keyser_soze

That pretty much sums it up.....

Apikorus

CJD, the reason I think that your interpretation is slaved to your confessional stance has more to do with remarks you made in another thread. For example, you wrote, "I am not sure that the bible is 'provably incorrect' on anything." Would you say the same of the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon?

You also commented on how the gospels, the exodus, and the flood narrative read "like historical narratives". The same could be said for the Homeric epics. Indeed we know that there really was a Troy (Schliemann rediscovered it). But what historical value do you assign to The Iliad?

At any rate, your remarks suggested to me that you tend to view the Bible through colored lenses.

CJD

You folks are making this into (yet again) an argument about the "divine inspiration of the bible." I grow increasingly tired of such reversions when all I am looking for is a more plausible explanation/interpretation than the ones I have proffered. Can we not bracket the metaphysical and deal with the text? Is that so hard? This is, after all, the "Biblical criticism and archaeology" forum. I am not so sure discussions about "inspiration" should even be welcome here. Discussions about plausibility, however, are another matter entirely. I hope that was the point I conveyed in the previous thread of which Apikorus wrote. Really, I am concerned with textual criticism and how to interpret the text, and rarely (and I do mean rarely) do I see a learned applied hermeneutic. For example, we should be arguing over the Fall and how it relates to later biblical literature like Job, etc., but instead I am left agape at idiots who think the text promulgates the idea that God is a liar.

Let me spell it out for you, Stephen. If Jeremiah 18:1–10 is paradigmatic regarding the neve'im, then the conditions need not be explicit. If it is not, you must show me—textually—why that is not the case. A simple, "because it doesn't explicitly say so," makes you worse than a Christian fundamentalist, it makes you a fundamentalist-atheist.

If the Tanak still does not make sense to you after you have put the real time into learning what is necessary to engage the text properly, then, honestly, you have nothing to say in matters of biblical criticism. Why waste everybody's time? If I were a lit. crit. scholar whose expertise lay in 17th century religion and literature, especially on Milton, and you proceeded to argue that Milton's intent was to make Satan the hero of Paradise Lost, I would show you a more plausible reading (taking into account grammatico-socio-historical concerns), and leave you with two alternatives: 1) submit or 2) continue reading with your eyes closed. The same should be applied to biblical hermeneutics (those portions that are insufferably obscure notwithstanding). "Inspiration" is not the issue, it's a dodge.

I will not be arguing today for "divine inspiration." Sorry to let you down. To quote Calvin: " . . . they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputations are doing things backwards" (Institutionis, 1.7.4).


Regards,

CJD

p.s. We all bring baggage to the text. But that does not make the text's meaning purely subjective.

wordsmyth

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CJD
You folks are making this into (yet again) an argument about the "divine inspiration of the bible."

So, you are claiming that prophecies have nothing to do with "divine inspiration"? If a prophecy is not divinely inspired, is it really a prophecy or just a guess? According to my biblical quote, which you utterly failed to address, a prophecy that does not come true is not a true prophecy and the one who spoke it must be put to death.

I grow increasingly tired of such reversions when all I am looking for is a more plausible explanation/interpretation than the ones I have proffered.

You haven't proffered anything substantial. All you have really done is spout apologetics rhetoric without any intellectual substance. You utterly failed to address the blatant contradiction between your quote and mine. You also failed to answer a single one of my questions.

Try and read the text and interpret for what it is.

I think what you really mean is "Try and read the text and interpret it the way I do." Sorry, but it would be intellectually dishonest for me to accept your interpretation based solely on your "this what I think it means", explanation.

Can we not bracket the metaphysical and deal with the text?

No, because the text I so generously provided specifically refers to the metaphysical by implying divine inspiration for biblical prophecies... at least for those that come true.

You see, Wordsmyth, according to the text, God has intentions for prophecies.

You see, CJD, your explanation does nothing to explain the contradiction between your quote and mine, which specifically states the cause of a failed prophecy. How many prophets were put to death because God changed his mind and decided not to fulfill a prophecy?

Is that so hard? This is, after all, the "Biblical criticism and archaeology" forum. I am not so sure discussions about "inspiration" should even be welcome here.

You're probably right. I am not so sure discussions about "God" should even be welcome here, either. Inspiration and authorship are integral parts of exegesis for any text, especially those of a dubious nature.

Discussions about plausibility, however, are another matter entirely. I hope that was the point I conveyed in the previous thread of which Apikorus wrote. Really, I am concerned with textual criticism and how to interpret the text, and rarely (and I do mean rarely) do I see a learned applied hermeneutic. For example, we should be arguing over the Fall and how it relates to later biblical literature like Job, etc., but instead I am left agape at idiots who think the text promulgates the idea that God is a liar.

