Size Doesn't Matter but a FALSE PREMISE does!

by Terry 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  

  Edward Bishop Elliot, Anglican theologian and scholar, began a massive undertaking in 1837.

  By the time he finished his two-thousand five hundred page book, Hours with the Apocalypse, he may as well have created a highly-contagious virus in a test tube!

  His book contained 10,000 modern and ancient references toward developing a prophetic School of Interpretation.

  This tome became the masterwork foundation for any who dared diddle in bible prophecy for decades to come. It is the most elaborate and exhaustive work on the apocalypse ever created.

  William Miller and Barbour dipped into it time and again for date-setting speculation with seemingly ironclad method-to-the-madness.

  Before Elliot, others had trod the same turf building arguments and castles in the sky all the way back to Sir Isaac Newton's own secret Arian writings,

  which if discovered, would have violated the Blasphemy Act of 1697.

  Elliot identified the year 1865 as the signficant year of prophecy and he was wrong.

  When it comes to giant books dissecting prophecy written by learned scholars, size does not seem to matter!

  The single thing all such false prophets have in common is a core belief that the BIBLE contains DIVINELY INSPIRED data.

  You'd think somebody would blink on the subject of inerrancy by now. But, nooooooo.
  
  http://www.historicism.com/Elliott/v4p6contents.htm
• 

  prologos

  Terry, this is exellent stuff, particularly your reference to Newton in conflict with the authorities with his secret religious writings, although he used the " JVH" name as one of his nom de guerre.

  keep us informed.
• 

  HarryMac

  Hi Terry,

  a). You got me to look at this page using double meaning... naughty.

  b). This photograph is a fraud... where'd he get that iPhone?
• 

  Perry

  The single thing all such false prophets have in common is a core belief that the BIBLE contains DIVINELY INSPIRED data.

  The bible contains many fulfilled prophecies that would have been unable to be orchrastrated by man, thus leading many to ascribe divine authorship. All false prophets eat food, but that does not in anyway imply that eating food causes you to prophesy falsely.

  A much more common belief about false prophets is their seeming unaminity in believing that their "expertise" ALONE is needed to interpret what God has said.

  Remember how Russell came to believe that his writings were necessary for a person to "properly" understand the bible? That's why he encouraged the idea that HE was THE Faithful and Wise Servant.
• 

  cognisonance

  The bible contains many fulfilled prophecies that would have been unable to be orchrastrated by man, thus leading many to ascribe divine authorship.

  Hmm... That article tries to show probabilities for these "prophecies" to come true on their own. It says thare are calculated as follows:

  *The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:

  • Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
  • Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
  • Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.

  Why the appeal to annoymous authority? Which "secular scientists?" And how could one apply science to bible prophecy? I really doubt these people are scientists, following the scientific method (you know observations, hypothesis/predictions, peer review journals, etc.).
• 

  Terry

  Perry: The bible contains many fulfilled prophecies that would have been unable to be orchrastrated by man

  Perry, good to see you. Where have you been?

  Here is the thing to consider about prophecy and fulfillment. For it to be legitimate, we must know definitely at least one fact.

  Was the "prophecy" written BEFORE or AFTER the event described.

  Fundamentalists (and I'm sure you've met one or two) will only read and accept corroboration from theologians who accept BEFORE dates.

  An honest consideration has to take into account what the entire and majority community of scholars have to say.

  E.B.Elliott wasted years and years of his life on prophetic speculations that, in the end, really stumbled quite a few people such as Miller.

  And Miller, in turn, although an honest and misled man, stumbled thousands of other people.

  Those other people stumbled and misled thousands of others.....

  Until we get to ME. I too wasted...literally wasted the first third of my life on what amounts to speculative nonsense.

  Isn't that worth a deep thought?
• 

  Perry

  Perry, good to see you. Where have you been?

  I have been busy growing my business, bank account, ministry, children etc. God is good.

  Was the "prophecy" written BEFORE or AFTER the event described.

  So, what would constitute "enough proof" for you that a prophecy was written BEFORE its fulfillment?
• 

  Terry

  Perry, So, what would constitute "enough proof" for you that a prophecy was written BEFORE its fulfillment?

  The consensus of scholars would be evidence.

  I'd check what other disconfirmation or alternate views are, too and see what the evidence was for that.

  I'll ask you one, Perry. Do you accept the preponderance of evidence on Evolution and Global warming?

  If not, why not?

  Thanks!
• 

  Perry

  The consensus of scholars would be evidence.

  I agree that is important. But, here's a couple links on the vulnerabilities of "science" that is important to keep in mind.

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/my-scientists-made-me-shrink-your-car/

  http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23246
• 

  Terry

  Perry, I really want to know what you think. Do you accept the preponderance of evidence on Evolution and Global warming?

  If not, why not?