Did the Bible really predict or say anything of substance?

by moshe 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Rapunzel
    Rapunzel

    Passages such as Isaiah 52:13 - 53:18 have traditionally been misinterpreted by Christians. The passage in question from Isaiah does not refer to the messiah at all; it refers explicitly to the people of Israel. In Isaiah 41:8 and 49:3, the prophet unequivocally identifies "my servant" as Israel. In Isaiah 49:3, the prophet writes - "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified. How much cleared can it be?

    The answer to the question posed in this thread's titleis - "No, the Bible never predicted anything of substance." Isaiah and the other prophets were not seers gazing into a magical crystal ball. They were absolutely unconcerned with people living in future generations and eras. The prophets were addressing people living in their own time.

    To return to the Isaiah passage in qustion, there is not the slightest indication -or hint,or suggestion - whatsoever that the author is speaking of a future messiah. To begin with,the term messiah does not even appear once in the text. Nowhere in the book of Isaiah does the word messiah even appear!

    Secondly, the sufferings of this "servant" are said to be in the past; they are narrated in the past tense, not the future tense. Why wold the author employ the past tense to describe a future event

    It is extremely significant that no Jewish interpreter ever thought that this particular passage in Isaiah was indicating what the awaited Messiah would be like, or what the expected Messiah would do. Nowhere in Jewish exegesis is this passage understood as relating at all to the Messiah.

    This passage - as it is interpreted by Christians - is an exemplar, a prime example, of how some Christians [by no means all] distort, warp and pervert the Jewish scriptures due to their biased beliefs about sin, punishment and redemption. Some Christians start off with twisted notions of sin, sacrifice, and redemption. They, then, "scrounge around" in the Jewish scrptures, and upon finding passages like the one in Isaiah, they wrench them out of context. They "retrofit" Jewish scriptures to suit their biased perspective.

    But to reiterate, in Isaiah 41:8 and Isaiah 49:3, the text explicitly states the "suffering servant" is Israel itself, specifically Israel brought into Babylonian exile. No Jewish interpreter prior to the Christian era would have possibly construed this passage as pertaining to the Messiah. From the very beginning,certain Christian commentators - with their type/antitype/prototype nonsense - have allowed their prejudices and biases to run wild, thus warping their comprehension of the Jewish scriptures.

    The Jewish scriptures, and the Christian scriptures, were written by - and addressed to - people living a long time ago. There is no prophecy in the Bible at all. In fact, all of the "prophecy" recorded in the Bible was written after the described events took place.

  • inkling
    inkling
    Christ is supposed to appear like LIGHTENING!! That means a bright flash from coast to coast but for a short time!!! How is that fulfilled.

    JCannon's self-admittedly questionable mental health aside, I feel I should point out that
    when Jesus said he would appear like lightning, and in the clouds, and every eye would see
    him he was working under the mistaken assumption that the world was FLAT. If he appeared
    in the sky bright enough and high enough, it made sense to them that the whole world would
    see him at the same time.

    [inkling]

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Rapunzel, it isn't prophetic the way you interpret it.

    There is no prophecy in the Bible at all. In fact, all of the "prophecy" recorded in the Bible was written after the described events took place.

    Well, with that mindset, you'd pretty much have to interpret it the way you did, wouldn't you? You start with the premise and fit the text to it.

    Between your own interpretation and 2000 years of Christian interpretation, I will choose the latter.

    Cheers,

    Burn

  • DoomVoyager
    DoomVoyager

    The current "christian" interpretation of Bible prophecy has nothing to do with any "christian" interpretation before it. Each generation has taken, for example, the book of Revelation, and applied the wild beasts and such to the people of their day. So you're basing your view on 2000 years of disagreements.

  • Blueblades
    Blueblades

    The Bible has been misquoted, scribes, scholars and translators have written and re-written the thousands of manuscripts.

    The King James Bible was based on corrupted and inferior manuscripts that in many cases do not accurately represent the meaning of the original text.

    The favorite Bible story of Jesus forgiving the woman caught in adultery ( John 8: 3-11 ) doesn't belong in the Bible.

    Scribal errors were so common in antiquity that the author of the Book of Revelation threatened damanation to anyone who "adds to" or "takes away" words from the text.

    Did the Bible really predict or say anything of substance. Predict-no. Substance - yes. Love has substance.

    Blueblades

  • inkling
    inkling
    Well, with that mindset, you'd pretty much have to interpret it the way you did, wouldn't you? You start with the premise and fit the text to it.

