Bob K

Problem: The gods ought to have inspired/supervised the writing of, and translations of, holy books, so that all people in all generations could read and understand without needing scholars or priests to interpret the words and their meanings presented in holy books.

Here are my standards for the analysis, evaluation and judging of holy books:

<a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html</a>

Without standards for analyzing/evaluating/judging [A/E/J or a/e/j] people/things/events [P/T/E or p/t/e], anything goes, emotionalism reigns: if it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false; if it is wanted, it must be true/if it is not wanted, it must be false; etc.
Here is a list of standards for  the analysis, evaluation and judgment of holy books:

1. The gods, if they exist, must be subject to the same laws of logic as are men.

2. Holy books not only in their original form but all copies and translations must be inspired, written, guided, etc. by gods, not written by men.
Eyewitness books/reports ought to be separate from holy books, clearly marked, and their authors clearly biographed.

As men write, we might expect them to make mistakes; but when the gods inspire/write/etc., we should be able to expect that they should not make any mistakes.

3. The presence of contradictions of any kind in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Contradictions shall include (1) differences of temporal sequences; (2) exclusions/inclusions wherein details excluded in one story or account are included in another story/account, and vice versa.

Holy books should not contain multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints and in the same locations. Multiple stories are unnecessary; one story should be sufficient to give all the details which are true.

The presence of multiple stories containing contradictions concerning the details of the same p/t/e's existing/happening at the same timepoints and location logically means (A) one story is true and (B) all others are false or all stories are false, because all (C) stories which contain conflicting/contradictory details could not possibly be true. Thus, the presence of conflicting/contradictory multiple stories shall be proof/evidence that they were written by men and not inspired by gods.

4. The presence of historical inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

5. The presence of archaeological inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

6.  The presence of hypocrisy by the gods in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Hypocrisy shall be (A) saying one thing [setting standards/guidelines/commandments/etc.] and doing another or (B) doing one thing in one situation and something else in other similar situations.
Gods should be logical and free of hypocrisy. They should be consistent in all that they say and do. Inconsistencies shall be clear and obvious evidence of the hypocrisy of the gods, or else that the stories/accounts in which inconsistencies of the gods are presented are written by men and not inspired by gods.

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

Bob K

Mtt 16:28 [KJV] Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mtt 17:1-2 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun and his raimant was white as the light.

Similar accounts are found in Mrk 9: 1-3, and in Lk 9:27-29.

One key wording herein is "some standing here" which allows for the interpretation that there shall be not all but only a few, "some standing here," who shall see J as J predicted.

Thus, we have a prediction and a fulfillment, though the fulfillment is limited to a few privileged individuals.

But now cometh more confusions:

Mrk 13: 1-4 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And as he [Jesus] sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? ... 30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Similar accounts appear in Mtt 24: 1-34, as discussed in this Topic, and in Lk 21:5-32.

Now we have a clear and obvious timeline, that within a generation would be the signs and the coming of J.

Further, there is the implication that the signs and the coming will not be limited to a few, to "some standing here," but shall be seen and experienced by all the remaining living of the then current generation.

When we see the fact that the timeline herein sets the prediction and, not having seen it occur in any clear and obvious way, we are justified in claiming that this J prophesy was a false prophesy.

Xns claim that the prophesy did happen, that J did show up in his kingdom, but in a spiritual sense, and not in a physical sense.

Not acceptable. J did not specify a spiritual happening, but, instead, specified a physical happening, the darkening of the Sun, and the Moon, and stars falling, etc., and, with the known and predictable eclipses of the Sun and the Moon not being fulfillments, this has not happened.

The J predictions of socio-political happenings, such as nations fighting with nations, kingdoms with kingdoms, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, etc., are too vague, too general, to be credible, simply because such have occurred and continue to occur regularly throughout history, and could be predicted by any prophet with little chance of non-fulfillment.

All-in-all, these passages present confused messes which should not be present in holy books inspired/guided/supervised/etc. by gods.

If you were a god, would you permit such confusions to be written about you? Would you not make an effort to inspire/guide/supervise/etc. not only the original writings but also all translations to ensure that your word was not distorted?

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

NOGO

I have a problem with this if "coming in his kingdon" is interpreted to be the transfiguration.

If he had said that
some standing here will soon see the Son of man coming in his kingdom
... then fine.

But the way it is stated it implies that most will die first before they get to see it and even those who get to see it... will only see a preview and not be the real thing, so that they too will have to die first. However in many places in the NT it is clear that Christians, like Paul, expected to be alive when it happened.

R.J.

If you want to directly access the URL links, go to the archive:

< http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.c...&f=51&t=000789 >