of our upcoming move and the packing that has gone on here. In the scriptures it says that the men that were with Saul saw the light, but heard no one. In another, it says that the men didn't see who was talking to Saul, but hear the voice of him. I may have that all messed up, but the feel is just the same. It was a clear contradiction, and one which I could not get passed. But then I learned that the word "hear" did not necessarily mean the literal, audible sound perceived by the mind through the ear, but rather could mean to understand. With this in mind, let me say the in my understanding of "the earth being destroyed by fire", that it may not be a literal destruction of the physical mass of the planet. The bible does go on to say that there would be a "new earth." So interpretation again seems to be of critical importance here.

3. You and I might have drastically differing views of the sect of the science community to whom I am referring. That particular group, in my opinion, takes drastic steps and all-but-scientific leaps to refute even the possibility of creation rather than random chance. But further, I do think you are correct in your wording, specifically the word "drunkard." Since I don't have access at this moment, I will paraphrase: it says that the earth would "reel like a drunkard." You have heard my interpretation of that. I would entertain yours as well.

Posted by: Raven 24-Oct-2005, 06:35 PM
In Reference to the also by Lynn.

i.e. Also--not to be a tweaky pest.....why would the Bible say the earth will wobble on its axis? I mean, how did they know it has one? .."

That's exactly the point, they would likely not know that as far as history would reveal of man's understanding of the earth. It was not determined until centuries later that the Earth revolved on an axis an that the sun did not revolve around it. To say that the earth would reel like a drunkard would be to put the prophecy in language that the writer had at his disposal. He would not know about the earth revolving on an axis, nor would he likely understand the concept and how this could possibly work without us being thrown into outer space(the heavens tongue.gif )

This sort of thing is what makes these prophecies so intriguing to me.

Mikel

Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Oct-2005, 09:05 AM
QUOTE (Raven @ 24-Oct-2005, 07:35 PM)
That's exactly the point, they would likely not know that as far as history would reveal of man's understanding of the earth.

I do see the point as far as the revelatory implications would be concerned. What I'm really asking is whether some more recent translation is actually referring to "axis" per se. That would mean that the translator is making the connection and tweaking the message well after the fact of the prophecy. In fact, it would be hard to assume that biblical scholars over milennia have NOT edited or translated aspects of biblical text according to their theological understanding. Sometimes people lose sight of this, and will maintain a point that is an artifact of translation, editing, or period-specific interpretation.

I am not intending a specific refutation, and I have too much practical regard, as I said, for the supportive and restorative place of sacred writings in human life to even think of a put-down. But to use this example without getting too fixated on it, the earth "reeling like a drunkard" might refer to any severe earthquake.

Rob is correct of course in pointing out that there is an absolute divide (which I try to straddle mentally in discussions like this, out of respect, though it must be fairly clear which side I tend to stand on): there is either a specific revelatory message that puts human existence at the center and purpose of all existence, or there is not. I don't attempt to convince, because my view of the earth and its history is not flat and matter-of-fact at all. It strikes me constantly with wonder that leaves me quite speechless sometimes, as it would any person with a spiritual nature. And I would never consider trying to talk somebody out of that experience, no matter how they derive it.

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 25-Oct-2005, 10:02 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 23-Oct-2005, 05:21 PM)
Antwn,  thanks for the links.   
 
Ok, I think you have established your opinion of earthquakes as they may pertain to bible prophecy. Now how about other bible prophecy. Where do you stand with the events and conditions that were prophesied about?


Frankly I have no faith in the Bible as a source of prophetic relevance. The whole subject seems fraught with innumerable fallacies of assumption and interpretation to me. The only reason i'm interested at all is because I'm curious about the spiritual and intellectual goings-on of my fellow humans, since the beliefs of humanity have direct impact on the decisions of humanity of which I am an integral part.

While I'm not particularly interested in engaging debate on Biblical prophecy, since the end result would inevitably be that its a matter of faith anyway, I am inspired occasionally to address assumptions that strike me as unsupportable, like the idea that earthquakes are on the increase just as the Bible predicted.

If people would abnegate geology in deference to blind faith, then frankly I don't know what to say. "My despair will be suffered privately" is all that comes to mind.



Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Oct-2005, 11:20 AM
QUOTE (Antwn ap Ioan @ 25-Oct-2005, 11:02 AM)
If people would abnegate geology in deference to blind faith, then frankly I don't know what to say. "My despair will be suffered privately" is all that comes to mind.

And actually, I have a lot of sympathy for that point of view as well, since I work in a scientific community and I have a pretty good idea of both the depth and the rigor of investigation at that level, especially in my own field. The divide-straddler in me says "Live and let live." But I do feel that rumbling sense of alarm when the clash between the two perspectives comes anywhere near the realm of public policy that affects us all.

Let me ask this, again respectfully, to turn the discussion in a slightly different direction. What are the implications for the prophecies being plottable to specific points in time and space, and reasonably interpretable? Outside of "See, I told you so!", which would probably get lost in the massive shuffle of wonder and dread anyway. What I want to know is: what does it mean to you, that revealed prophetic conditions appear to be coming to pass? I'll be right up front -- it is not only the conditions themselves (geological, social, what have you) that are interesting to consider, but also the frame of mind of the people who either do or do not agree with what they might signify.

