Religious Prophecy

I grew up studying the bible, and was always intensely curious about the book of revelations, and some of the earlier prophecies. Recently, I have noticed a startling trend towards fullfilling some of them. (I promise I am not insane... welll.... ok.. maybe just a little.) After discussing it with people from other faiths, I have found that they have noticed the same from their own relgious texts. I would be interested to know your take on things. (NOTE: I am only referring to religious TEXTS, not doctrine and dogma, which is often completely FUBAR'd

Post reply

4770 views

I grew up studying the bible, and was always intensely curious about the book of revelations, and some of the earlier prophecies. Recently, I have noticed a startling trend towards fullfilling some of them. (I promise I am not insane... welll.... ok.. maybe just a little.) After discussing it with people from other faiths, I have found that they have noticed the same from their own relgious texts. I would be interested to know your take on things. (NOTE: I am only referring to religious TEXTS, not doctrine and dogma, which is often completely FUBAR'd-Religions tend to use the frightening approach, and not treat people as adults.
Karen Armstrong, was a Catholic nun, until she found her religion was so frightening she dropped out of Catholicism and now writes interesting books on human relationships with religion. Years ago she said she preferred Jewish or Muslim services. I don't know if that is still the case. I don't believe the sacred texts can do phophesy.

Post reply

4667 views

I grew up studying the bible, and was always intensely curious about the book of revelations, and some of the earlier prophecies. Recently, I have noticed a startling trend towards fullfilling some of them. (I promise I am not insane... welll.... ok.. maybe just a little.) After discussing it with people from other faiths, I have found that they have noticed the same from their own relgious texts. I would be interested to know your take on things. (NOTE: I am only referring to religious TEXTS, not doctrine and dogma, which is often completely FUBAR'd-You won't like my response. -I've been a student of religions for a long time. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Bible, and the Koran. I've studied Zoroastrianism. I've also read the Sybilline Oracles. I'm also very familiar with as many of the ancient stories of my Nordic ancestors. I am not at all uneducated in the realm of prophetic revelation. -First, The Revelation of John was largely meant to describe the state of Rome. Early Christianity didn't fare too well under Rome, and most early Christians thought that Christ was coming back to save them from Rome. Part of the reason it took 30 some years after his death to write anything down, was that the early fathers thought that his return was very imminent. The same prophecies you're claiming to be true now, were thought to be true then. Here's an exercise on why.-The book of Daniel is considered to have one of the strongest prophecies for Christ. Why? What about Daniel's visions communicates to you "Christ, son of God, saviour of all?" In my early career as doubter, this was the first combination that threw up a red flag. Clearly, prophecy requires correct interpretation. At a bare minimum we know we're dealing with metaphor. However, returning to one of the apostolic fathers:-2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."-So not only is there a correct interpretation, we are also to believe that we are not to innovate on the interpretation. Starting from that point, start searching online, and you see rather quickly that there's alot of exactly this thing going on. -Let us not also forget that Revelation was written during 2nd Temple Jerusalem, which was a highly apocalyptic and pessimistic lot. -So in short; though I used one example in the Book of Daniel, I find no reason to trust prophecy. Ever. Hell, Read Ezekiel and you'll even watch of of God's prophecies NOT come true. (In regards to giving the city of Tyre to Nebuchadnezzar.)-[EDIT]
I forgot to mention, that the book of Revelation was only voted into the Bible by a single vote. It was for exactly the reason that the prophecy was intended to be for Rome as John had interpreted it, and by the time the bible was canonized--Rome WAS the church.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

