Hi to my Forum Friends,
In several discussions on the Religion Forum, a Roman Catholic Friend and I have been having a running dialogue -- on how to have a Biblical dialogue. She believes that just copy/pasting Scripture passages/verses which may, or may not, mention the issue under discussion -- is sufficient proof of her contentions. I have asked her to go a step further and tell me what she truly believes each verse or passage means. In other words, what is the true message God has for us in those passages?
In one of these discussions, an atheist Friend suggests I am just evading the issue by asking my Roman Catholic Friend to interpret and explain what she believes those passages are telling us. She tells me, "Bill, There was no need for interpretation in the verses she gave as examples of her beliefs. I thought you believed in the literal, inerrant Word of God. I guess that only applies in your mind, when you decide its so."
I respond to her:
There is ALWAYS reason to offer valid interpretation and understanding of the Scripture we quote. Any trained monkey can copy/paste verses -- but, it does take some spiritual discernment to understand and explain them. That is what I am asking her to do. She wants me to respond to Scripture passages/verses she has typed by reflex action -- but, she does not want to, or possibly cannot, exert the effort to explain her understanding so that I might respond to that understanding -- and not just to her automatic typing reaction.
That is all I am asking. Seems reasonable to me. Would a scientist submit anything as scientific analysis -- with the only proof being, "I believe it!"?
And, my atheist Friend responds, "Well, Bill, this is where we agree. I can't answer why she believes that the Bible is proof either. What would be required in a scientific analysis of anything would have to be backed up by more than, "the Bible said it, so I believe it." Finally, something we agree on."
Yet, my Friend, there is astounding evidence that the Bible is valid and truly the Written Word of God. The Bible is validated by prophecy. In all the world religions (and I am only including the divine relationship of Christianity in this group of religions for the sake of comparison) the Christian Bible is the only sacred book to offer prophecies. Scientific proof demands that an experiment be repeatable, i.e., no matter how many times it is repeated, it will produce the same result.
Based upon that postulation -- the Bible is scientifically proven to be true and valid. Let me explain:
The Bible Is Validated By Prophecy:
The Bible contains 1,817 individual prophecies -- on 737 separate subjects -- found in 8,352 verses -- 27 percent of the 31,124 verses in the bible. All, except His return, have been fulfilled -- proven by Christian and secular historical evidence.
There are 1,239 prophecies in the Old Testament and 578 prophecies in the New Testament.
There are over 300 prophecies about Jesus Christ --- all except His return and the End Time events have been fulfilled.
In other words, using 1817 experiments (prophecies) -- not one has failed to produce the same result -- fulfillment. Now, let's apply this same test to Jesus Christ as deity, preexisting and eternal, the second Person in the Triune Godhead:
Jesus Is Validated By Prophecy:
Professor of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner (past Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College; past Chairman of the Science Division, Westmont College; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College), had over 600 of his students calculate the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah.
Recommended URL links relating to this:
http://lamblion.com/articles/articles_bible6.php
http://compassioninpolitics.wo...d-biblical-prophecy/
Using only eight prophecies, they estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling eight prophecies was one in 10^17.
That is 1 chance in -- 100,000,000,000,000,000
Let's examine Professor Stoner's scientific/statistical test a bit more:
Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them across the state of Texas. They will cover the entire state of Texas two feet deep. Mark one, only one, of those silver dollars and stir them thoroughly, all over the state.
Blindfold a man and allow him to travel as far as he wishes, in any direction. At some point, he must stop and pick up only one silver dollar -- and have that one be the marked silver dollar. What chance would he have of getting the right one?
He would have the same chance of finding that marked silver dollar -- as the prophets would have had of writing eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one Man -- unless the prophecies were from God.
This only includes eight prophecies about Jesus Christ – 10^17 (One plus seventeen zeroes!)
Look at 48 prophecies, which gives us the incredible number -- 10^157 (One plus one hundred fifty seven zeroes!)
Now, can you imagine the number of zeroes to fulfill 300 prophecies?
The only unfulfilled prophecies are those of His Second Coming, Millennial Kingdom, and Eternity!
Dr. Stoner wrote of this test of prophecies in his book "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible." So, what does the scientific community think of Dr. Stoner's work? The American Scientific Affiliation gave Stoner's work their stamp of approval:
http://www.allaboutthejourney....hecy-about-jesus.htm
The manuscript for "Science Speaks" has been carefully reviewed by a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation members and by the Executive Council of the same group and has been found, in general, to be dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented. The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way. 2
Dr. Stoner's Statistic Classes Proves The Bible:
Excerpt from the book "Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of Prophecy and the Bible": http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.n...ist_of_Prophecy.html
The Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship at Pasadena City College sponsored a class in Christian evidences. One section of the work of this class was to consider the evidence produced by the fulfilled prophecies referring to the first advent of Christ. The students were asked to be very conservative in their probability estimates. They discussed each prophecy at length, bringing out various conditions which might affect the probability of any man fulfilling it.
After discussion, the students agreed unanimously on a definite estimate as being both reasonable and conservative. At the end of the evaluations the students expressed their feelings thus: If any one were able to enter into the discussions and help in placing the estimates, as they had done, that person would certainly agree that the estimates were conservative.
The estimates used in this chapter are a combination of the estimates given by this class on Christian evidences combined with estimates given me later by some twelve different (Statistics) classes of college students (at Westmont College), representing more than 600 students. I have carefully weighed the estimates and have changed some to make them more conservative. If the reader does not agree with the estimates given, he may make his own estimates and then carry them through to their logical conclusions.