Posted by: reddrake79 25-Oct-2005, 06:54 PM
I may be nit picky about this, but

I don't believe the bible says that earthquakes will increase, just that there will be earthquakes (unless Ive totally missed the verse we are refering to in this discussion),

another point - only an eathquake of magnitude 3 on the richter scale is felt by people, however our super sensative equipment can record magnitude 1. That could acount for the apparent increase in the geologic survey numbers

3rd- The people who copied the Bible had too much respect for God's word to try to add there own ( falibly human) interpretation through the ages. They were very faithful to copy the bible word for word. The Dead sea scrolls help to prove that.

4th prophecy is also not a matter of faith- If a person claims to be a prophet and what he says didn't come to pass he would lose his following quickly. Its easy to prove a prophet- If they are intentionally vague ( 1- 900- dil ur futre) or only talk about past events then they are not really prophesying. If they are as specific as they can be (ie daniel interpreting the dreams and John seeing the Day of the Lord) then the only thing you have to do is be patient and see if they are right. Some of the old testament prophets, prophesied about things that happened in a matter of days to years. Its not a matter of your faith affecting the outcome or not.

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Oct-2005, 07:37 AM
QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 25-Oct-2005, 07:54 PM)
I may be nit picky about this, but

I don't believe the bible says that earthquakes will increase, just that there will be earthquakes (unless Ive totally missed the verse we are refering to in this discussion), 


Nitpicky is good.

Ok, here is one place where I get this interpretation. It is from the KJV - Mathew Ch 24:

QUOTE
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8All these are the beginning of sorrows.


Now before you decide that I'm off my rocker, consider this. The Greek work used in the original text was wjdirn. It means: the pangs of child birth, travail pain, birth pangs. I use the english translation of the greek letters because I don't know how to put them in here. You can read it yourself http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1130332909-6258.html The word used in the KJV is sorrows. In the New American Standard, and others I would imagine, they used the words birth pangs. I think this is a more literal translation of the original greek, which is why I say that the signs mentioned such as famines, pestilence, earthquakes, etc., would increase. But this is not a sudden change, but rather a constant one with a trend toward more and more intensity, severity, and frequency.

Reading on in the New Testament, we find in 1Thes. Ch 5:

QUOTE
1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.

2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

5Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

6Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.


So here is my explanation. Thanks for your response, and I would like to hear how anyone else feels about what I have just posted.

Posted by: Raven 26-Oct-2005, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 25-Oct-2005, 07:54 PM)


another point - only an eathquake of magnitude 3 on the richter scale is felt by people, however our super sensative equipment can record magnitude 1. That could acount for the apparent increase in the geologic survey numbers


The USGS figure that Match the quote for the 20th century are for major quakes magnatude 6 or greater.

I should have mentioned that earlier.

Mikel

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 27-Oct-2005, 12:07 PM
Please tell me why this is significant? If I were to proclaim myself a prophet and predict with all requisite solemnity "the sun will come up tomorrow", what significance would you place upon it? Why do you laud statements of common knowledge as prophecy? Frankly, any local yokel of the era could have made the same vague statements with the same accuracy. Is it the fact that such "predicitons" occur within the context of the "authority" of the Bible that compel you to proffer this artifice of significance? Gee, the Bible says earthquakes, pestilence and famine will occur and they have. What exactly is it about that which should impress anyone? Do you have any idea for how long and how many times people have claimed "the end times are near"? You can do your own research.

"7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places.

8All these are the beginning of sorrows."

Not the beginning of sorrows, just their perpetuation. The writers of these words were well aquainted with these conditions, they were part of human history before Biblical times. We can't seem to play Monopoly without a few owning hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place while the rest of the world struggles to afford St. James Place and a railroad.

The only way current incarnations of en masse gullibility (most religions) make sense to me is to consider them a dysfunctional attempt to assuage the pain of unsatisfied spiritual need. I can't fathom them as decisions made rationally. Why dysfunctional? Because the whole thing succeeds as spiritual affectation only. A true spiritual experience would obviate neediness, posturing, seeking and supplication, among other common atributes of contemporary spiritual psyches. The seeker has need, the finder is satisfied, thus I think the endeavor is more subsitution for than realization of spiritual fulfillment, and becomes more problematic since its survival depends on the continuity of that very substitution. Subservience to cosmic authority as interpreted by terrestrial authority is also promulgated and people become obedient to join the club, even throw their logic in the trash. Don't believe that little man behind the curtain, the phantasmagoric Hollywood presentation before you is the true Wizard of Odd....er Oz.

Having seen so many otherwise highly intelligent people in my life continuously bite the worm without seeing the hook is disconcerting to say the least. Maybe I'll have to reread Eric Hoffer.

Stoirmiel: Personally I think my frame of mind can be sussed by what I've already posted without much elaboration.

Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Oct-2005, 12:42 PM
QUOTE (Antwn ap Ioan @ 27-Oct-2005, 01:07 PM)
The only way current incarnations of en masse gullibility (most religions) make sense to me is to consider them a dysfunctional attempt to assuage the pain of unsatisfied spiritual need. . . .

The seeker has need, the finder is satisfied, thus I think the endeavor is more subsitution for than realization of spiritual fulfillment, and becomes more problematic since its survival depends on the continuity of that very substitution.  . . .

Stoirmiel:  Personally I think my frame of mind can be sussed by what I've already posted without much elaboration. . . .