Maybe you missed the title of this thread, but just as a quick reminder its Are these failed prophecies?. You may notice that there isn't any mention of the Fall or how it relates to later biblical literature like Job, so if that is your interest it might be a good idea to begin a new thread where that tangent can be further discussed. However, this thread is about biblical prophecies, so if you wish to be a part of the discussion, try to stay on topic. Thanks.

It is blindingly arrogant for you to assume that I don't understand the text, when you don't even understand my argument. Perhaps you should spend a little more time reading posts and a little less time engaged in mental masturbation while fumbling to respond.

Calzaer

Ok, here's what's gonna happen.

We're going to lock you in a room with Magus55 and Radorth. You three will stay there until one of the following happens:

1) You agree on what True Christians(tm) believe
or
2) Only one of you is still alive

In either case, we'll only have to argue against one set of Bible beliefs, and we'll stop having to shift gears based on which True Christian(tm) we're arguing with at the moment.

How about you convert your own goddamned followers before trying to convert us? Is that so much to ask?

keyser_soze

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wordsmyth

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD You folks are making this into (yet again) an argument about the "divine inspiration of the bible." So, you are claiming that prophecies have nothing to do with "divine inspiration"? If a prophecy is not divinely inspired, is it really a prophecy or just a guess? According to my biblical quote, which you utterly failed to address, a prophecy that does not come true is not a true prophecy and the one who spoke it must be put to death. I grow increasingly tired of such reversions when all I am looking for is a more plausible explanation/interpretation than the ones I have proffered. You haven't proffered anything substantial. All you have really done is spout apologetics rhetoric without any intellectual substance. You utterly failed to address the blatant contradiction between your quote and mine. You also failed to answer a single one of my questions. Try and read the text and interpret for what it is. I think what you really mean is "Try and read the text and interpret it the way I do." Sorry, but it would be intellectually dishonest for me to accept your interpretation based solely on your "this what I think it means", explanation. Can we not bracket the metaphysical and deal with the text? No, because the text I so generously provided specifically refers to the metaphysical by implying divine inspiration for biblical prophecies... at least for those that come true. You see, Wordsmyth, according to the text, God has intentions for prophecies. You see, CJD, your explanation does nothing to explain the contradiction between your quote and mine, which specifically states the cause of a failed prophecy. How many prophets were put to death because God changed his mind and decided not to fulfill a prophecy? Is that so hard? This is, after all, the "Biblical criticism and archaeology" forum. I am not so sure discussions about "inspiration" should even be welcome here. You're probably right. I am not so sure discussions about "God" should even be welcome here, either. Inspiration and authorship are integral parts of exegesis for any text, especially those of a dubious nature. Discussions about plausibility, however, are another matter entirely. I hope that was the point I conveyed in the previous thread of which Apikorus wrote. Really, I am concerned with textual criticism and how to interpret the text, and rarely (and I do mean rarely) do I see a learned applied hermeneutic. For example, we should be arguing over the Fall and how it relates to later biblical literature like Job, etc., but instead I am left agape at idiots who think the text promulgates the idea that God is a liar. Maybe you missed the title of this thread, but just as a quick reminder its Are these failed prophecies?. You may notice that there isn't any mention of the Fall or how it relates to later biblical literature like Job, so if that is your interest it might be a good idea to begin a new thread where that tangent can be further discussed. However, this thread is about biblical prophecies, so if you wish to be a part of the discussion, try to stay on topic. Thanks. It is blindingly arrogant for you to assume that I don't understand the text, when you don't even understand my argument. Perhaps you should spend a little more time reading posts and a little less time engaged in mental masturbation while fumbling to respond.

Did that leave a mark? OUCH.

CJD

I understand the argument and the tensions therein. But I wonder if you understand mine. Your acting as if Deuteronomy 18:19–22 somehow cancels out or contradicts Jeremiah 18:1–10 suggests to me that the only interest or formal knowledge of the Tanak that you have is grasping at apparent contradictions and throwing them into an argument. Remember that I said the Jer. pericope was paradigmatic. It is not the only text regarding this issue. But it is the most explicit and easily understood. Misunderstanding this issue falls at the feet of the one who reads Deuteronomy 18:19–22 without taking into account the massive amount of texts that exfoliate the OT prophecy. You want it to be simple: Deut. says this. Jer. says this. Therefore, a contradiction exists. Real deep.

To begin with, OT predictions generally fall into three categories:

1. Predictions qualified by conditions: while the qualification was communicated in many different ways, I will simply list the passages with the surface grammar of conditional sentences (note that in the Hebrew language, conditional sentences are not marked as they are in English).

