Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
Hello Richard
Quote Originally Posted by RAM
I do believe you have missed the point. The analogy of the Necker Cube does NOT imply that the Bible is "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality" (though I do believe that is true of the Bible). The analogy of the Necker Cube shows that there are two distinct yet coherent interpretations of the same set of data. This analogy is meant to help us understand how Preterists and Futurists can look at the same data (the Bible) and yet come to different conclusions which each side thinking their interpretation is coherent. Now it may be that one or the other or both are actually incoherent, but that's not the point. The point is to help understand why sincere people could come to such contrary conclusions. Do you understand this now?
I hear what you are saying, but I do not agree with your conclusions and you would have to prove them. It is an explanation why we have different messages from the same word. In my initial response I adding an extra factor of deception. I was not commenting on what you had written.
Good afternoon David,

I'm glad you understand. I'm not saying that there is no solution, or that both of the solutions are totally coherent. Maybe only one is. Maybe none are. My real point was to help us understand why equally sincere, intelligent, and informed believers can come to diametrically opposed conclusions. I think this is a very important insight which also points the way to mutual understanding. If Preterism is like one of the possible cubes, and Futurism is like the other, the different conclusions are because of different presuppositions and that's why no amount of debate will ever establish which is true.

Furthermore, when we open our minds and allow ourselves to consider the opposing point of view on its own terms (meaning, using its presuppositions) we will be able to better understand why that view is believed.

Given this understanding, I think it is clear that the real work is to establish which are the best presuppositions with which we should begin our Bible study. By "best" I mean "most likely to be true." If we begin with false presuppositions then logic only leads to false conclusions.

Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
"Enlightening" Campling might be, and for the wrong reason. All I can do is reason as I see truth and it does not matter if there are a 1000 different interpretations. There is only one true interpretation of the whole of scripture. There might be parts with dual application, but this is not what you are meaning by the use of the Neckar cuble. I am for getting to the 100% of truth and will be reasoning from the Bible since it is the truth of this word we are talking about.
You can do much more than merely "reason" from fixed presuppositions. Case in point: Your presupposition that there is "only one true interpretation of the whole of scripture" is not necessarily true. And indeed, there is good reason to think it is false. If you really believe that the Bible was inspired by a God with infinite intelligence and wisdom, then you must believe he is at least as intelligent and talented as a human author. And what do we see in the best of human authors? Multilayered tapestries of amazing depth that touch each person in a unique way. That's wisdom. That's intelligence. That's art. I think the idea of a "single truth" is too small to contain God's wisdom. And if we assume that God actually inspired the Bible we have good reason to think this is what he intended because he carefully designed the Bible to make it impossible to find any "single truth" in it. That's what the two thousand years of intense Bible study proves if nothing else. To asset that God's book must cohere to a "single truth" is to limit God and tell him what he could or could not do. What makes you feel qualified to tell God how to write his book?

Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
Quote Originally Posted by RAM
I don't know how you could say that since we know that there is no coherent solution to many contradictions in the Bible. The most obvious is what happened during the passion week. No Christian has ever been able to simply right down what actually happened using the data from the four Gospels and Paul's letters. So if we cannot write a coherent account of the central NT story, why should we assume that the Bible as a whole has a coherent solution?
When we get chance, I would like us to examine Rood's 'Chronological Gospels'. I am open to accepting a shorter ministry than three and a half years. I am interested to see how Rood has put all the Gospels into chronological order. A difficult task as you would agree. If Rood has spent 40 years of his life putting this work together, I think we should treat it with the same respect as you would want people to treat the Bible Wheel with respect. This is not to say that these works are not without their own error, we can learn something from them as you have done, and I think we can learn from Rood, whether we disagree with him in other should not really matter. We do not really know people until we have talked face to face. I am not going to go on material that is 10 or 20 years old and people are using as evidence against him. I am only commenting on what I have personally heard from his lips; I will watch our for any inconsistency which would show him in a different light as I see him now. I am not a follower, I give everyone equal latitude to hang themselves by what the words I hear from their mouths or the deeds I have seen them to do me or others. Nothing on paper in this digital age is to be trusted. "Seeing is believing" is not an an expression that can be used with any reliability these days of image manipulation.
Sounds good. I think it would be an interesting project and I'm sure we will all learn something. Is there a YouTube video that you would recommend that explains it?

It's odd that you don't accept things that Rood currently publishes and sells on his website as "proof" of what he believes. That makes it very difficult to prove things and it makes no sense to me. Your idea that "nothing on paper in this digital age is to be trusted" makes no sense. It's just as easy to fake digital pictures and videos.

I watched him tell his personal life story in a video called Michael Rood Exposed. Starting at about 41 minutes in, he talked about his time in The Way, International. He said that he was in the leadership, and taught more classes than anyone else in the organization and was promoted to run the Washington D.C. office. He also explicitly stated that it was a cult. He was a member of that cult for nearly twenty years, from 1974 to the early 1990s when he broke free and started making up his own stuff.

Great chatting my friend. I really hope we can drop our adversarial roles and just explore this fascinating world together.

Richard