I think there may be an alternative way to read it, the feeling of necessity that is. It's not a common person that comes up against an existential proposition like "The only meaning there is, is the meaning you make" with equanimity. It's kind of alarming, and it may be so disorienting that it had a bad impact on function. It is perfectly natural to reduce anxiety by inferring some kind of causal and/or explanatory agency. Then, the exact nature of that is very much a matter of cultural variation.

Maybe that is saying the same thing you are saying, Antwn.

The process of discovering or inventing explanations in a way that includes oneself personally, and then adjusting one's self and pattern of living to them, is a big lifelong thing that it seems the majority of humanity persists in doing. I think it's a crucial human behaviour. That's a truth in itself. The particular truth that is being sought is more relative, in fact, than the reality that humans are seekers, that they demand explanations to maintain a functional equilibrium. And probably that unsettling conditions make them seek harder and demand more of the explanations they believe they find. As a species, we need it. It's that simple, and it's the thing that interests me so much in discussions like this. The truth value of the belief system is independent of that. Not inferior to it, but a separate consideration.

Yes -- I have a good idea what your position is. I was hoping to hear from some others. It may be my question does not really seem relevant. smile.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 27-Oct-2005, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (Antwn ap Ioan @ 27-Oct-2005, 01:07 PM)
Please tell me why this is significant? If I were to proclaim myself a prophet and predict with all requisite solemnity "the sun will come up tomorrow", what significance would you place upon it? Why do you laud statements of common knowledge as prophecy? Frankly, any local yokel of the era could have made the same vague statements with the same accuracy. Is it the fact that such "predicitons" occur within the context of the "authority" of the Bible that compel you to proffer this artifice of significance?

It is significant because I believe in God, and believe the Christian bible to be the word of God.

This "artifice" is just a sign, one of many that were offered. There is nothing sinister here. You may think (you have said as much) that you can determine it with some sense of certainty that earthquakes, in their current frequency and intensity, have always existed. You may even make the suggestion that, because of time and sedimentation, earthquakes have decreased in both size and frequency. It obviously doesn't matter to you one way or another, and that's fine. I certainly didn't start this thread in an attempt to evangelize. And of course, if I were promoting earthquakes and famines as the sole source for believing the end time was upon us, then my sanity would not be in question. That's not what is happening here.

Earth changes could be a lucky prediction (you addressed their existence but neglected the acceleration of them) that the so-called "local yokel" could have forecast. But other predictions that happen within the context of the authority of the bible are not so easily dismissed as blatantly obvious, even with the twisting of context that is so prevalent here. One example I'll give you is from the story of the battle of Amageddon. The bible speaks of an army of 200 million soldiers. No nation had anywhere near that potential when these words were written, and there is no reason to believe that a local yokel would have thought there would be. The type of lawlessness spoken of in 2 Timothy was not widespread then, and there is no reason to believe that a local yokel of that time would have thought it ever would be. As you have mentioned, look it up.

One last point. I have a good friend that is atheist, and at times has accused me of being brainwashed, and of being in a state of self-hypnosis, calling my condition "cosmic euphoria." To him I'm sure it is. But for those of us who profess faith in Jehovah God, who also possess a little intelligence, we come to our faith employing our hearts and minds, not just our emotions. You sound like my friend, except your dissent doesn't come across quite as crass. I will say this however; the "neediness, posturing, seeking and supplication, among other common attributes of contemporary spiritual psyches" you mention as being part of religion is just part of some religion. Unfortunately, I see many of these attributes within the Christian faith as more of a lack of faith; that somehow God is not merciful enough to accept the believer in his Son apart from some song and dance routine. That is why I don't attend church. I can't seem to find one that simply teaches and loves without all the pomp and ritual so common today. There is heavy emphasis placed on more bodies in the church (which I think equates to more dollars) rather than nurturing the souls of those already there. And nothing makes me feel sillier than having a church leader open with a little prayer (which I'm standing for) then lead a song (which I'm sitting for) then sing another song (standing again) pass the plate around (standing then sitting) then another song (stand) then my personal favorite (big smirk) hug your neighbor (either sitting or standing, or a combination of the two). I feel like a robot and the guy up front has my remote control. Also, I find most of this "lead in" stuff to be not only ritualistic, but an attempt to eat the clock as well. So I don't go to church, but that doesn't stop me from learning all I can about my bible and getting to know the one who inspired it.

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 28-Oct-2005, 12:06 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 27-Oct-2005, 01:42 PM)
The truth value of the belief system is independent of that.  Not inferior to it, but a separate consideration.

Yes -- I have a good idea what your position is.  I was hoping to hear from some others.  It may be my question does not really seem relevant. smile.gif

Thanks Stoirmeil, but I'm a little confused about something. I understand your point that humans are seekers who demand explanations to maintain a functional equilibrium, and inquiry is quite human. Yet if a person is seeking something that is true, how can the truth value be a separate consideration from the nature of his seeking? The integrity of his quest would demand that the two be cojoined, wouldn't it? If a person seeks by nature, then one would assume (existentially speaking) that he'd seek something true. Otherwise he's only playing games with himself and not truly seeking at all.

Shamrock: I was commenting on the specific quotes you posted. I believe I'm correct that you're much more well versed (no pun intended) in the prophetic passages in the Bible than I am, and while I'm sure your quotes don't do justice to the vast panoply of prophecy contained in it, I respond to what's posted. If you feel inspired to give me some chapters/verses for prophetic passages you know are especially poignant in lieu of quoting them each here, I'm happy to do research. If you don't that's fine too, though as voluminous as the Bible is, frankly I don't know where to start.