—Isaiah 1:19–20; Jeremiah 22:4–5. It is important to see at this point that prophets did not necessarily refer to what the future would be, but what it might be. In other words, they were attempting to illicit certain responses in the community by making their predictions explicitly conditional. The future they spoke of was potential not necessary.

—Isa. 7:9; Jer. 7:5–7. These texts show us that prophets did not always spell out all the possible conditions related to their predictions. In these predictions, only one side is stated. We should be surprised if in other OT predictions not all the conditions are explicitly stated. It is my contention that considering unexpressed conditions is vital to a proper interpretation of OT prophecy.

2. Predictions qualified by assurances: that is, guarantees of different sorts accompanied prophetic oracles. For example, in the book of Jeremiah, the prophet forbade opposed those who hoped for Jerusalem's deliverance from Babylon by stating that YHWH forbade intercession for the city (Jer. 7:15–16). There are others that portray the same qualifications (Jer. 11:11–14; 14:10–12, 15:1).

—Another example of a qualification by assurance comes by Amos' well known formula: "For three sins of [name the country], even four, I will not turn back" (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6). The idea of "turning back" would have been well-known as YHWH's change of divine disposition toward a course of action (Deut 30:3; 2 Chron. 12:12; 30:8; Job 42:10, etc., etc.). Amos' audience would have been pleased to know that YHWH's threat was not empty. On the other hand, the prophet also makes it plain that YHWH would not reverse himself regarding their judgment either (Amos 2:4, 6). See also Isa. 45:23; Jer. 23:20, 30:24; 4:28. Divine oaths also signified qualification by assurance (Amos 4:2; 6:8; 8:7; Isa. 14:24; Jer. 49:13). The point is that these predictions are qualified by an assurance. Why?

The whole point here is twofold regarding OT prophecy: 1) on the one hand, some predictions make plain that their predicted events were inevitable. YHWH would not listen to prayers, violate his oaths, etc. But it is important to keep in mind that these type of predictions are few in number and almost always not very specific about their descriptions of the future. While they assure that some events will happen, they do not guarantee how, to what extent, when, etc., etc. In other words, they are subject to intervening historical contingencies. 2) On the other hand, this class of prophecies indicates that not all predictions shared this heightened certainty. Possibly, YHWH forbade prayers in response to certain oracles precisely because it has the potential of effecting outcomes (cf. Jer. 26:19; Jonah 3:10; Amos 7:1–9).

3. Predictions without qualifications: such are these that do not contain explicit conditions or assurances. It is important to affirm at this point that historical contingencies have bearing on this class of predictions. The story of Jonah is proof enough. He proclaims an unqualified prediction (Jonah 3:4), but YHWH spared the city (3:10). The examples are substantial (2 Chron. 12:5, then see 12:7–8; 2 Kgs 22:16, then 22:18–20; Micah 3:12 (cf. Jer. 26:18), then 2 Kgs 19:20–35). In each of these examples, the predicted future did not take place. What caused these turn of events? Each text explicitly sight human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of Ninevah (Jon. 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chron. 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs. 22:17) and Hezekiah (Jer. 26:19) repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word.

What this indicates is that the fulfillment of at least some unqualified predictions were subject to the contingency of human response. Conditions did not have to be stated explicitly to be operative.

So, then, Deuteronomy 18:22 and the tacit conditions therein?

Is this a straightforward test? Failed predictions mark false prophets? Parsimonious as this interpretation may be, it does not account for the wealth of information gleaned above. Is it therefore unique to the Deuteronomist and contradicted by other biblical traditions? To be sure, many modern Christians take the test as a general rule to which there are few exceptions. Alternatively, though, I would suggest that the primary audience (of Moses' day) realized that unqualified predictions had implied conditions. If this dynamic was indeed well-known, then it need not be repeated explicitly when the criterion of Deuteronomy 18:22 was offered. Thus, this test instructed the Israelites to expect a prediction from a true prophet to come about, unless significant intervening contingencies interrupted. Maybe that is why so many passages highlight historical contingencies that have interrupted many fulfillments? Why were the various authors (mentioned above) so specific in detailing the human responses that curbed the outcome of the predictions? Could it be that by pointing to significant historical contingencies, the Israelites would have no trouble accepting interruped predictions as originating with YHWH?

It should be seen as indisputable that historical contingencies affected the outcomes of unqualified predictions, but did tacit conditions apply only to this last category or did conditions attache to all OT prophecies? The answer, which I offered in a previous post, is found in Jeremiah 18:1–12. In short, Jerusalmites opposed the prophet because they believed divine protection for the holy city was entirely conditional (e.g., Jer. 7:4). But what Jer. 18:1–12 amounts to is a rebuttal of this false security. It stated that all unqualified predictions, even those concerning Jerusalm, operated with implied conditions.