4672 views

Why wouldn't I like it? You were honest :)-> I've been a student of religions for a long time. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Bible, and the Koran. I've studied Zoroastrianism. I've also read the Sybilline Oracles. I'm also very familiar with as many of the ancient stories of my Nordic ancestors. I am not at all uneducated in the realm of prophetic revelation. 
> 
I spent nearly 15 years studying the Bible, and for the last 5 I have been covering the Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Mythology, and some older Esoteric stuff. Glad to meet someone else that is open enough to remove the blinders and look around :)-> First, The Revelation of John was largely meant to describe the state of Rome. Early Christianity didn't fare too well under Rome, and most early Christians thought that Christ was coming back to save them from Rome. Part of the reason it took 30 some years after his death to write anything down, was that the early fathers thought that his return was very imminent. The same prophecies you're claiming to be true now, were thought to be true then. Here's an exercise on why.
> .....
> 
> 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
> 
> So not only is there a correct interpretation, we are also to believe that we are not to innovate on the interpretation. Starting from that point, start searching online, and you see rather quickly that there's alot of exactly this thing going on. 
>-
The translator's notes on 2 Peter 1:20 :-tn Verse 20 is variously interpreted. There are three key terms here that help decide both the interpretation and the translation. As well, the relation to v. 21 informs the meaning of this verse. (1) The term "comes about" (Î³Î¯Î½ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ [ginetai]) is often translated "is a matter" as in "is a matter of one's own interpretation." But the progressive force for this verb is far more common. (2) The adjective á¼°Î´Î¯Î±Ï (idias) has been understood to mean (a) one's own (i.e., the reader's own), (b) its own (i.e., the particular prophecy's own), or (c) the prophet's own. Catholic scholarship has tended to see the reference to the reader (in the sense that no individual reader can understand scripture, but needs the interpretations handed down by the Church), while older Protestant scholarship has tended to see the reference to the individual passage being prophesied (and hence the Reformation doctrine of analogia fidei [analogy of faith], or scripture interpreting scripture). But neither of these views satisfactorily addresses the relationship of v. 20 to v. 21, nor do they do full justice to the meaning of Î³Î¯Î½ÎµÏÎ±Î¹. (3) The meaning of á¼ÏÎ¯Î»ÏÏÎ¹Ï (epilusi") is difficult to determine, since it is a biblical hapax legomenon. Though it is sometimes used in the sense of interpretation in extra-biblical Greek, this is by no means a necessary sense. The basic idea of the word is unfolding, which can either indicate an explanation or a creation. It sometimes has the force of solution or even spell, both of which meanings could easily accommodate a prophetic utterance of some sort. Further, even the meaning explanation or interpretation easily fits a prophetic utterance, for prophets often, if not usually, explained visions and dreams. There is no instance of this word referring to the interpretation of scripture, however, suggesting that if interpretation is the meaning, it is the prophet's interpretation of his own vision. (4) The Î³Î¬Ï (gar) at the beginning of v. 21 gives the basis for the truth of the proposition in v. 20. The connection that makes the most satisfactory sense is that prophets did not invent their own prophecies (v. 20), for their impulse for prophesying came from God (v. 21).-Making the translation (without the influence of the Catholic Church):
1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize(66) this:(67) No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination,(68) 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men(69) carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.-I am not surprised to see that the Catholic church changed the translation to fit their needs. One of the benefits of getting to read the translators notes from someone who is not employed by the PTB :P