I was very glad to read your post Shamrock, and I felt so much empathy reading your comments about church services. I was raised Episcopalian and attended both church and sunday school as a child until I renouced the whole affair at about age 13. I remember everything you described and feel much respect for you in eshewing the ritual in order to maintain the integrity of your faith.

My generalizations did not include your specific circumstance. Generalizations generally don't....generally speaking ;-) Yet certainly the posturing I mentioned, along with the neediness and supplication is inherent in those very rituals, which are inherent in the general practice of Christianity today. You're choice may be more the exception. Indeed, it would have to be for the survival of the practice for the pecuniary reasons you also mentioned.

I have no doubts about your intelligence Shamrock. I have known many highly intelligent Christians, some in my own family.

Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Oct-2005, 01:02 PM
Antwn,

You are correct in your generalizations of Christendom. The reference point that I draw from in order to know how to live as a Christian is the bible itself, and not from some group of people so wrapped in piety as to think they are to be answered to. Until I learn of a church that does strictly God's work, that holds scriptural purity over popular practice, and operates completely by faith to teach, nurture, and worship--then I will only grace the halls of a church building long enough to hear them say "I do."

One note to the rest of the board members. I don't want my opinions and statements about church and church goers to be taken offensively. If they are, then my sincere apologies. This is strictly how I see things are with the experiences I have had. I would love to go to a church, but only a sincere one. To crib a line from the movie Steel Magnolias...."an ounce of pretention is worth a pound of manure."

Posted by: sniper 28-Oct-2005, 02:29 PM
I usually keep my faith a private matter since so many are ready to rail against anyone that holds a firm belief in the Jehovah God. I have followed this thread, and others in this forum, with interest.

I would like to say that I think SCShamrock has done an exemplary job of providing an articulate explanation of his personal faith and bringing the Christian principles to light with noted verses from the Christian Bible.

To Antwn: If an interest exists to better understand the Christian faith and compare it to historical evidence I would suggest the journey start with the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Once the gospels have been read and compared, a thorough reading of the New Testament should follow. Only after reading the New Testament should a person study the Old Testament in it's entirety. The Gospel of John might even be best place to begin since contained within it is the quote that most accurately reflects the Christian ideology.
From John 3:16, quoting the Savior Jesus Christ:
"For God so loved the World,
that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have
everlasting life."

Everlasting life is the foundation from which all Christianity is based.

I suppose it is easy for people to dismiss some or all religions as pomp and suspect when the people practicing their faith do so in ways that appear conflicting with the message they proclaim but, the reality is that everyone has a faith and a need for fellowship whether it be political alliances or religious or both. Reading the Bible, like reading the Quran, is the best place to begin a journey of understanding the motivation of believers.

I'll bow out again and read the evolution of this topic with interest.


Slainte!

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 29-Oct-2005, 10:10 AM
Sniper: You overestimate my curiousity. My interest was to find examples of true prophecy only (remember the topic?) not to delve into the entire new testament, unless its in Welsh. As I said before, I also have NO desire to enter into an extended debate about Christianity or anyone's personal faith since its inevitable conclusion would be that its all a matter of faith. I already know that. I entered the thread because the idea of prophecy intrigued me, not the ideas of Christianity. I'm as familiar with them as I want to be. I also wanted to provide some info about earthquake frequency and to respond to a few things in previous posts because that response was specifically requested. But thanks for the suggestion.

Posted by: sniper 29-Oct-2005, 10:15 AM
Sorry about that.

Posted by: reddrake79 30-Oct-2005, 07:05 PM
whoa, rabbit trail, but as I tell my bible class rabbit trails are good too,

1 off topic paragraph. smile.gif I am a regular church attender (sp?) and it kind of saddens me that some of my christian bretheren (and sisteren ?) out there are missing out on the church experience I am having. I find church to be a positive point in the week (not because the pastor teaches only the good parts of the Bible) Yes, we do go through some of the motions (everyone greet your neighbor, pass the plate, etc.) but we are creatures of habit and while they may not necessarily be part of being a christian there may be a place for those things. (large churches have a hard time getting everyone to know each other) I personally would encourage the non church attending Christian to continue to look for a church that meets your needs. I recently moved and It took me several months to find a church that I felt at home in.

Back to topic...

If the prophecies were just the generic every day event types then that would be nothing special, however- Daniel ch. 2 recounts the dream and prophecy of nations to come after babylon, 1 Kings 17 drought on isreal, The invasion of the southern kingdom (Judah) by the Chaldeans predicted (Habakkuk 1:6-11)(2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 36:17-21), there are entire books written about the prophecies concerning the messiah.

for anyone who is realy interested in researching the prophecies, one good source is biblegateway.com. They have a topical index with a heading of "prophecy" in it.

another thought about prophecy, if the prophecy is true dose it not then beg us to consider the veracity of the source and other things it has to say?

Posted by: stoirmeil 30-Oct-2005, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (Antwn ap Ioan @ 28-Oct-2005, 01:06 PM)
If a person seeks by nature, then one would assume (existentially speaking) that he'd seek something true. Otherwise he's only playing games with himself and not truly seeking at all.


Let me try to say it in a different way. I know there's likely to be those who don't like this, and I'm sorry for that, but I can't really put it in a way that will avoid that.

