The following conversation (Facebook, on or about 21 August 2012) shows an amazing display of irrational belief from the original poster. Note the many attempts to elicit evidence from the OP, as well as the attempts to get him to acknowledge the incorrigibility of his own position.
Original Poster (OP): THE ENEMY SEEKS TO BOX ISRAEL IN FROM ALL SIDES. BUT WHAT THEY HAVE NEGLECTED TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT ISRAEL HAS A MIGHTY ALLY FROM ABOVE. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=281973
Jack: How do you know that God will fight for Israel? Last I checked, he smashed Israel in a wilting judgment in 66- 70 AD, did away with the priesthood, the sacrifices, the Temple, the Law of Moses, and the genealogy, with no promise ever to crank it up again. The modern state of Israel is a creation of the Rothschilds and shows absolutely none of the signs of God’s support that were manifest with the original state. Nor does it even remotely practice the Law of Moses.
So how do you support this idea that God is an ally of Israel in 2012?
OP: Ezekiel 38:16.
Jack: ====Ezekiel 38:16 You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.====
I’m just not seeing a proof of your point in this passage. Ironically, the passage tends to suggest the OPPOSITE of your model in one regard. Indeed, you wrote:
====THE ENEMY SEEKS TO BOX ISRAEL IN FROM ALL SIDES. BUT WHAT THEY HAVE NEGLECTED TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT ISRAEL HAS A MIGHTY ALLY FROM ABOVE====
But in the passage you cite as support, God is telling Gog that God himself will incite Gog’s attack against Israel. You have it different, however, with God being the defender of Israel, and not the reason for the attack against it. How do you explain this?
OP: I believe the Bible itself can explain it better than I can. The LORD will often have many reasons or purposes in which we do not see or understand by allowing such events to take place. Personally, I believe the Ezekiel War will be the beginning of the final seven-years taking Israel and the nations into the Great Tribulation.
Jack: ====I believe the Bible itself can explain it better than I can.====
OK, that could work, but you’re not showing me WHERE the Bible purports to explain Israel’s current predicament. You appeal to the Bible, but it doesn’t come to your re
scue here. And once again, you fail to respond to the very specific criticism I made as to your use of the passage in question. It does indeed contradict the model you attempt to support with it, yet you seem completely unconcerned with that fact. And now you appeal to “the Bible” in general as some nebulous reference by which I’m supposed to be convinced that you are right. If your SPECIFIC citations don’t get the job done, it is very hard to imagine how a GENERAL reference to 66 collected documents is going to make a better case. You’re either saying, “it’s in there somewhere” or “well, it’s not on this map, but you can’t miss it.” Both are troubling positions from which to base an interpretive position on prophecy–and especially when you have deliberately opted to dispense with a careful analysis of any historical events between then and now that may have fulfilled the prophecies.
What I don’t get is why you offer prooftexts in the first place. On the one hand, it suggests that you believe that the actual events fulfilling the prophecies are supposed to correlate strictly to the prophecies themselves. Yet when contradictions arise between your interpretive models and the passages you use to justify them, you seem completely unfazed, as if it’s not really a matter or prooftexting after all, but of a mere predetermined conclusion. So why not just dispense with the citation of scripture and declare that, “I believe that _______ is going to happen soon”? As it is, however, you wrestle passages of prophecy not only from their natural context, but you also insist on a model in which certain PARTS of those prophecies are either ignored or even contradicted. I just don’t get that.
OP: The best way to “get it” is to read the Bible itself, asking the Holy Spirit to give you understanding of what is meant. Perhaps, you may have a different understanding but that’s okay. Go with what you believe the LORD has taught. That’s what I do. In the end, the LORD will perform these things in the way that His prophets foretold them regardless of what you or I believe.
Jack: Can the Holy Spirit be relied upon to give the same answers to all who seek to know? Further, how does one distinguish between the Holy Spirit and his own error-prone reasoning, biases, and imagination? In other words, how is one to be certain whether the “answer” he perceives is coming from the Spirit or from some lesser source?