Post reply

4731 views

Why wouldn't I like it? You were honest :)
> -Well... I typically meet resistance when I talk about doubt. -> > I've been a student of religions for a long time. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Bible, and the Koran. I've studied Zoroastrianism. I've also read the Sybilline Oracles. I'm also very familiar with as many of the ancient stories of my Nordic ancestors. I am not at all uneducated in the realm of prophetic revelation. 
> > 
> I spent nearly 15 years studying the Bible, and for the last 5 I have been covering the Bhagavad Gita, Koran, Mythology, and some older Esoteric stuff. Glad to meet someone else that is open enough to remove the blinders and look around :)
> -If I were a religious man in this day and age, I can honestly say the hermetic path would definitely be the one I would take. Have you ever had a pop at Sacred Geometry? Sadly I haven't but I've been using what little I HAVE found in a novel I started on a couple years back. -> > First, The Revelation of John was largely meant to describe the state of Rome. Early Christianity didn't fare too well under Rome, and most early Christians thought that Christ was coming back to save them from Rome. Part of the reason it took 30 some years after his death to write anything down, was that the early fathers thought that his return was very imminent. The same prophecies you're claiming to be true now, were thought to be true then. Here's an exercise on why.
> > .....
> > 
> > 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
> > 
> > So not only is there a correct interpretation, we are also to believe that we are not to innovate on the interpretation. Starting from that point, start searching online, and you see rather quickly that there's alot of exactly this thing going on. 
> >
> 
> -> Making the translation (without the influence of the Catholic Church):
> 1:20 Above all, you do well if you recognize(66) this:(67) No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination,(68) 1:21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men(69) carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
> -The analysis is excellent and well-said; but it doesn't answer my deeper question of how are we to know what is the correct interpretation? Picking on Daniel again, what from the 4 gospels fulfils Daniel's prophecies regarding the "Son of Man?" To me, there simply is too much interpretation going on here. Someone here quoted Thomas Paine recently... something like "Only the person who receives the revelation acquires knowledge... everyone else from the 2nd, 3rd, ... nth telling gets secondhand hearsay." -At any rate, 1:20 and 1:21 together comprise an opposing viewpoint to my own, if for no other reason than the failed prophecy in Ezekiel that I mentioned. "The one true God" wouldn't say he would do something and then not deliver. -Going back to my main point, how are we to trust prophecy when we are so culturally and linguistically distant from the prophet(s) that we cannot begin to comprehend them? Going back to the time before canonization, to the 30yrs after Christ's death, if John thought that his revelation was meant to talk about Rome, than who are we to say that his revelation is for today? Shouldn't John's interpretation supercede ours? -Or what about all the "Fufilled prophecies" marking the "end of days" at AD 1000? Or how about the Mayans stating that the world was going to end in 600AD? (don't get me started on 2012...)-> I am not surprised to see that the Catholic church changed the translation to fit their needs. One of the benefits of getting to read the translators notes from someone who is not employed by the PTB :P-They didn't change the translation--I grabbed that line from the NIV. The interpretation given was my own, and I like yours better. (You said translator's notes, for what edition? There's a big difference between NIV, ASV, and NKJV...) -Whether or not you hate the Catholic Church, I hope you realize that the "Canonization" had really already begun quite some time before Emperor Constantine, and during the time when Revelation was nearly rejected as canon, the church was enemies with the Roman state? (I suggest Constantine's Bible, if you haven't already read it.) Catholics, though having corrupted much leading up to the enlightenment, do have a strong argument in that the four churches of the apostolic fathers are within their fold. The argument for their supremacy came from a Greek tradition of deferring to the masters of (philosophical school "x"). It is argued that correct interpretation belongs to those who have the closest ties to the original author. We can like it or not, but all roads really do lead to Rome if you agree with that sentiment. I'm getting my Master's in computer science, do you trust my word on sociology or football? Or how about if we talk about programming? Do I not have obvious talents that means I should be trusted for one thing and not another?