Humans generally need to be certain about things. That is why humans have belief systems -- for their explanatory value (even above the validating function a system holds for its practitioners' justification of their actions -- which is very big indeed). That is also why we tend to defend them as vigorously as we do. Of course, in order to be certain about a belief system, people are going to accept that its tenets are valid, or "true." They will formulate arguments that strengthen their position; they'll will it outright if they have to. I think that's why real "seekers" tend to be in the small minority. Seeking is not what the majority of humans do when it comes to belief systems -- seeking a risky position to be in, and I think the majority of people who don't keep the belief system they inherited are uneasy with seeking, and seek only until they find a replacement. For one thing, seeking does not give you anything like the mental protection of a firm belief system, especially in a foxhole. smile.gif The lifelong seeker usually considers seeking to be a truer position than knowing, and eventually gains an acceptance of that and where it leaves him existentially.

I am asking that we consider something else: for some humans, the certainty of the belief system as a whole, which is vital to the equilibrium humans need for optimal function (especially under stress), is a great deal more important than any tenet within the system. It is not at all playing games -- it's in deadly earnest. This kind of organization of mind completely colors cognition. We perceive what we expect to perceive. There are no absolutes and there is no accuracy when it comes to human perception and memory. That, you have to take or leave as a truth, and it's a hard concept to get used to, but it's been demonstrated many times. (I think it may actually be less important that the system is "true" in some independent cosmic sense than that the human is able to maintain a firm belief in its truth, but that may be going too far for general comfort.) In any case, the truth value of the belief system in and of itself, independent of whether humans believe it or not, is one thing, and the belief value for the person who holds to it is quite something else. Not necessarily mutually exclusive -- but not interdependent.

If that ran off topic a bit, I apologize. I think it has some relevance when we consider the arguments for and against the existence of true predictive prophecy -- what elements of evidence do we look for, accept, and systematize as proof either way? It's posible that none of us are neutral or indifferent to the outcome of the discussion. That has an impact on the truth value too, I would say.

Posted by: SCShamrock 31-Oct-2005, 01:00 AM
The nineteenth century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard railed against the cosmological proof of the existence of God (a perspective I have embraced my entire life) and almost any other conceivable argument there has ever been for trying to "prove" God. He was, however, a Christian. This may seem to be a conflicting perspective, but Kierkegaard saw it this way:

If you try to "reason" that there is a god, and you do so successfully, then there is no reason to have faith. For if you are already completely convinced that God exists, by means of reasoning him out, then there is nothing for you to have faith in. You need no other motivation for acknowledging him. The point is, he believed that you first reckon God to exist, within yourself and apart from rationalizing, then you are in a better position to rationalize the existence of all other things. I see a lot of wisdom in this perspective.

Yet again, an argument for God that I also love is by the 17th century philosopher Gottfried Willhelm, Baron von Leibniz. He authored the "principle of sufficient reason." It goes like this....for every occurrence, there is a sufficient reason. When thunder claps, the sufficient reason is the lightning that struck. And the lightning because of the colliding of water molecules within a cloud. And the cloud from the evaporation of water from Earth's surface. This cycle should continue indefinitely, but it doesn't. There is always the point (I call it the day before the big bang) when there is no sufficient reason for something happening. According to Leibniz, anything outside this chain is it's own sufficient reason, and that is God. Its not a complicated idea, but one that should be thought about for more than two seconds.

I just thought I would throw those in there since the thread is kind of transforming into a few stray thoughts. smile.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 31-Oct-2005, 07:16 PM
Stormeil
a question

Doesn't the seeker set up his own system of belief in non-belief here? Many of the statements you have used against belief systems can also apply to the "seeker". You are defending the idea of seeking just as vigorusly as people who have belief in an ideal. You mentioned "this kind of organization of mind completely colors cognition" yet you have a very organised and logical train of thought in your post, just like many religous people (evidenced in this thread). Are you sure aren't seeing what you want to see in rationalizing that people "need" a belief system? Ask any teenager what he believes you'll get everything from well thought out answers by some to sarcastic (Looooooove. smile.gif ) to, "nothing" to "I don't know" They obviously have some beliefs (my teacher is evil) but many consciously do not think about it and they get through just fine, some don't (thats a tragedy for a different discussion)

Pointed question to follow: We have been talking about validating a source through prophecy yet you havn't addressed specific issues that have been brought up, such as prophecy that has been fulfilled. Its not a philosophical question here: people said specific things would happen in the future. Those things happend and there is no way those people could have affected the outcome. What you believe does not change the outcome. Does this not then beg the "seeker" to objectivly consider their claims about other things? Or where they lying part of the time, and if so which part? and how do you know they are lying?

Posted by: Antwn 05-Nov-2005, 11:10 AM
QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 31-Oct-2005, 08:16 PM)
Stormeil
a question

Many of the statements you have used against belief systems can also apply to the "seeker".  You are defending the idea of seeking just as vigorusly as people who have belief in an ideal. 

Pointed question to follow:  We have been talking about validating a source through prophecy yet you havn't addressed specific issues that have been brought up, such as prophecy that has been fulfilled.  Its not a philosophical question here: people said specific things would happen in the future.  Those things happend and there is no way those people could have affected the outcome.  What you believe does not change the outcome. 

First, I don't think Stoirmeil is taking a position one way or the other concerning "seekers vs believers". She's making observations about human tendencies and responses to existential questions.