With this idea of Spirit-inspired understanding, do the actual words in the text then come to nothing? Does the Spirit-inspired understanding trump the texts? Does it ever contradict what is in the texts? Does it ever ignore what is in the texts? Is the Holy Spirit’s answer ever irrational? That is, does it ever fail to jibe with reality?
You say: ” The best way to “get it” is to read the Bible itself, asking the Holy Spirit to give you understanding of what is meant.” But when push comes to shove, you seem to default not to the actual WORDS in the texts, but to your “understanding of what is meant”.
So who is the referee of your interpretations here? If you have the power to trump the actual words in the text in favor of some other model of interpretation, and if the Holy Spirit guides you in this, who can judge if you are wrong? Yet some other guy is reading these same texts, praying for understanding, and coming up with different answers from yours.
How do you explain all this?
OP: Good question. Ask Him.
Jack: That’s quite a dodge. You have a system of interpretation that cannot be replicated reliably. Yet you have a fixed and finite set of documents. The documents say what they say and no more. Your system could not be used to the same ends if you relied only on the texts, for then the whole matter of interpretation would become an evidentiary matter, based upon the content and logical argumentation therefrom. But your system trumps all that by appealing to the Spirit, even though no proof can be offered that what one actually gets from it is inspired of the Spirit or not.
You will likely see this as a challenge against Christianity, but I see it as an impetus for the Christian to look DEEPER in order to better understand his own religion. You, on the other hand, seem content to chalk it up to mystery and to leave it forever unexamined. And in the mean time, of course, you proceed to issue forth predictions for which not even your own selected prooftexts bear sound witness. That is a curious undertaking indeed.
I would hope that you would be significantly troubled to be set out upon a course where you must leave so many reasonable questions unanswered in defense of it. (You do this regularly in our conversations, failing to answer.) But I fear that this is what you call “faith”, and what you defend, therefore, as a worthy practice. I see it, however, as mere imagination and presumption.
Indeed, even if I were to “Ask Him”, as you suggest, surely you do not believe that he would make a personal appearance or send me an angel with the answer. Thus have you, too, been forced to IMAGINE what answer you are getting, and without any guarantee that your imagination is accurate to the facts. Indeed, if faith+asking is not a guarantee that one will be granted the proper interpretation, then there’s a real problem here.
And what I’m pointing out to you here is that the texts you cite do NOT match your own prophetic understandings of the texts themselves. This is why I asked why you cite scripture at all. Why not just say, “The Spirit leads me to understand that ________ is happening.” and then be done with it?
Or if you insist on citing scripture, why not be more careful to pick passages that do not contradict your predetermined conclusions?
We have quite a different hermeneutic. Amongst other things, I aspire to correct and to improve my understanding of the scriptures when a contradiction becomes apparent between the texts and my understanding thereof. You, however, do not seem concerned with self correction, but forge ahead in utter self assurance that you could not possibly be wrong and that the Spirit himself testifies as to such. This system of belief is easily undermined by an honest answer to one simple question: Have you ever been wrong before about an interpretation of prophecy? If the answer is “yes”, then something is wrong with your system of interpretation. And the list of possible suspects is short:
1. The Holy Spirit misguides you.
2. The scriptures are misguide you.
3. You misguide yourself, being mistaken as the source of your conclusions.The first two are very troubling possibilities indeed. The third, however, is quite easy to believe and to understand. Further, it does nothing to challenge the very foundations of the religion, as would the first two. But even so, you seem closed to the possibility that you might be wrong about something and that your conclusions are not coming directly from the Holy Spirit—even when they contradict the very documents that you will claim were PENNED by that same Spirit.
I ask that if I am wrong, someone prove it to me, but you ignore evidences that contradict your position as if they were never brought to light in the first place and are not even worthy of an answer. That is quite a different way of dealing with the scriptures, indeed.
Poster 3: It is called FAITH!
Jack: But faith in WHAT? Faith in what we IMAGINE the scriptures to mean? Or faith in what they actually say? Having the documents is a really big problem for those who like to draw casual conclusions about the prophecies, because if the scriptures don’t match up to their conclusions, then they have some explaining to do. Forging ahead in light of the contradiction is not what I think Abraham would have called “faith”. Either the scriptures are inspired or they are not. If they are, how can any modern-day inspiration of the same Spirit that inspired the scriptures now disagree with what he previously had penned?
This is a real and palpable issue, and not just some clever question for bantering about on the Internet. Either the scriptures mean something EXACTLY, or all bets are off and any passage can be interpreted to mean any ol’ thing we like and nobody has any clue about the original intent of the authors. So you either have to throw out the entire Bible or what you believe has to agree exactly with what is written. I don’t see any room for middle ground here, because once you open the door to disagreeing with SOME of it, who could possibly know where to draw the line?
I believe that faith used to be a rational exercise (that is, based in reality). I believe that Abraham “went” because God actually told him to go, and not because he just took a notion one day to set out on a journey and to unilaterally declare that it was God’s will for him to do so. So for Abraham to believe in God was quite a rational affair, and no mere whim. These forays into prophetic interpretation, however, are not like Abraham’s experience at all. God is not calling for such an interpretation of these prophecies. He has sent neither prophet nor angel nor apostle to declare that the current events in Israel are the fulfillment of the particular prophecies in question.
How, then, shall we arbitrarily pick an event and a passage and then insist that they go together when we are not told so? That is not “faith”, but presumption. God did not tell anybody that these events and that passage go together, and if he did, that fact alone would be the biggest news in a couple thousand years.
If this system of reading/praying is a proper and reliable way of interpreting the prophecies in scripture, then I’d say it’s a very pertinent question to ask why not all such reader/prayers agree in their conclusions. Obviously, in this present discussion, FAR more emphasis is put on the prayer (and the presumed revelation therefrom) than on the actual content of the scriptures, for nobody wants to discuss the latter. Therefore, it is presumed that if only I would go pray, I’d come up with the same interpretation. But I do NOT come up with the same interpretation, and the answer is “Ask Him”. This reveals the fallacy in the program.
It is therefore deemed worthy of consideration that *I* am wrong (and need to go asking God further), but there is not a hint that Bill considers that *he* might be wrong—and not even the contradictions between the scriptures and his interpretations thereof seem to constitute adequate cause to open an investigation.
One can only reach such a position of incorrigibility if he presumes upon himself certain promises made but to the Apostles—in particular, the prophecies that all things would be made known to them (and understood by them). Indeed, we do not see them wavering in their writings, for they were inspired and they knew it. For believers today, however, to presume some level of inspiration as to their INTERPRETATION of those writings is nowhere supported in scripture. There is no such promise made to non-apostles. However disappointing it may be to us, therefore, we ought to admit that we are not infallible interpreters of prophecy. The very fact that there is now so much disagreement on these matters between the churches is a disproof of the notion that believers are inspired interpreters. Indeed, error abounds today; it is the norm, and not the exception. How could this be if all faithful believers were guaranteed a right interpretation simply for asking?
It was not even so in the First Century as SOME of the Thessalonian believers had misinterpreted prophecy so as to quit working, while others did not. Paul did not claim that both camps were right in their interpretation, but that one was wrong and the other was right. So those believers were not guaranteed a right interpretation, either. Having a strong belief (or “faith”) therefore, does not determine the facts of a matter. Faith does not make a wrong thing right.
OP: Faith is not one’s imagination. It is a true belief in the Almighty. People who haven’t experienced faith have difficulty understanding it. Understanding Scripture from an intellectual or academic point of view is not the same as experiencing it by faith in Christ. Faith, God’s Word and prophecies in His Word are not to be argued or over-analyzed. Just because you see it differently doesn’t mean that they’re wrong and you are right. I do not agree with some of your views, but I respect your right to believe as you wish.
Jack: Your last post is packed with lots of loaded statements.
====Faith is not one’s imagination. It is a true belief in the Almighty.====
OK, but if that’s the definition of faith, how do we get from there to “knowing” that Event X in 2012 is definitely the fulfillment of Prophecy Y in Ezekiel? Does having faith in God make one omniscient and infallible in all his other beliefs?
