Qcmbr...I was referring to 1 Nephi 13, which alludes to Christopher Columbus' discovery of America (v. 12), the coming of the Pilgrims and other religiously persecuted people (v. 13), the growth of the American colonies of "white" Gentiles (v. 15), the revolutionary war with the Gentiles of the "mother" country (v. 17-19), the American Gentiles prospering more than other countries (v. 30), the Indians being smitten but not wiped out entirely by the American Gentiles (v. 31, 34), and the rediscovery of the book of Mormon (v. 34-42).
How do you explain bible prophecies?
by ithinkisee 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narkissos
Joseph,
Our approaches of Scripture are very different and there is nothing wrong in that. Still,
To prevent this Matthew and Mark worded this prophecy differently by interpreting His words for us instead of quoting them as Luke did
is quite an assertion, in view of the fact that "Luke" admits to rely on earlier written narratives rather that eye- or ear-witness (1:1-4). I don't know if you accept the mainstream conclusion that Luke is verbally dependent at least on some version of Mark.
Anyway, I agree with you that Luke makes sure to separate the "prophecy" about Jerusalem's fall from the coming of the Son of Man. My take is that this reflects the concern of a later generation which cannot hold short-term expectations anymore. This is in line with a number of oft-noticed features in Luke, such as the Master who comes back after a long time, etc. If such was actually the earliest (or even Jesus') stance one would have to explain where short-term expectation came from.
-
JosephMalik
Hellrider, This is something I noticed over 25 years ago and put it in a letter (1978) to the Watchtower. They of course were ticked off about it and ignored it making plans by then to get rid of me. Matthew 24:15-18 Mark 13:14-16 and Luke 21:20-22 are the same prophecy. Luke quotes our Lord’s prophetic remarks but Matthew and Mark interpret the message and give its basic meaning. This then locates it more accurately in time and moves it away from 70CE. That the authors of scripture did not always quote our Lord’s words exactly should come as no surprise. The words “let the reader use discernment” should tip us off that this is not a literal representation of this prophecy as our Lord did not say this but this is an interpretation of it. The authors of the Gospels were permitted to take such liberties to accommodate the reader and this is how I learned that the words heavens and God were interchangeable in many texts. Such use depended upon the audience for which the text was intended. The apostle Paul also use special words targeted to accomodated Jews and Gentiles. So “Jerusalem” in Luke becomes a “holy place” in Matthew and “a place it ought not” in Mark. Jerusalem thus becomes the symbolic and not the literal city of Jerusalem that was destroyed by the Romans. Fleeing to the mountains, then would be seeking a place of safety away from this symbolic place at such a critical time and would not drive Jewish Christians to the Masada that was destroyed by such Romans. This holy place this Jerusalem with all its flaws would represent the Christian faith (grafted in) with all its flaws (and evil slaves) at such a future time. The Gentile Times, when they began, when they end and what they represent was explained in much the same way. In Matthew they were since the world’s beginning, in Mark since the beginning of creation and in Luke simply continue to be trampled on until the end [when our Lord returns]. The were “a great tribulation” Matt. “A tribulation” Mark that began with sin and end with the coming of Christ or “fulfilled” Luke. The WT's Gentile times is based upon smoke and mirrors, not scripture. It is out of this tribulation that the seed of the woman Eve will produce the resurrected ones that will inhabit this Kingdom. Our Lord words on the Gentile times goes back to the prophecy that said: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Are we to think that the physical pain of pregnancy was increased on purpose or are we to think that as a consequence of sin and this added (births) seed of the serpent that many more human beings would have to be born than was originally planned to fill the earth? This would bring greater pain, sorrow and a tribulation upon the earth that could only increase in intensity. Things are not always what they seem but if we follow the story it all makes perfect sense. Our Lord answered their question the only way He could by referring to prophecies already written and known by them. They wanted all this to happen much sooner in their day in fact but He said to them after 40 days of further instruction about this Kingdom and His comming: 7 “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” They were dependent upon such texts just as we are today and could only give this much of the answer to the world. Joseph
-
Leolaia
Leo--is this based solely on the observation of where the prophecies went from accurate to appearing erratic? Or is there other confirming evidence of vaticinium ex eventu in these books?