Post reply

4634 views

Why wouldn't I like it? You were honest :)
> > 
> 
> Well... I typically meet resistance when I talk about doubt. 
> -Resistance is generally part of that arrogance bit I keep harping about. People resist because they think they are right. The beauty of being agnostic is being able to truly and honestly say, "I don't know, and that's OK." Of all the different positions, it is the only one that doesn't presume to possess more certainty then it actually does, leaving the mind open to learning instead of closed to all positions but its own.-> > 
> 
> If I were a religious man in this day and age, I can honestly say the hermetic path would definitely be the one I would take. Have you ever had a pop at Sacred Geometry? Sadly I haven't but I've been using what little I HAVE found in a novel I started on a couple years back. 
> -I well and truly hate the term 'religious'. It carries that negative connotation of organized theology which to me is antithetical to learning and wisdom. If you like esoteric teaching, check out 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' by Manly P. Hall 1928. It is a wonderful encyclopedia of information that, while extremely informative, is not preachy or overly biased.-> > 
> 
> The analysis is excellent and well-said; but it doesn't answer my deeper question of how are we to know what is the correct interpretation? Picking on Daniel again, what from the 4 gospels fulfils Daniel's prophecies regarding the "Son of Man?" To me, there simply is too much interpretation going on here. Someone here quoted Thomas Paine recently... something like "Only the person who receives the revelation acquires knowledge... everyone else from the 2nd, 3rd, ... nth telling gets secondhand hearsay." 
> -Well, I would say the best way to interpret this, unfortunately, is to look at it in hindsight. A possibility now more than it has ever been in history. A really great book on this was Revelation: A Grand Climax produced by the JW's. I didn't 100% agree with their interpretation, but to be fair, they have made revisions as they learn more, so at least they aren't claiming infallible wisdom or knowledge.-> At any rate, 1:20 and 1:21 together comprise an opposing viewpoint to my own, if for no other reason than the failed prophecy in Ezekiel that I mentioned. "The one true God" wouldn't say he would do something and then not deliver. 
> 
Reading over Ezekial again for a refresher... It's been a while-> Going back to my main point, how are we to trust prophecy when we are so culturally and linguistically distant from the prophet(s) that we cannot begin to comprehend them? Going back to the time before canonization, to the 30yrs after Christ's death, if John thought that his revelation was meant to talk about Rome, than who are we to say that his revelation is for today? Shouldn't John's interpretation supercede ours? 
> 
> Or what about all the "Fufilled prophecies" marking the "end of days" at AD 1000? Or how about the Mayans stating that the world was going to end in 600AD? (don't get me started on 2012...)
> 
That would have been an interpretation wouldn't it? Most prophecies are vague by nature. -
> 
> Whether or not you hate the Catholic Church, I hope you realize that the "Canonization" had really already begun quite some time before Emperor Constantine, and during the time when Revelation was nearly rejected as canon, the church was enemies with the Roman state? (I suggest Constantine's Bible, if you haven't already read it.) Catholics, though having corrupted much leading up to the enlightenment, do have a strong argument in that the four churches of the apostolic fathers are within their fold. The argument for their supremacy came from a Greek tradition of deferring to the masters of (philosophical school "x"). It is argued that correct interpretation belongs to those who have the closest ties to the original author. We can like it or not, but all roads really do lead to Rome if you agree with that sentiment. I'm getting my Master's in computer science, do you trust my word on sociology or football? Or how about if we talk about programming? Do I not have obvious talents that means I should be trusted for one thing and not another?-
The problems I have with the Catholic Church are many, but I would not say I hate them. I think pity would be more of an appropriate term. Like I say about science, they have let their arrogance get the best of them, and have forgotten that the very first lesson in the Bible is actually about humility. In fact, nearly every religion has as their first lesson, humility. And, contrary to popular criticism, it is not because they want to subjugate the worshipers (though it may have evolved into that later) but because without humility your mind is closed.-
I use the netbible.org, primarily because as far as I know, it has no direct affiliation with any major religious organization and the translators notes are clear and concise, not only presenting varying viewpoints on a translation, but explaining the linguistic rules constructs used in his own.

Post reply

4782 views

LOL Got mixed up on which prophesy you were referring to, and read Daniel instead of Ezekiel. Found a really good breakdown of Daniel though, and it clearly shows the accuracy in a way that is very hard to deny. -http://www.danielbibleprophecy.org/index.html-He kind of gets off topic from time to time, but the historical accuracy is spot on.

Post reply

4774 views

Balance_Maintained,
> > 
> > If I were a religious man in this day and age, I can honestly say the hermetic path would definitely be the one I would take. Have you ever had a pop at Sacred Geometry? Sadly I haven't but I've been using what little I HAVE found in a novel I started on a couple years back. 
> > 
> 
> I well and truly hate the term 'religious'. It carries that negative connotation of organized theology which to me is antithetical to learning and wisdom. If you like esoteric teaching, check out 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' by Manly P. Hall 1928. It is a wonderful encyclopedia of information that, while extremely informative, is not preachy or overly biased.
> -I think you dislike organized religion a little too much, but that's alright--I've been there. I'm a huge fan of Esoteric thought, and much of the best of it came right around that period of time that the book you mention later. I'm very interested in those that practice altered states of consciousness (w/o drugs or alcohol). -> > > 
> > 
> > The analysis is excellent and well-said; but it doesn't answer my deeper question of how are we to know what is the correct interpretation? Picking on Daniel again, what from the 4 gospels fulfils Daniel's prophecies regarding the "Son of Man?" To me, there simply is too much interpretation going on here. Someone here quoted Thomas Paine recently... something like "Only the person who receives the revelation acquires knowledge... everyone else from the 2nd, 3rd, ... nth telling gets secondhand hearsay." 
> > 
> 
> Well, I would say the best way to interpret this, unfortunately, is to look at it in hindsight. A possibility now more than it has ever been in history. A really great book on this was Revelation: A Grand Climax produced by the JW's. I didn't 100% agree with their interpretation, but to be fair, they have made revisions as they learn more, so at least they aren't claiming infallible wisdom or knowledge.
> -The hindsight thing; that's why I don't trust prophecy. In hindsight we can always bend events to fit the prophecy, like the false Nostradamus here:-http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/nostradamus.htm-> > At any rate, 1:20 and 1:21 together comprise an opposing viewpoint to my own, if for no other reason than the failed prophecy in Ezekiel that I mentioned. "The one true God" wouldn't say he would do something and then not deliver. 
> > 
> Reading over Ezekial again for a refresher... It's been a while
> -Scan for the city "Tyre." In one chapter it is to bloodily fall to Nebuchadnezzar, (God is saying so) and in about 3-4 chapters later Nebuchadnezzar "leaves without his wages." Tyre was successful against the wrath of God!-> > Going back to my main point, how are we to trust prophecy when we are so culturally and linguistically distant from the prophet(s) that we cannot begin to comprehend them? Going back to the time before canonization, to the 30yrs after Christ's death, if John thought that his revelation was meant to talk about Rome, than who are we to say that his revelation is for today? Shouldn't John's interpretation supercede ours? 
> > 
> > Or what about all the "Fufilled prophecies" marking the "end of days" at AD 1000? Or how about the Mayans stating that the world was going to end in 600AD? (don't get me started on 2012...)
> > 
> That would have been an interpretation wouldn't it? Most prophecies are vague by nature. 
> -But again, without access to the "correct" interpretation, how can we even bother? -> 
> 
> The problems I have with the Catholic Church are many, but I would not say I hate them. I think pity would be more of an appropriate term. Like I say about science, they have let their arrogance get the best of them, and have forgotten that the very first lesson in the Bible is actually about humility. In fact, nearly every religion has as their first lesson, humility. And, contrary to popular criticism, it is not because they want to subjugate the worshipers (though it may have evolved into that later) but because without humility your mind is closed.
> -That's kinda what I'm referring to: at this time they were as humble as you could be, because they were fighting for their very existence... only after Constantine, and the tables being turned did things start becoming--I'll go so far as to say "evil." -> 
> I use the netbible.org, primarily because as far as I know, it has no direct affiliation with any major religious organization and the translators notes are clear and concise, not only presenting varying viewpoints on a translation, but explaining the linguistic rules constructs used in his own.-I use www.biblegateway.com for its easy access to multiple translations. It's amazing the difference an edition can make, like comparing Deut 22:28-29 between ASV, NKJV, and NIV, and on, and on... Which interpretation here? One leads to what I would call injustice, another seems reasonable.

Post reply

4707 views

The author of the article I linked makes a really great point on the first page, which is that the correct interpretation, as well as the validity, of a scripture can be made by cross-referencing it to other scriptures which clarify, or blatantly state the solution. So for much of it, it is easy. The second part, after cross-referencing is to see if the pattern fits. In the case of Daniel, it fits perfectly. The bits that are still about the future may seem hard to interpret at first, however, at that point, all one needs to do is pull their nose out of the book and look around for a few minutes and they will begin to get a glimmer.

Post reply

4740 views


> I use www.biblegateway.com for its easy access to multiple translations. It's amazing the difference an edition can make, like comparing Deut 22:28-29 between ASV, NKJV, and NIV, and on, and on... Which interpretation here? One leads to what I would call injustice, another seems reasonable.-That is why I go back to the rabbi's interpretation of the Masoretic text. The KJ version is six times removed from it.

Post reply

4716 views

The first research project to examine effects of the total vaccine load received by children in the 1990s has found autism-like signs and symptoms in infant monkeys vaccinated the same way. The study's principal investigator, Laura Hewitson from the University of Pittsburgh, reports developmental delays, behavior problems and brain changes in macaque monkeys mimic certain neurological abnormalities of autism.-This post has been edited by the site administrators to delete advertisements.

Post reply

4825 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Religious Prophecy (Religion)