This, my Friend, is scientific proof that the Bible is the valid and true Written Word of God. Proof found ONLY in His Written Word, the Bible.
Next, my atheist Friend writes, "However, she is right that the Bible (if it is to be taken as truth) does support her belief in sacred traditions and oral teachings. She presented Scriptures to back up her belief. Now whether you believe her source is entirely up to you. Yet, being a Christian yourself I am surprised that the Bible is not proof enough for you. EVERYBODY knows that there had to be oral teachings around before there was a Bible."
You are addressing two separate issues here: (1) Can we rely upon our Roman Catholic Friend's "Because I believe it" testimony as validation of her absolute adherence to Roman Catholic doctrines? And, (2) Can Bible verses/passages be considered proof of any theology, doctrine, or teaching -- if the one offering them cannot explain what those verses/passages mean? In other words, can we just accept "Because I believe it!" as proof of God's intent when He inspired the writing of the books of the Bible -- or, must we look deeper through prayer, study, and interpretation to learn the message God truly intends for us in His Written Word?
I contend that Scripture verses/passages just tossed out helter-skelter have no meaning if the one sharing them cannot explain their meaning.
Finally, my atheist Friend concludes, "I guess it will just have to come down to whether or not you believe her source. She has told you her beliefs, and backed up her beliefs with bible scriptures she believes supports her beliefs. In other words she has told you what she believes these scriptures mean. So what are you going to do?"
First, I will have to question her source. Is the source proof of her doctrines and theology the Bible? Or, is her source the Vatican?
If the Bible, I absolutely do believe it. However, her contention that, "The Vatican said it, I believe it!" -- and offering the Scripture verses/passages dictated to her by the Vatican as her proof, without personal study, understanding, and interpretation of the Bible to see if those verses/passages actually do teach what the Vatican said -- will not hold water. Too many holes.
Regardless of whether a person is Roman Catholic or Protestant -- merely copy/pasting Scripture verses is not proof of anything. Without spiritual discernment and understanding -- that is nothing more that ink on paper, or in our case, letters on the screen.
There have been folks who have complained that many of my writings are too long. And, they are most often right. But, why do my writings tend to be longer than other folks' posts? Because when I offer verses from God's Word, I also do my best to give you my understanding about what that verse or passage means, what I believe was God's intent when He inspired that writer.
There are basically two approaches to Bible interpretation: exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is studying the Bible, all 66 books, to "pull from it" God's intended meaning or message for us. Through prayer, study, and being open to the Word of God, we are led to an understanding of the Scripture text, including an understanding of whether this passage was meant to be read literally or was meant to give us a symbolic or metaphorical lesson.
Eisegesis is the practice of deciding beforehand what you want that Scripture passage to tell you -- and then reading that meaning into the passage. This is done to support a chosen theology, agenda, or teaching which was not necessarily God's intent. A very good example is the Roman Catholic church's attempt to read the Lord's Supper into John chapter 6.
John 6 is Jesus, shortly after feeding the 5000+ on the eastern banks of the Sea of Galilee with only two fish and five loaves of bread, teaching this same crowd which has followed Him to Capernaum. In this teaching, He takes them back to God feeding the Israelites in the wilderness "manna from heaven" to sustain their physical bodies. And, He relates this to His providing physical food for the 5000+ hungry people who were listening to his message the day before.
Then, He relates the manna sent from heaven to sustain their "physical health" -- with His being sent from heaven to offer people "spiritual health." Manna was physical food; He is spiritual food.
This was His message in John 6 -- and we find, in John 13 and in related Synoptic Gospels, He institutes the Lord's Supper, i.e., Communion. To the best of my knowledge, the time between these two events was close to two years. He waits until just before He is to be crucified -- and, at that Passover meal in the Upper Room -- He explains the Lord's Supper and tells us to do this "in remembrance of Him" (Luke 22:19). We are to do this until He returns.
Although John 6 has similar wording, i.e., comparing the bread and fish He had fed them the previous day on the eastern banks of the Sea of Galilee with His body and blood He would later give for our atonement -- He clearly showed that He was speaking of spiritual food:
John 6:49-51, "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. (50) This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. (51) I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
Spiritual bread to give us spiritual life. But, the Roman Catholic church insists that John 6 is teaching about the Eucharist, transubstantiation, the Communion elements actually becoming the true body and blood of Christ, which is to be eaten and drank at mass. Why do they lay all their cards on John 6? Because it mentions His body and blood.
But, John 6 takes place in a different scenario, in a different context, and in a much earlier time. Not until John 13 does He institute the Lord's Supper -- and, as we see in Luke 22:19, He teaches this to be a symbolic practice to be done "in remembrance of Him" until He returns. In the Lord's Supper, we receive Him spiritually, we remember and are blessed by what He did on the cross for us. And, we recommit ourselves to following and serving Him faithfully.
This misreading of John 6 is a perfect example of Eisegesis, reading into a Scripture passage what you have already predetermined you want it to say.
And, this is why I have asked my Roman Catholic Friend to use her own spiritual discernment, pray, read, and study the Scripture verses/passages she is offering as proof text -- and see if what she is proffering is Vatican teaching -- or God's teaching.
My Friends, I apologize for this being so long. But, I do not apologize for attempting to offer you my full understanding of our dialogue, or my best understanding of God's Word.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