That is a datum that helps define a rather precise date. But there is much more beyond that simple fact. The utter precision that the author reveals concerning his knowledge of the third and second centuries BC is entirely different than the vague and inaccurate knowledge displayed of the sixth century BC ... the time when the author supposedly lived. The late date of the book is also indicated in the anachronistic vocabulary and advanced theological ideas (e.g. "Watchers", the Son of Man figure, the resurrection, etc. which show a closer kinship to books like Jubilees and 1 Enoch dating to the third to first centuries BC than anything in the OT). Third, the book is NOT classed in the Jewish canon under the Prophets but in the Writings (the Hagiographa), and near the tail-end of the Writings for that matter. This is generally agreed to mean that the book did not exist when the canon of the Prophets was completed, whereas the Hagiographa remained open-ended for quite some time. Internal evidence from Daniel also indicates the same thing. Daniel 9:2 refers to "the books" (including Jeremiah) as a body of scripture that already existed by the time the author wrote, and Daniel 12:4, 9 even has an internal plot device to explain why the book appeared on the scene centuries after it was supposedly written: the book was supposed to have been "sealed up" and kept secret until "the time of the end", which according to ch. 11 was the time of persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, the silence on Daniel in early sources (including Sirach, written c. AD 190) contrasts with the second half of the second century BC, when suddenly external evidence of the book abounds, including: (1) Sybilline Oracles 3:388-400 (dating to c. 145-140 BC), (2) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (dating as early to the second century BC in some form), (3) 1 Maccabees (dating to 137-105 BC, which contains many allusions to Daniel), (4) the fragment of 4QDan a (dating to c. 125 BC), (4) 1 Enoch 104 (dating to c. 104-64 BC), and so forth.
To quote Collins on the matter: "Conservatives have often argued that the critical position rests on a dogmatic, rationalistic denial of the possibility of predictive prophecy. For the critical scholar, however, the issue is one of probability. That Daniel's predictions have particular relevance to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes is not in dispute. This was recognized already by Josephus, and Jerome granted that events predicted of the Antichrist in Daniel 11 were prefigured under Epiphanes. There is no apparent reason, however, why a prophet of the sixth century should focus minute attention on the events of the second century. Moreover, the references to Hellenistic history in chap. 11 are essentially accurate, whereas those to the Babylonian and Persian periods in the earlier chapters are notoriously confused. A further consideration, to which we will return in connection with the genre of Daniel, is the fact that pseudonymity and ex eventu prophecy are well-known conventions of apocalyptic literature and are characteristic of other Jewish writings of the Hellenistic period. In view of these considerations, the balance of probability is overwhelmingly in favor of a Maccabean date, at least for the revelations of chaps. 7-12, which clearly have their focus in that period" (p. 26).
As for Deutero-Isaiah, as I mentioned earlier, I doubt the references to Cyrus are intended to be ex eventu prophecies, rather than references to contemporaneous events. Nowhere does the author take on the prophetic mantle of Isaiah. Only when this originally anonymous text was combined with Isaiah was there the appearance that the author lived over a century earlier. It is just impossible to tell when the work came to be associated with the famous book of Isaiah. Trito-Isaiah, or especially the last chapters (ch. 65-66), is instead clearly designed to integrate Isaiah with Deutero-Isaiah by combining themes from both works (especially the early chapters of Isaiah), unifying the book as a whole.
-
JosephMalik
I don't know if you accept the mainstream conclusion that Luke is verbally dependent at least on some version of Mark.
Narkissos, Luke did not need Mark other than as a reference but would have heard this message orally from eyewitnesses and in this way knew exactly what was said. After all the apostles were still alive and could relate what took place if not personnally then through Paul who met with them. This is what Luke said in his Gospel: :1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,: So Luke could correct the wording of texts in Mark to reflect this perfect understanding apart from such interpretation. He even corrected himself when he mentioned the blood first at the last passover repeating it again after the bread for accuracy.
Joseph -
M.J.
Thanks Leo for the very complete answer.
I noticed that the name "Isaiah" appears in the book of Isaiah only up to chapter 39.
-
Hellrider
JosephMalik:
Thanks for the reply. It`s a very good explanation, and it makes sense of seemingly conflicting passages. However:If...
The authors of the Gospels were permitted to take such liberties to accommodate the reader
..and:
Our Lord answered their question the only way He could by referring to prophecies already written and known by them. They wanted all this to happen much sooner in their day in fact but He said to them after 40 days of further instruction about this Kingdom and His comming: 7 “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” They were dependent upon such texts just as we are today and could only give this much of the answer to the world.
...then how can there be a "direct, open channel" to God via the Bible? I mean, if the authors of the NT-texts wrote their own interpretations of what they had seen (well, told, I assume), and they made errors (as in "They wanted all this to happen much sooner in their day" - and "they were permitted to take such liberties to accomodate the reader" ), then how can the Bible be trusted? I`m To illustrate my point: How do we know that...
He said to them after 40 days of further instruction about this Kingdom and His comming: 7 “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”
...is not just another interpretation by the author?
(Unless you would say that they were guided by the holy spirit in their interpretations, that is - but if so, why all the ... difficultness and interpretations and all...ahh, if I was confused before, now I`m really confused)
-
Narkissos
Joseph,
Look, we don't even read the first three verses of Luke the same way! -- and the KJV doesn't help.
To me the "eyewitnesses" (autoptai) are just presented as the first source of the tradition (kathôs paredosan hemin, "as they handed to us" = the church as a whole) which former narrators have used as a basis. And this presentation, among other things, would mark the present author as belonging to a later generation.
Isn't diversity great?
-
heathen
When Mathew was written the apsotles more than likely believed it would be fulfilled in their day , especially when the romans sacked Jerusalem
If they did that, and wrote it down, then the Bible contains a false prophecy. Hence, it could not be inspired?I think it could still be interpreted to mean that those alive when the gentile times concluded are the " this generation". However the argument is just when did that happen ?
What is this "gentile times"-thing anyway? The whole two-and-a-half-thousand years-thing, is based on a faulty and corrupt understanding of the Bible, in which the JWs have applied the "day for a year"-thing to the "7 times", although there are no referances to "a day for a year" in Daniel or Jeremiah at all.I don't think it was false prophesy , just stating that the apostles or deciples that live in that era may have been expecting a fullfillment in their life time . They clearly did not have an idea of when the end was and that's why they asked jesus. I know I would be expecting it .
The gentile thing or appointed times of the nations has to do with the time period in which the messianic kingdom is not active or ruling in any way . The WTBTS says that it is ruling invisibly which is possible . I have to agree with you that the Daniel 4 ,7times , can not be conclusive evidence of 1914 being the date at which jesus began inspecting the churches of christianity . That is the argument of exactly when may not be known . Most main stream fundies think that it ended with modern day jerusalem joining the UN in 1948 . Jesus did say that jerusalem would be trampled on by the nations until the apointed times of the nations were fulfilled . Luke 21:24 It does sound at first like he is speaking of ancient Israel but then it sounds more of a end time prophesy . Jerusalem was the center of pure worship when jesus said that .
-
Leolaia
M.J....Yes, that is correct. Another major piece of evidence is the intended audience of the Book of Consolation. As S. R. Driver noted: "Those whom the prophet addresses, and moreover addresses in person -- arguing with them, appealing to them, striving to win their assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric (40:21, 26, 28; 43:10; 48:8; 50:10f; 51:6, 12f, &c.) -- are not the men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh; they are the exiles in Babylonia. Judged by the analogy of prophecy, this constitutes the strongest possible presumption that the author actually lived in the period which he thus describes.... The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his own contemporaries: the message which he brings is intimately related with the circumstances of his time: his promises and predictions, however far they reach into the future, nevertheless rest upon the basis of the history of his own age, and correspond to the needs which are then felt. The prophet never abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it. So Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for instance, predict first the exile, and then the restoration; both are contemplated by them as still future; both are viewed from the period in which they themselves live. In the present prophecy [of Deutero-Isaiah] there is no prediction of exile: the exile is not announced as something still future; it is presupposed, and only the release from it is predicted. By analogy, therefore, the author will have lived in the situation which he thus presupposes, and to which he continually alludes" (p. 237).
As regards the use of the "sealing" motif in apocalyptic literature to explain why such an ancient book had thus far escaped attention, see also the parallel in the Testament of Moses:
"You however receive this writing which serves to acknowledge the trustworthiness of the books which I will hand to you, and you must order them, embalm them, and put them in earthenware jars in a place which he made from the beginning of the creation of the world, so that his name be invoked; until the day of repentance, in the visitation with which the Lord will visit them in the fulfillment of the end of days" (Testament of Moses 1:16-18).
A related plot device occurs in 1 Enoch 82:1-2 and 4 Ezra 14:46 which claims that the book was kept secret though revealed only to a select few. As Johannes Tromp notes regarding the passages in Daniel and the Testament of Moses: "This literary convention, closely related to the pseudepigraphic character of most of these works, serves on the one hand to justify to the readers why a revelation, allegedly received by a pious man in ancient days, was not known previously. On the other hand, the emphasis on the limited extent of its audience (the wise, the pious) may serve as a captatio attentionis of the intended readers. Finally, if it is said that the book is to become public at the end of time, that is a signal to the readers that the final consummation is at hand" (p. 147).