Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was recently asked of me whether I think the Old Testament predicts a Messiah and what I think about the Book of Revelation. The real questions behind these, I believe, is really "Can the future be predicted and does the Bible tell us what will happen?"
Let's look at predictions in general, first. How do we ever know anything has been predicted? We can only know in retrospect: by looking back from the present to something that was said or written before. If an event happens today and we find something written or said from the past that seems to have indicated this event might or would happen, we say that it was predicted. But was it? What about the things written and said that indicated the event would not happen? We discard them as wrong because the event did happen. Also, we sometimes read portions of things written and make them fit as a prediction when in their original context, they have completely different intents. We even go so far as to sometimes see the present in light of the past so that the idea of prediction fits. And so, the concept of prediction is based on how we understand what happens now and how we interpret what was said in the past.
Very often, when we speak of predictions, we have convoluted interpretations of past writings or sayings. Take Nostradamus, for example. His quatrains are purposely obscure and challenging, yet they are read as if they spoke of today. We read them that way only in light of what has happened already. The quatrains from his book, The Prophecies, that we cannot use to explain the present, we discard or say we haven't yet seen fulfillment of the prediction. That kind of opportunistic reading of past writings is a very common way people speak of predictions.
In the Bible, there is a verse interpreted to say that Jesus would be born in "the City of David" - Bethlehem. But was he? Luke (2:1-7) says he was. Matthew 1:25 also indicates this. But everywhere else, Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth. Why would he not be Jesus of Bethlehem? Could it be that the stories were written to make Jesus fit the prophecy?
The same can be said of the Virgin Birth story. Since Isaiah 7:14 spoke of a virgin birth, then that must be applied to Jesus so that he fit the prediction. It is only in retrospect that these stories were applied to Jesus. Matthew and Luke wrote decades after Jesus died. They were writing to explain his role as Messiah and so they applied the prior writing to him and interpreted his life in terms of those writings. In fact, Matthew and Luke have little in common in their birth narratives; it is we who have blended them into one story from the two. Read them carefully. And the earliest Gospel, Mark, and the earliest writer, Paul, say nothing of Jesus' birth but do mention he was from Nazareth.
So did the Old Testament predict Jesus? Many will say yes as that is how they read the stories. But it is all done in retrospect, isn't it? What of the predictions from the Old Testament that don't fit Jesus? They are discarded because they didn't predict. It should at the very least give one pause to think about what this means.
And so I come to the Book of Revelation. Is it a prediction of the end times? The very first verse says this: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass... (my emphasis). Well, that certainly sounds like a prediction! So if we look at the book carefully, will we see predictions of the future or even the present? Or can we look at it in a different light? I believe the answer is that the writer believed he was predicting the immediate future. So have any of his predictions come to pass?
Prophecy and prediction are in the eyes of the beholder. How we read the past and apply it to the present is how we determine such things. We keep what is meaningful to our understanding and we discard that which does not apply. Depending on what and how we pick and choose; depending on how we interpret and even change what was said in the past; and depending on our own needs, the present and future are either predicted or not... Peace be with you.
It was recently asked of me whether I think the Old Testament predicts a Messiah and what I think about the Book of Revelation. The real questions behind these, I believe, is really "Can the future be predicted and does the Bible tell us what will happen?"
Let's look at predictions in general, first. How do we ever know anything has been predicted? We can only know in retrospect: by looking back from the present to something that was said or written before. If an event happens today and we find something written or said from the past that seems to have indicated this event might or would happen, we say that it was predicted. But was it? What about the things written and said that indicated the event would not happen? We discard them as wrong because the event did happen. Also, we sometimes read portions of things written and make them fit as a prediction when in their original context, they have completely different intents. We even go so far as to sometimes see the present in light of the past so that the idea of prediction fits. And so, the concept of prediction is based on how we understand what happens now and how we interpret what was said in the past.
Very often, when we speak of predictions, we have convoluted interpretations of past writings or sayings. Take Nostradamus, for example. His quatrains are purposely obscure and challenging, yet they are read as if they spoke of today. We read them that way only in light of what has happened already. The quatrains from his book, The Prophecies, that we cannot use to explain the present, we discard or say we haven't yet seen fulfillment of the prediction. That kind of opportunistic reading of past writings is a very common way people speak of predictions.
In the Bible, there is a verse interpreted to say that Jesus would be born in "the City of David" - Bethlehem. But was he? Luke (2:1-7) says he was. Matthew 1:25 also indicates this. But everywhere else, Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth. Why would he not be Jesus of Bethlehem? Could it be that the stories were written to make Jesus fit the prophecy?
The same can be said of the Virgin Birth story. Since Isaiah 7:14 spoke of a virgin birth, then that must be applied to Jesus so that he fit the prediction. It is only in retrospect that these stories were applied to Jesus. Matthew and Luke wrote decades after Jesus died. They were writing to explain his role as Messiah and so they applied the prior writing to him and interpreted his life in terms of those writings. In fact, Matthew and Luke have little in common in their birth narratives; it is we who have blended them into one story from the two. Read them carefully. And the earliest Gospel, Mark, and the earliest writer, Paul, say nothing of Jesus' birth but do mention he was from Nazareth.
So did the Old Testament predict Jesus? Many will say yes as that is how they read the stories. But it is all done in retrospect, isn't it? What of the predictions from the Old Testament that don't fit Jesus? They are discarded because they didn't predict. It should at the very least give one pause to think about what this means.
And so I come to the Book of Revelation. Is it a prediction of the end times? The very first verse says this: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass... (my emphasis). Well, that certainly sounds like a prediction! So if we look at the book carefully, will we see predictions of the future or even the present? Or can we look at it in a different light? I believe the answer is that the writer believed he was predicting the immediate future. So have any of his predictions come to pass?