Her post has direct implications on your statements about prophecies being fulfilled above. Verification of direct relationship between prophecy and subsequent occurance is dubious and is usually not very objective because a conflict between verifiability and philosophical and psychological self preservation ensues when conclusions to be drawn are interwoven with the needs of personal belief systems. So you see the concerns of philosophy and psychology do apply. They're even implicated when they're discounted as irrelevant. The question is to what degree do you want to address them....or how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go Neo?


Posted by: Antwn 05-Nov-2005, 02:00 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 31-Oct-2005, 02:00 AM)
If you try to "reason" that there is a god, and you do so successfully, then there is no reason to have faith. For if you are already completely convinced that God exists, by means of reasoning him out, then there is nothing for you to have faith in. You need no other motivation for acknowledging him. The point is, he believed that you first reckon God to exist, within yourself and apart from rationalizing, then you are in a better position to rationalize the existence of all other things. I see a lot of wisdom in this perspective.

He According to Leibniz, anything outside this chain is it's own sufficient reason, and that is God. Its not a complicated idea, but one that should be thought about for more than two seconds.


To what degree are you reasoning the existence of God when God is a self generated concept you're trying to justify or not via reasoning? God is a word applied, and reasoning alone is its own limitation when applied to it, as is language - reason's midwife. Like attempting to explain the mechanisms of an automobile engine to someone while only using the word "peach", you can't transcend your methodology. Hence the need for faith.

Another alternative is experience. Yet to embrace that, the whole idea of "finding/proving God" has to be released since there's no verification possible outside of one's presuppositions of what God is and the degree to which one supposes their experience conforms to them. This may be why Buddha, Lao Tsu and others of the experiencial school didn't use the word or address the concept, its intellectual quicksand. Honesty demands experience be embraced on its own terms when one recognizes the "arbitrarity of titularity" and all the assumptions carried with it in the conceptual backpack. If you were to have an experience of an omnipresent creative force what difference would it make what you called it anyway? How would you make sense of it without encapsulating it within the framework of your assumptions and limit your understanding by so doing? Yet an oak is not what it is because of the word applied to it nor has it changed from the time the Druid worshiped it to the time the modern logger chops it down as a commodity. Yes I know existential uncertainty is difficult for people yet look at nature's supreme functionality with apparant utter certainty.

If function is primary, and the need to believe is vital to function as Stoirmiel says, and is an independent consideration from verifiable truth, then is the question only one of adopting whatever belief facilitates function for the individual? That's a pretty mechanistic and perfunctory ideal for most and life is more than coping mechanisms successfully applied. Doesn't the creativity or dare one say grandeur of man supercede the mechanical nature of his capable function? Beethoven's symphonies are remembered. Few know or care about him being found drunk and passed out in the street, his inability to keep servants to clean his house due to his temper and tendency to throw things at them, or the attempted suicide of his adopted nephew while under his care. Not that I believe in the necessity of suffering for art, but I do wonder what the 9th symphony would have sounded like if Beethoven had been subjected to modern therapy, or the navel-gazing self indulgence of the psychoanalytically preoccupied or the banal teddybear hugging inner child puerility of pop psychology. Yes I know the other argument, institutions are filled with probable Beethovens, who because of the degree of dysfuntionality, fill the world with the grandeur of their drool. Point taken.

Understandably when you have a humanity with such a panoply of perspectives, perhaps functionality can be seen as the only equitable principle applicable, but even that perspective seems mechanistic, like the conclusion a computer would derive. Whose criteria of adequate funtionality apply? One interesting book: "We've had 100 years of psychotherapy and the world is getting worse" by James Hilman. Before I get admonished for irreverance of psychology, I simply think it has its limitations, not that its meaningless or fosters delusions. Then again, how many millennia did humanity "function" before Freud? How has it improved since? A discussion for another board surely wink.gif

Assuming you've read this far, thank you. Back to prophecy. Perhaps we could talk about to what degree human beings successfully prophesize, and leave what those propehcies may signify for the future or the "end times" on the back burner for the moment. Then we may find common ground we could all tread.

Posted by: Nightchild 07-Nov-2005, 07:53 AM
I'd like to contribute something to this topic as well. Yet I have to admid, that I only read the first postings and crossread some of the latter, since I'm running out of time. (Sitting in university and break is running short wink.gif)
I'll just try to point out some of the things that came to my mind before I forget them and try to add more when I come home.


So let's see where to start...
Maybe at first I should point out, that I voted for something other than prophecy or no prophecy, since my belief in 'prophecy' developed over the years and now is kinda consistent. At least I do believe so.
I often discuss about free will as against predetermination and fate. And I think, this runs close to prophecy. I believe there are things that we can decide all by ourselves, yet there are other things, bigger things, that will happen, no matter what we do. The only question is: Do we help those things to happen or do we try to prevent them. (I guess, this is similar to what Diana Gabaldon puts into her Highlander Series, yet I read the books after I already had that belief.)
I believe things like world wars had to happen. Yet I don't believe, that the people involved had to be there. Maybe if Hitler had died before 1933 there still had been the following events resulting in World War II but at another time with different people. I hope, this point got kinda clear, I'm still struggeling with expressing my thoughts in English. wink.gif

Maybe now I'd just comment on the natural desasters...
Indeed there seem to be more earthquakes. But as someone already pointed out (sorry, don't remember who did it) can anyone be sure whether this augmentation depends on more earthquakes or better methods to measure them? Can anyone know how many actual recordings of earthquakes disappeared in natural desasters like, say earthquakes themselves?
Now just for once say they DO happen more frequently. Can anyone know whether there was a time before when this happened? Can anyone know if earth runs in circles or better say spirals, that include times of more frequent earthquakes followed by times of less frequent earthquakes?
I myself believe for other desasters like hurricans that those are human made. Maybe I'm taking ourselves too important. That might be, of course. Anyway, we just have to accept that we interfere with nature and that nature consists of complex circles of life that we automatical interfere when interfering with nature. This means we could have changed something without even noticing it, because we just don't know of any connection by now and with that change made all those wheater desasters happen.
We are part of a world and we are influenced by it (as we see when nature 'strikes back') as well as we influence it.