How do I dare suggest that this is paradigmatic? "At some time" (v. 7); and "at some other time" (v. 9), suggest to me that YHWH's words apply to every situation. Secondly, the all-inclusive phrase "any nation or kingdom" (v. 7) also points us in this direction. Thirdly, the oracles described in this pericope are categorically judgment and salvation oracles. At the very least, form critical analysis shows us that all prophetic oracles gravitate in one or both of these directions. The text, then, portrays a God who exercised great latitude because his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event. But there is also a basic pattern at work: the realization of all unqualified predictions were subject to modification as YHWH reacted to his people's responses. In sum, historical contingencies had a bearing on all three major types of predictions I discussed above. In every case, significant responses preceding fulfillments had the potential of effecting to some degree how YHWH would direct the future. I could go on, of course, but I think you get the point. Ripping Deuteronomy 18:22 out of context and slamming it on the table is laughable.

I fear you have misconstrued my arrogant posturing simply because you fail to see the difference between professional study and armchair ignorance.


CJD

CJD

"We should be surprised if in other OT predictions not all the conditions are explicitly stated."

* This, taken from the above post in # 1 should read: "We should not be surprised . . ."


" . . . the prophet forbade opposed those who hoped for Jerusalem's deliverance . . . ."

*This is from #2 above. Just take out the "forbade."

Hope this clears up any confusion and promotes a thought-provoking rebuttal.


Regards,

CJD

wordsmyth

I’m going to begin a bit backwards just to make this clear.

Your degree of study is irrelevant to my reason for calling you arrogant. Your assumption about my degree of study is the primary reason I label you arrogant.

Again, your arrogance shows through with an assumption about my level of knowledge and pompously reinforced with the “formal” qualifier. This appears as if you are more interested in stroking your own ego and witnessing to an over exaggerated sense of self worth than engaging in any real form of discussion.

Do the two passages cancel each other out? No, and I’ve never made that claim nor is my intent to defend that position. Do the two passages contradict each other? Yes, and it doesn’t take any level of formal study above the basic ability to read and comprehend to see the contradiction. That is, provided you don’t begin reading with the zealous conviction that there are no contradictions. Its possible there is a verse somewhere that might clear up this contradiction, but so far, you have not provided it.

It is evident from your posts that you have a tendency to assume; so perhaps your inability to recognize the contradiction is because you began with the assumption that there isn’t one.

You are correct. The contradiction is not deep. It is right on the surface glaring at anyone with the ability to read.

First, lets assume that all we have is Deuteronomy 18:19-22 and Jeremiah 18:1-12 and just forget about everything else. Just for a moment put all other verses out of your mind and assume they don’t exist. Now, is there a contradiction? Once you can recognize and admit there is a contradiction between the two, then we can continue to review other verses that may clear things up.

Deuteronomy explicitly states that if any prophecy fails, it is because it did not come from God and the one who spoke it must be put to death.

Jeremiah states that a prophecy might fail if certain conditions are not met and/or God changes his mind.

These are contradictory because each one gives a different reason for failed prophecies. It is not explained how to tell the difference between a prophecy that fails because it was spoken by a false prophet and one that fails because its conditions were not met. Based on these verses alone, are you able to recognize a contradiction?

Based on Deuteronomy 18:19-22 and Jeremiah 18:1-12 alone, I concede that prophecies can fail under the circumstances described therein. Now, if you can concede that there is a contradiction in the circumstances therein, we can proceed to examine other verses that may clear things up. Otherwise, there isn’t much point in continuing.

If you are able to concede that there is a contradiction between them, then all you need to do now is provide a verse or verses that explain how to tell the difference between a prophecy that fails because it was spoken by a false prophet and one that fails because its conditions were not met.

Although I know you prefer to stay as far away as possible from the metaphysical arguments, I must at least point out that it is senseless for an omniscient being to put conditions on prophecies if he knows those conditions will not be met.

I’m not interested in dissecting the rest of your last response until we can get past the part I’ve outlined above. However, if we are able to continue, I may refer to it later. I am curious about the following, though.

Does this mean NT predictions don’t fall into these same categories or is this your subtle way of telling me you are only willing to defend OT prophecies?

Dargo

I can think of one likely explanation for the contradiction between Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. One of Jeremiah's prophecies failed, and people were wanting to stone him as the law commanded. He said that god's conditions were not met. Jeremy must have been a great salesman to get people to buy this line. Of course, he may have simply been repeating an excuse used by an earlier prophet.