Prophecy and prediction are in the eyes of the beholder. How we read the past and apply it to the present is how we determine such things. We keep what is meaningful to our understanding and we discard that which does not apply. Depending on what and how we pick and choose; depending on how we interpret and even change what was said in the past; and depending on our own needs, the present and future are either predicted or not... Peace be with you.
All of them came to pass. Just in case we didn't get the timing for the fulfillment of the events predicted in the Revelation, John is given it again in the last chapter--"the things which [in John's day] will SHORTLY take place" because "the time is AT HAND."
The reason that prominent and popular interpretations of the Revelation are so muddled and fanciful and speculative is because "scholars" are attempting to explain historical, past events in a futuristic light. No wonder we get the "Left Behind" series and countless predictions of Christ's SOON return. It is funny how these same people expect us to take the word, "soon," in its normal, everyday, common usage but will not give Jesus and His disciples use of it the same consideration. In biblical contexts, soon means later--much later. At hand or near mean far off--thousand of years off! Shortly is given the nuance of quickly in order to strip it of its first-century imminency.
To make matters worse, most time statements are reasoned away by a futile and desperate appeal to 2 Peter 3:8. Little consideration is given to the context of the time statements, the sitz im leben, and the audience relevance--essential aspects of any accurate exegetical and hermeneutical approach. Do we glean our doctrine and perspectives out of the Bible (exegesis) or do we read our preconceived doctrines and perspectives into the Bible (eisegesis)? Do we let Scripture interpret Scripture? Do we reason from the clear to the obscure or do we redefine and rework the clear in order to support the obscure? The level of truth we attain is totally dependent on our approach.
All of them came to pass. Just in case we didn't get the timing for the fulfillment of the events predicted in the Revelation, John is given it again in the last chapter--"the things which [in John's day] will SHORTLY take place" because "the time is AT HAND."
The reason that prominent and popular interpretations of the Revelation are so muddled and fanciful and speculative is because "scholars" are attempting to explain historical, past events in a futuristic light. No wonder we get the "Left Behind" series and countless predictions of Christ's SOON return. It is funny how these same people expect us to take the word, "soon," in its normal, everyday, common usage but will not give Jesus and His disciples use of it the same consideration. In biblical contexts, soon means later--much later. At hand or near mean far off--thousand of years off! Shortly is given the nuance of quickly in order to strip it of its first-century imminency.
To make matters worse, most time statements are reasoned away by a futile and desperate appeal to 2 Peter 3:8. Little consideration is given to the context of the time statements, the sitz im leben, and the audience relevance--essential aspects of any accurate exegetical and hermeneutical approach. Do we glean our doctrine and perspectives out of the Bible (exegesis) or do we read our preconceived doctrines and perspectives into the Bible (eisegesis)? Do we let Scripture interpret Scripture? Do we reason from the clear to the obscure or do we redefine and rework the clear in order to support the obscure? The level of truth we attain is totally dependent on our approach.
Preterist
Well maybe they will accept it from you because we heathens don't know anything and are led by the devil so we cannot be authorities on the "word of God."
Well maybe they will accept it from you because we heathens don't know anything and are led by the devil so we cannot be authorities on the "word of God."
All of them came to pass. Just in case we didn't get the timing for the fulfillment of the events predicted in the Revelation, John is given it again in the last chapter--"the things which [in John's day] will SHORTLY take place" because "the time is AT HAND."
The reason that prominent and popular interpretations of the Revelation are so muddled and fanciful and speculative is because "scholars" are attempting to explain historical, past events in a futuristic light. No wonder we get the "Left Behind" series and countless predictions of Christ's SOON return. It is funny how these same people expect us to take the word, "soon," in its normal, everyday, common usage but will not give Jesus and His disciples use of it the same consideration. In biblical contexts, soon means later--much later. At hand or near mean far off--thousand of years off! Shortly is given the nuance of quickly in order to strip it of its first-century imminency.
To make matters worse, most time statements are reasoned away by a futile and desperate appeal to 2 Peter 3:8. Little consideration is given to the context of the time statements, the sitz im leben, and the audience relevance--essential aspects of any accurate exegetical and hermeneutical approach. Do we glean our doctrine and perspectives out of the Bible (exegesis) or do we read our preconceived doctrines and perspectives into the Bible (eisegesis)? Do we let Scripture interpret Scripture? Do we reason from the clear to the obscure or do we redefine and rework the clear in order to support the obscure? The level of truth we attain is totally dependent on our approach.
Preterist
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff taken out of context in the teaching of various prophecies particularly those listed in Revelation. I think this is done for two reasons.
1. Some of the stuff is so deep and very scary that it would be more than our minds could bear in very plain language.
2. Prophecy is only meant to be understood by those whom God chooses to let understand it.
So we're left with a lot of quagmire of doctrines, and speculations as what this prophecy means, that one, etc, etc. The bible mentions that really, more so than anything - it's important for us to spread Love over prophecy though. Most of the prophecies we know being fulfilled today were only really understood 1000 of years later as being fulfilled. I find that most people, even those who have the gift of "prophecy" really don't have a full knowledge of what it is they're doing until after their work has been completed by God.
The prediction of the future is impossible because of the Uncertainty Principle.
"The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time.
This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things."
Therefore, because we can not predict the position of an electron, we then logically can not predict the future with any precision.
If you don't believe the Bible, you can decide whatever it is you want to believe.
If you do believe the Bible, you can't.
I know the Old Testament prophets were pointing directly at Christ Jesus. There's no argument among Christian scholars about that. Of course non-Christians will disagree and hence we have threads like this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
