Johnny Skeptic

Good.

What do you mean by random? My questions were clear enough that any Christian 16 year old could understand them, and that most Christian 16 year olds would attempt to answer. Why should you address them? Because the more that skeptics know about why you are a Christian, the better they will be able to reply to your posts, and the better you will be able to influence readers who are shopping for a world view, or who are uncertain of the world views that they already have.

May I ask why you make posts at this forum? What are you trying to convince people of who visit this forum?

Toto

Mod note: please stay on topic. This forum is devoted to Biblical Criticism and History. CJD has no obligation to expose his personal life, history, or beliefs.

CJD

Doing the kind of thing that John wants to do is not easy. It requires work. I wonder how much and what he has read on the subject. I don't think he's lazy. I think he's being coy.

Not if the article in question has bearing on his thesis. Why is it that what I'm asking (to simply read an article) is being treated as somehow remarkable?

CJD

John A. Broussard

Agreed.

But can I allow him to call me a lazy ass? I promise I'll turn the other "cheek."

I really don't mind.

And I promise not to impugn his beliefs.

John A. Broussard

Oops! He can call me "coy" if he prefers. I have no objection.

It would be nice if he would deal with the point in the OP that he disagrees with, but since he doesn't have an answer, we'll have to settle for asses and coyness.

Toto

OK, I read the article, at least half way through. I found this quote instructive:
This assumes, er, a lot.

But it is clear that the author of this article is embarrassed by the meretricious televangelist exploitation of concern about the end times: This article tries to save prophecy from being used as a blunt instrument to prove that the Bible is true, since so many prophecies have actually failed if read literally, and an honest examination of that would cast doubt on the Holy Scripture. It therefore does not address the OP except to deflect it.

In short, God is assumed to be omniscient or whatever, and then the facts are artfully massaged to support that preexisting idea. Sometimes it is interesting to see how inventive an apologist can be in constructing the argument, but the argument does not get to the crux of the matter because the apologist cannot challenge those underlying assumptions.

What is there to discuss about this? People who believe in prophecy belong in the same category as people who believe in astrology.

CJD

What he attempts to do is give a more viable rendition (according to the pertinent texts) of how prophetic utterances were understood by the hearers. He is saying that prophetic utterances have been misused by apologists, and, ironically, are the very reason "doubt" is furthered. The very point I have been willing to let this article make is precisely that it does deflect the OP. And it does it rather well, for if we cannot agree on a fundamental level how prophetic utterances were heard and read in their original contexts, then the OP cannot even get off the ground — as far as I am concerned.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with assuming this or that attribute of God. It's a mere postulate upon which the argument doesn't even depend. The author only puts them forward because if he didn't, then he would castigated as denying them (given his understanding of the prophetic literature). Again, his stated presuppositions do not "fix" the argument. They merely serve the purpose of assuring his readers (who are not atheists, mind you) that he too believes that God is sovereign. The argument in no way rests on it, and thus cannot be a result of massaging the facts "to support that preexisting idea."

CJD

John A. Broussard

Hey!!!

Wait one minute. How can you possibly challenge this writer?

I have it on excellent authority that: "The author, who obtained his doctorate at Harvard, and who specialized in the prophetic literature of the TNK, is hardly mistaken on this point."

Shape up, fella. Such hubris! You're just some unknown poetaster posting on the Internet who is not supposed to have any ideas of your own.

An authority has spoken!!

Nothing more need be said.

Johnny Skeptic

No problem. I request that CJD reply to my questions in a new thread that he can start at the GRD, but I suspect that he is not interested in defending his beliefs. If not, that is fine with me.

John A. Broussard

Phew! We're finally down to substance.

Point 4 of the OP. "Prophecies should not be confused with predictions. A prediction, by its very nature, does not claim to be an unfailing forecast of a future event. A prophecy, by its nature, does claim to be unfailing."

If I understand you correctly, prophecies (at least the bible prophecies) had nothing to do with foretelling the future.

That may very well be, but an examination of this section of the forum shows poster after poster who believes--very firmly--that the prophecies do in fact literally foretell the future and, furthermore, they base their belief in god on the inerrancy of the bible and the fulfilment of those prophecies.

So now we have two views of prophecies.

1. Stories detailing some future event which one or more people accept as being inevitable.

2. Stories told for the purpose of making people feel better, and which have been "misused by apologists," presumably those clinging to the #1 view described above.

I, personally, agree that prophecies are never "inevitably" fulfilled. The contrary view, is nonetheless widespread.

I also feel that confusing "predictions" with "prophecies" goes counter to ordinary definitions of either words and in no way helps with understanding either of these human pronouncements.