Now just throw a quick glance to wars and similar things.
Someone stated, that those might be a way of regulation when people become to many. I'd pretty much go with that. Yet I think there's something else to take into account.
Our medical care is much better than centuries ago. Back then there were epedemies, there were wars... when thinking about it (with my little knowledge of history that is) I guess they had all the same we have now. Just with one big difference. WE CAN CURE today what THEY HAD but couldn't cure. This fact doesn't mean that we are closer to the end of the world. It only means that our technics and our medical understanding and knowledge improved as did the 'tactics' of viruses, bacteria and so on.
And yes, they had wars, we have wars. I'd say they had more personal wars than we today have, since being a soldier then meant killing peole you were looking in the eye. Noadays you tend to press buttons. Anyway, you might say today much more people die in wars than did back then. And I say that's only logical since today there are much more people living, which means much more people are affected by wars. And at another point of view: Today most people die of actual fighting while back then many died because of hunger caused by wars.

Anyway, I gotto stop here. I'll think about it some more and get back to it soon. wink.gif

Posted by: Nightchild 07-Nov-2005, 01:35 PM
Okay, I'm home now, so there's plenty time to go on with my thoughts, that hopefully someone will understand. rolleyes.gif

I forgot one thought about natural disasters when I was posting earlier that I still want to mention:
When talking about the augmentation of disasters I think one has to take into account that the population of our earth increased. Meaning that back in history people usually didn't live in spaces endangered by avalanches, they usually didn't live in spaces they knew were endangered by regular unpredictable flooding. They learned to know those places and they settled somewhere else. This means: Maybe there were occurences like the ones we experience today but the people then knew those things happened and lived with it. And lived with it in a way that didn't put them in the exacte space those things happened in. So there was not the need to write them down or something. This might also be a reason for those increasing numbers of natural disasters.

QUOTE
1) man's knowledge would increase {interpreted by many to indicate our advanced technology}, 2) that man would be running to and fro {meaning the speed and efficiency of travel}, and 3){this is a favorite of mine}, that the earth would wobble on its axis like a drunkard.

I don't know much about the bible, I have to admit. Yet I'd like to present my thoughts on this passage.
As for 1, there's nothing uncommon about increasing knowledge, I think. You can observe this when watching a child grow up. The child will learn things and its knowledge will increase. So does mankind. 'We' grow older and learn things. So our knowledge increases. It's like a species growing up. Yet I myself wouldn't want to interpret this as advanced technology. Aren't there more important things to know than those technology brought us?
And as for 3, I'd not say the wobble of the earth means something already happened. No, that's wrong. It's not something that happened during the last few years or even centuries.
We all know there's a north pole and a south pole creating the magnetic field that's protecting us from all radiation that's coiming from the deep realms of the universe. Someone told me (and I think it's already something scientists are discussing, yet I'm not sure about this) that there were times when the north pole was the magnetic south pole and vice versa. So the orientation of the magnetic field changed as it will do again and as it did before. This of course causes a wobble of the earth. No doubt.
Just to think about. wink.gif

QUOTE
[...] let me say the in my understanding of "the earth being destroyed by fire", that it may not be a literal destruction of the physical mass of the planet. The bible does go on to say that there would be a "new earth." So interpretation again seems to be of critical importance here.

I'd like to point out, that there are many people believing in advanced cultures that lived on earth before us and that were swept away from it before the beginning of 'our' culture. (And count me to them!)
Some months ago I watched a documentation in TV mentioning for example the fact that somewhere in South America the people has statues of 'gods' that were definitely white men. And those were made at a time no one ever prooved contact between europe and south america in. Another thing was the fact that there are sea maps showing the coast line of Antarctis. The exact coast line as we know it today with the help of our advanced technology. They said it is believed that those sea maps where copied in medieval times. The originals are believed to originate in times of a previous culture that lived there until Antarctis made its way into the polar region.
So I'd go with the interpretation that the end of the world doesn't mean the end of our planet but the end of our society as it is and a new beginning of a new culture.

Anyway, this concept of former advanced cultures may explain knowledge you can find in legends, myths, fairy tales but also in the bible. Also it took us long to find it, there were people before us who KNEW. And those people put the facts to stories that we still have, still read and finally learn to understand again.
On the other hand this just means the facts, not the words used, for if we truly wanted to discuss the words of the bible (not its meanings) we al had to read the original texts written by those who actually wrote them down for translations always hold the danger of mistranslation.
As for me, I remember asking our priest(?) why the 10 commandments start with "Du sollst nicht" (see, I'm german. I guess it would be translated with 'you may not') and he told me it was kind of a translation error and the version of the bible it was translated from said something like "Du wirst nicht", which would be "you will not".
Some years ago when we had an exchange student from Atlanta I had the chance to read some pages of an american bible. So I know that there are completely different versions of 'the' bible.
How can we discus the words written when we don't know the original words(and I strongly believe the original words are not greek, are they hebrew?)? Seriously, I don't know. Anyone any idea?

As for the bible quotes by SCShamrock...
You say you'd translate the greek version by birth pangs rather than sorrows... But doesn't brith means a beginning? Birth is no end, birth is the beginning of something new. Of course, beginning also means that something has to end, to die, to make place for the new thing. But the stress(?) is on the beginning, not on the end. I'd say we should be happy about the beginning instead of being afraid of the end.
Anyway, that doesn't affact the pure fact that it indeed seems to be coming true.

Gosh, I'm running out of time AGAIN!
Let me just close for now with what I wanted to say all along:

As for prophecies (that may also be written in the bible as well as in legends, myths and fairy tails!) I believe in them, yet I don't believe they are real prophecies.
To me, those are things that happened before and someone managed to put them down in a form that had them be unlost until now.
This goes close with my believe of time being spiral instead of linear. We run in spirals. We learn in spirals. Did you ever learn some new facts about something you already knew? Well, then you were learning in spirals! Time moves in spirals, since there are events that happen again and again in history. The rise and the fall of empires. It happens, as it happened before and will happen in future. Natural disasters happen now as they did before and will in future.
That's nothing unusual. This is how life works and this is how nature works.
There are legends that tell about astronimical facts that we today can prove again. With the help of our advanced technology. But how could people back then knew? Somehow they did, although they never may have witnessed those things.
You can say god told them. I think it's up to everyone to decide about the how.
As for me, I believe there were advanced cultures before us and they calculated those things as we can do today, probably even better than we can today. And they put those facts into legends, myths and fairy tails so it wouldn't be lost when they were gone.

Any comments? angel_not.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 25-Nov-2005, 03:15 PM
Pointed comment.

NO ONE has shown the specific prophecies of the Bible to be untrue here. There is a lot of talk about some of the vaguer (is that a word) and more obvious ones (wars and rumor of wars etc.) But what about the ones that are specific. (someone, don't remember who, said that one problem is they are unverifiable (I hope i have not missunderstood) ) I think that is not true. The Bible books have been reliable dated by archeologists and historians. Those prophecies had to be written down years even centuries before they occured, yet the very thing happened. We can look at historical documents that do not rely on the bible to prove it. Joseph interpreting pharoh's dream in Genesis and saving an entire nation from starving 7 years later after 7 years of exceptional harvests. The prophecies of Daniel and other "prophets" that said things would happen in the future. Like, the imprisonment of Isreal and how long it would last. The fullfillmet of the messianic prophecies that were made centuries before Jesus Christ showed up. To list all the prophecies the Bible makes that have been fullfilled would take to much space here. NO ONE (unless I missed a post somewhere) has said, Oh those arent true and here is why. And NO ONE has considered them when talking about other aspects of prophecy. Am I to assume that everyone's silence on the topic means they believe fulfilled prophecy to be irrelevant?

someone open up the idea of free will and determination. That's not what we are talking about here. All the biblical prophecies take into account the free will and nature of man. Many of the prophecies cannot even be affected by men.

Nightchild, I think you give humans to much credit for how we affect our world. Sure we can affect it horribly on a very localized level, But it is not through the actions of humans that there are earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis (unless there is an evil Bond villian using explosives somewhere) Humans ( as many of us as there are) are simply incapable of indirectly affecting our global environment that much. However that is a discussion for another thread. Think of how quickly nature takes over a vacant lot or vacated house, all the lost ruins in central and south america and africa.

Posted by: Antwn 30-Nov-2005, 11:20 AM
I think since you're making the claim of truth, the burden of proof would lie with you, yes? ;-) Yet before you spend the time, if the bottom line will come down to a question of faith then "proof" is no longer a pertinent question is it?

If conclusions are built on a foundation of faith based assumptions then what more can really be said, except from those who share your faith and would agree with you? But your post leads me to believe you were wanting a reponse from the dissenters.....perhaps this is why the thread has been quiet.

Posted by: reddrake79 14-Dec-2005, 09:37 AM
First of all, regradless of my faith I have to consider any prophecy that has come true. The prophecy still came true no matter what I believe. After all if the prophet accurately and specifically predicts something before hand then maybe there is something to the other things he is saying.

Secondly, burden of proof hmmm? ok. smile.gif

Isaiah 39:6; Jeremiah 13:19; Jeremiah 20:4; Jeremiah 25:2-11; Jeremiah 32:28 all talk about the capture of the isrealites by babylon. Jeremiah predicted it during the reign of Josiah. It didn't happen till the reign of Zedekiah many years later.

All the old testament prophecies about the messiah coming true hundreds of years later in Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=3974

The amount of prophecies are too numerous to list here. This url should get you to the site I was using to find the references of the above prophecies.

The dream I was talking about earlier can be found in Daniel chapter 2. Daniel then gives a description (no names) of 4 kingdoms that will come after babylon

Posted by: Raven 14-Dec-2005, 03:56 PM
As I stated earlier in this thread, the statue of the vision of Nebucanezor Daniel Chapter 2 is so convincing that dissenters said it had to be written after the fact until the discovery of the quamran tablets (aka dead sea scrolls)

peace

Mikel

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 11-Dec-2007, 10:01 PM
Yes many are but then I am not confining my answer to the prophesies of the Bible, I do not think Jesus i going to return...but sure wish he would and set his "followers" straight! Someone needs to!

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)