    Ok, I understand your point. However, we are choosing between these two beliefs, i.e.

    1) The prophecies of the bible were written after the fact
    2) The prophecies of the bible were written before the fact

    (or, conversely between Jesus' life/death fulfilling obscure OT
    texts, and the belief that his story was witten to fit retroactivly)

    One of these is a "natural" occurrence (within basic laws of nature)
    while the other is supernatural.

    The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the seemingly most likely explanation
    (that they were written after) does in fact NOT explain the evidence that we have
    before us. Historians have a model of what happened, and their model requires
    no supernatural forces.

    I agree that technically both scenarios are POSSIBLE, but It seems to me that the
    all-natural one is much more likely, given the things we know about the way the
    universe works.

    So then I ask you, what evidence does the secular model NOT account for?
    If it explains everything we have before us, why posit something else?

    What is there about the writings we have today to indicate to you, personally,
    that is NECESSARY, logically, to date them before the events prophecied within?

    [inkling]

  • Rapunzel
    Rapunzel

    Dear BTS - I notice that you quite conveniently "side step" all of the points that I brought up in regard to the Isaiah passage in question; you focus solely on my concluding statement. Of course, it is your perogative to do so. Just the same, I would gladly "stand corrected" if you [or anyone else, for that matter] could show me where I am wrong. For example:

    1.) Could you [or anyone else] please show me only one single instance, in the entire book of Isaiah, where the author uses the term messiah? After all, it is a Hebrew word whose Greek equivalent is christos. It seems to me that if the author recording the book of Isaiah had intended his [or her?] portrait of the "suffering servant" to refer to the messiah, then surely he/she would have explicitly come out and said it forthright. I mean, after all, why be so coy about? As a follower of God, and concerned about the welfare of the Jewish people, surely the prophet would have sought to aid the people in recognizing the Messiah who would come - what? - some five hundred years later. Surely, the prophet would have realized that social conditions would drastically change with the passing of a half millenium [after all, he/she was a prophet]. Therefore, the prophet could surely apprehend the utter importance of the people being able to recognize the Messiah when he came onto the scene.

    Or am I mistaken? Does the word, messiah, indeed appear in the book of Isaiah? The book of Isaiah is certainly one of the longest in the Jewish bible. Isaiah has long been recognized as one of the major prophets. Does not the term "messiah" appear in Isaiah? If not, why not?

    2.) And can anyone explain why the prophet explicitly identifies the "suffering servant" with Israel earlier in the text, on at least two occasions? Why would the prophet explicitly state that the suffering servant was Israel, and then pull the old "switcher-roo" by ever so slyly implying that this self-same suffering servant could now symbolize the Messiah? Why "switch horses in midstream" as it were? Did the prophet get "new light" on the matter?

    And why would the prophet offer a portrait of the messiah that was so contrary to the expectations of the Jewish people. The Israelites decidedly did NOT exect their messiah to be "suffering" or a "servant." They were expecting a mighty warrior/king who would deliver them from Babylonian [and then later] Roman bondage. If the prophet had realized that the messiah would not arrive in the form that the Jews were expecting him to arrive, woould it not only have been fair for the prophet to offer a warning to the Jews, so that they would be prepared?

    3.) And finally, can BTS [or anyone] explain the prophet's usage of the past tense in describing the servant's suffering? Why use the past tense to describe future events? Could this not be construed as an attempt to confuse matters and obstuct comprehension? Why not use the future tense to narrate future events?

    Again, as I said, I will gladly stand corrected, if someone can show me/explain to me where I am wrong. I'm just asking for honest dialogue. My questions are simple enough, I believe. Does anybody care to offer a response?

  • Rapunzel
    Rapunzel

    It has been hours since I posted [and reposted] my three simple questions. I am not expecting people to agree with me. However, I would appreciate people's responding. For example, in regard to my first question, someone could verify whether I am correct or incorrect by simply consulting a Bible concordance. Doing so would show if the word messiah even appears in the book of Isaiah.

  • sinis
    sinis

    Are you an ethnic Jew?

    May I ask you what you believe?

    No- unless you could go back far enough to consider my semitic dna. Time for you, BTS to do some research on your own as to what Jews believe and what religious label they might accept for themselves.

    Semitic or simian? j/k

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Rapunzel,

    Mashiach does appear once (45:1)... about Cyrus.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit