How do you explain bible prophecies?

by ithinkisee 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Do you think Matthew 24.34 should be considered as one of these unfulfilled prophecies?

  Yes.

  Interestingly the extant Gospel of Matthew preserves three distinct stages of reinterpretation from short term to long range (actually sine die):

  (1) Chapter 10, preaching to the towns of Israel will not be finished before the Son of Man comes (v. 23).

  (2) Chapter 24, preaching as a witness to all the nations occurs before the Son of Man comes in the same generation (v. 14, 34).

  (3) Chapter 28, making disciples of all the nations, Jesus being already with the disciples, until the end comes (v. 18-20).
• 

  Hellrider

  Ok! I always thought it was strange with the "this generation shall not pass" and "the gospel shall be preached to all the nations before.." in the same gospel. But: "preserves three distinct stages of reinterpretation from short term to long range" - I`m not exactly sure what that means. Do you mean that the author messed up, or that it was done with intent, that the author said these two (seemingly) conflicting things/ easliy disproven prophecy, with intent, or that the author expected (and wanted) the "this generation shall not pass" - passage, to be reinterpreted?
• 

  heathen

  Well the WTBTS reinterpreted it . When Mathew was written the apsotles more than likely believed it would be fulfilled in their day , especially when the romans sacked Jerusalem . Once revelation was written I think there is a better look at the events that happen during the end .Of course open to interpretation . I think it could still be interpreted to mean that those alive when the gentile times concluded are the " this generation". However the argument is just when did that happen ?
• 

  Narkissos

  Do you mean that the author messed up, or that it was done with intent, that the author said these two (seemingly) conflicting things/ easliy disproven prophecy, with intent, or that the author expected (and wanted) the "this generation shall not pass" - passage, to be reinterpreted?

  The question is, where is the "author"?

  The Gospels are neither historical accounts nor purely fictional stories made out of thin air. The "author" uses pre-existent material (oral or written) and has to deal (more or less awkwardly) with its inconsistencies.

  The "generation" saying apparently comes from Mark (or an early form of Mark). At first it was probably an anti-Jewish ex eventu "prophecy," meaning that the generation which (supposedly) rejected Jesus would be punished with the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew complicates the matter by linking it to the "end of the age" (v. 3, cf. v. 29, "immediately after") and inserting independent eschatological material (v. 26-28, 37-41, cf. Luke 17:22ff in a different context).

  Matthew 10 also uses Markan and Q (equally Lukan) material but a large part of this passage, including v. 23, is found nowhere else. So the question is: does v. 23 actually belong to an earlier source (Q? there are very good reasons why Luke would have omitted it) limiting the preaching to Israel before the Son of Man (which is not necessarily Jesus) comes? Or does it reflect the same viewpoint as chapter 24, namely that the coming of the Son of Man should immediately follow the fall of Jerusalem? Still, in the latter case, the shift in the preaching scope (from "Israel only" to "all the nations," even though that may mean "to the diaspora Jews, as a witness to the Gentiles") remains a problem.

  Of course 28:18-20 suppresses all the difficulties. As a side remark, the end of a book is the easiest place for anyone (including the so-called "author") to add something plain and simple, without resistance from previous material. Of course this does not suppress the difficulties in the body of the work.
• 

  Hellrider

  Yes, thanks. I understand that passage better now. Although, I think it`s possible that the author of Matthew, although he borrowed this from Mark, may have done this with intent. It can`t just be a failed prophecy, because it was (from what I understand) written after "this generation" (meant literally, as in Jesus` own generation) had died out. The author must have meant it, firstly in relation to the jews being kicked out by the Romans, and then, secondly, maybe that`s a paralell/analogy for the end of the world (it was the end of the jewish world, right there and then, in a way - being kicked out of their homeland - this could possibly be seen as an analogy to the end of the world). That passage isn`t that disturbing to me any more now.

  Heathen:

  When Mathew was written the apsotles more than likely believed it would be fulfilled in their day , especially when the romans sacked Jerusalem

  If they did that, and wrote it down, then the Bible contains a false prophecy. Hence, it could not be inspired?

  I think it could still be interpreted to mean that those alive when the gentile times concluded are the " this generation". However the argument is just when did that happen ?

  What is this "gentile times"-thing anyway? The whole two-and-a-half-thousand years-thing, is based on a faulty and corrupt understanding of the Bible, in which the JWs have applied the "day for a year"-thing to the "7 times", although there are no referances to "a day for a year" in Daniel or Jeremiah at all.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Mulan,

  Why do so many miss this point? We can use them for examples but not future fulfillments. They may help us to understand how things will work out or guide us in some way but that's all we can do with them.

  Joseph
• 

  JosephMalik

  Narkissos,
  I expected this argument about the fall of Jerusalem and the prophecies on this generation to come up. Jesus did prophecy about the fall of literal Jerusalem during His ministry in other texts but there is no reason to take His symbolic use of that city along with the sign of his impending return as the same event.
  
  To prevent this Matthew and Mark worded this prophecy differently by interpreting His words for us instead of quoting them as Luke did. They used Daniels prophecies to move them historically far out in time. This should have prevented such application to 70CE or the merging of other similar texts yet we still see this being done today. To get around the obvious discrepancies that result we see the WT and others using multiple or partial fulfillments to harmonize such errors.
  Joseph
• 

  Hellrider

  JosephMalik:

  They used Daniels prophecies to move them historically far out in time

  Could you explain that a but further? I can`t see where Daniel comes in in this... do you mean something...in connection with the gentile times? And if so, is this term mentioned in the gospels? Where`s the connection with Daniel? Please, I want to know, I`m getting obsessed with this stuff...
• 

  Qcmbr

  Joel - if my memory serves me the southern states did call on Britain for help and we gave them a fair amount since we relied on southern cotten. In the first world war and the second world wars the UK did call on the US to help - good job you came and saved our butts even if you were a little late. I think WW1/2 could fairly be described as war being poured out on all nations...? The prophecy hasn't finished either - these wars and trobles are prophesied to reach a crescendo before the second coming. I think what marks the wars since the American civil war as somewhat unique is the way death has been industrialised with high explosives, machine guns, tanks, bombers etc.. our capacity to exterminate is eye opening.
• 

  M.J.

  The book of Daniel was written in the second century BC (long after Alexander the Great), and Deutero-Isaiah was written by a post-exilic author.

  Leo--is this based solely on the observation of where the prophecies went from accurate to appearing erratic? Or is there other confirming evidence of vaticinium ex eventu in these books?