====People who haven’t experienced faith have difficulty understanding it. Understanding Scripture from an intellectual or academic point of view is not the same as experiencing it by faith in Christ. ====
OK, what exactly is the difference? I assume you will consider my approach to scripture to be not one of “faith” but of an “intellectual or academic point of view”. So when I look at the Bible, I see, among other things, an account of Jesus and his family having traveled to Egypt in his early childhood. When you look at it through “faith”, don’t you get the same story? And I see that there were 12 apostles up until the crucifixion. How many do you count by faith? And I see that the Christians were commanded to love one another. Do you not also read the same command?
How, then, can we two understand scripture any differently unless your “faith” is either adding to it or subtracting from it?
====Faith, God’s Word and prophecies in His Word are not to be argued or over-analyzed.====
Wait, run that by me again. So how does this work? The first guy to declare what a passage means is the winner? He stakes his claim to interpretation and then he gets to declare that nobody who is spiritual can argue against him? Or he gets to declare that anybody asking too many questions is “over-analyzing”? If it’s not the first guy, then who is the referee here? Secondly, I don’t suppose you have a book, chapter, and verse to back up this assertion, do you? Or should I expect you to reply that you know this “by faith”?
=====Just because you see it differently doesn’t mean that they’re wrong and you are right. =====
I agree with you on this point, but then, I never suggested anything to the contrary. So I don’t know why you’re making this point here. I do note, however, that it does not seem that you believe that the converse of this statement is also true. That is, you do seem to believe that whoever does not see it YOUR way is wrong. And I say that because you won’t examine my case, but summarily assume it to be in error. This is not a matter of my opinion, for the record of this conversation plainly bears it out that you have not invested one iota of effort into dealing with the questions and objections I have entered into the record here. Rather, it is one dodge after another.
==== I do not agree with some of your views, but I respect your right to believe as you wish.====
Ah, but you believe that your beliefs are inerrant and mine are faithless and academic. And you believe this without having conducted any debate or investigation into the points and arguments I have raised. So somehow, you have got a superior claim to knowledge and understanding, and whatever doesn’t agree with yours comes from a faithless examination of the Bible. That’s an awfully convenient position for you to hold, albeit an irrational and dishonest one.
Now, am I supposed to perceive some manner of rebuke in this last line, as if I am guilty of “not respecting” your right to believe as you wish? Indeed, I have been trying to disabuse you of your position throughout. So am I being charged with wrongdoing in such?
If so, keep in mind that what I have been asking all along is for you to SHOW ME in the very Bible you use as a prooftext that the things you say are true. You have failed over and over to do that, and at the same time, you turn up the volume on your claim of faith. Somewhere along the line, therefore, you have forgotten that belief is not an argument. Belief does not make things true. Being the truth makes things true.
It is fascinating to me to witness just how irrational your position and your entire scheme of reasoning are. It makes me wonder whether you deem ANY man on the earth to have a better understanding of some Bible point than you do, for you certainly show no hint of that in this limited conversation with me. I see that I was not off base in my suspicion that you would respond once again without acknowledging fact, logic, and sourcing. Instead, you appeal to the fog of “faith” as if by it, you could not possibly ever be wrong. That is so stunningly far afield from rational thought that it is hard to get my arms around it.
By this same un-anchored reasoning, you could justify (to yourself, at least) anything you ever wanted to justify. Indeed, a great many other churches and cults are justified by the same unaccountable scheme—even churches that you are convinced are in error. This scheme is a variation on the old (and untrue) axiom that “the ends justify the means”. In your case, it is “the ACT of believing justifies the THINGS that are being believed.”
What really fascinates me is that you don’t seem to be able to acknowledge the logical fallacy that I am pointing out here.
I know, I know. If only I would read the whole Bible and pray faithfully for understanding, suddenly, I’d dome to see the truth behind everything you’ve been saying. But when *I* read the Bible, I find statements like “come let us REASON together” and “give CAREFUL THOUGHT to your ways”. So I get snagged on such passages and am influenced to acquire from them certain paradigms of rationalia to which you seem oblivious. I also find stern warnings against prophesying from one’s own imagination, but you seem not to believe such an act still to be possible—or at least not in your own case.
