Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150

    The Bible is like a Necker Cube

    I think this is a very good example of why the debate about the meaning of the Bible will never end. There literally is no solution! The Bible is sufficiently AMBIGUOUS to allow for more than one valid interpretation. It's like a Necker Cube which can be interpreted two ways:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	necker-cube-example.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	17.5 KB 
ID:	859

    I can flip between the two interpretations (shown in the small cubes on the right) at will.

    Thus, there are two contradictory interpretations of exactly the same set of data. This is directly analogous to the Futurist/Preterist debate. Each side selects what they think is of primary importance and disregards or explains away the parts that don't fit. But there is a way to determine which is the best fit to the data. All we need to do is calculate the difference between the number of verses that naturally fit vs. those that must be explained away. Thus, if Preterism naturally fits with 200 verses and there are 20 that must be explained away, then it gets a score of 180. And if Futurism naturally fits those 20 but must explain away the 200, then it's score is -180 and Preterism would be the obvious choice.

    Now there is another possibility which I think represents the reality. The fact that neither Preterism nor Futurism can naturally fit all the verses indicates that there probably is no coherent interpretation because the Bible itself is logically incoherent. This would correspond to the impossible Necker Cube:

    Name:  necker-cube-impossible.jpg
Views: 68
Size:  11.8 KB

    Now there is good reason to think that the Bible is logically incoherent. It is a collection of books that were written by different people. It would, therefore, be very unlikely that it could be perfectly coherent. This is why there are so many contradictions. For example, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and worse, the contradictory birth narratives in those two books. The four contradictory accounts of the passion week, etc.

    I think this kind of "meta-hermeneutics" is very important to understand.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Richard, Don't the 2 points of view seem compatible with scripture.?

    Matt13:38 "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; :39: The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels".

    Good Seed and Bad Seed, but are 'wicked one' and 'devil' the same personality? or is this another example of 'ambiguity'?
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Richard, Don't the 2 points of view seem compatible with scripture.?

    Matt13:38 "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; :39: The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels".

    Good Seed and Bad Seed, but are 'wicked one' and 'devil' the same personality? or is this another example of 'ambiguity'?
    I see no ambiguity in your example. There is no confusion or ambiguity between the "good seed" and the "tares" - except in as much as we cannot look at a person and know which is which. But I don't think that was the point (since no mention was made of that kind of ambiguity).

    As for the idea that the "wicked one" and the "devil" are two different personalities - sure, why not? Maybe we should assume every distinct word is used for a reason. Satan is a different personality than the devil, and the "Old Serpent" is yet another, and Jesus is entirely different than the Christ and Cephas was certainly a different person than Peter who was different than Simon Peter and the malefactors crucified with Christ were certainly different than the thieves that were crucified with Jesus so there were really seven people crucified together - two thieves, two malefactors, some guy named Jesus, and some guy named Christ, and another named "Jesus of Nazareth." And so we arrive at the divine number seven! Woohoo! It all makes perfect sense now ... thanks!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855

    Ambiguous?

    Ambiguous, Richard?
    Psalm 37:4. "Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give you the desires of your heart". Does this mean that He'll give you the white pony you've been wanting; or does it mean he'll give you a change of heart that wants a red wagon..? Phil 2:3 reads "It is God which works in you..to do of His good pleasure". It's probably more important that we recognize both possibilities, than that we judge one to be 'right', and the other 'wrong'.

    John 6:44. "No man can come to me, except the Father...draw him". Does this mean that a person must sit tight and wait for God to make the first move, or did Jesus mean that man's search for his roots or Creator would lead him to the Son? "God has dealt to every man the measure of faith", Rom12:3, and "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you", Jas4:8, inclines me to the latter understanding.

    As for the "Facetious Seven" you came up with, when you add all the metaphors of Jesus the Lamb, the Lion of Judah, the Bread of Life, the Water, etc. -- you may get 72!
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Ambiguous, Richard?
    Psalm 37:4. "Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give you the desires of your heart". Does this mean that He'll give you the white pony you've been wanting; or does it mean he'll give you a change of heart that wants a red wagon..? Phil 2:3 reads "It is God which works in you..to do of His good pleasure". It's probably more important that we recognize both possibilities, than that we judge one to be 'right', and the other 'wrong'.
    That's a good example of the kind of ambiguity that I was talking about. It could be taken either way, so there are two coherent but contrary interpretations. Just like the Necker Cube.

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    John 6:44. "No man can come to me, except the Father...draw him". Does this mean that a person must sit tight and wait for God to make the first move, or did Jesus mean that man's search for his roots or Creator would lead him to the Son? "God has dealt to every man the measure of faith", Rom12:3, and "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you", Jas4:8, inclines me to the latter understanding.
    I don't think any Christian interprets it as meaning that a person must "sit tight and wait for God to make the first move" though I do think that is the logical implication of the Calvinist interpretation since they teach that no one can do anything at all to get saved. Can't pray. Can't beg God. Nothing will help you get saved. God alone does all the "work." And I think that there are plenty of verses supporting that view - it may even be the best fit to the Biblical data, though I was never convinced of that when I was a Christian. It's just too contrary to common sense.

    But no matter how you slice it, there is an everlasting ambiguity between God's sovereignty and human freedom. Attempts to solve it usually lead to heterodoxy.

    And there are many other similar problems. Was Christ human, divine, or both (as the orthodox teach)? Trinity? Does "soon" really mean "in 2000+ years"? Etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    As for the "Facetious Seven" you came up with, when you add all the metaphors of Jesus the Lamb, the Lion of Judah, the Bread of Life, the Water, etc. -- you may get 72!
    Nice word smithing - "facetious seven." Sounds like a movie with Clint Eastwood.

    But rather than 72 = 49, I would think you'd be going for route 66!

    PS: It's nice that you have learned to use the superscript function.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    What about a Rubik's cube presentation as to understanding the Bible?
    Name:  rubikscube.jpg
Views: 63
Size:  7.5 KB
    As I see the Bible, we have a distinct number of doctrines. All the doctrines understood correctly make up the one Truth which is when all the faces on the cube; one face per doctrine, are all made up by their representative color. If there is one square with the wrong color showing on any one face, that shows a verse or passage showing an aspect of that doctrine is out of place.

    For this illustration, on the cube shown we have six faces. Each face represents a fundamental doctrine. If you have a list of more than six, you will have to devise a Rubik's cube to accommodate that number of faces. I have replied to L67 prior to this post and given four doctrines for him to consider.

    There is only one solution in which all the faces show only one color. That is when we have the complete truth. Until then, we are all apt to have one or more segments out of place. Some have more segments out of place than others, but we can all come to the same truth eventually if we all work together towards finding the solution. If we do not try and contribute towards a solution, then we will not personally find a solution . Even if one person can find a solution, it does not mean that others on their own will be able to find the solution. If we work separately, we shall all have to keeping turning the cubes on our own and then we might never find the solution and give up in the trying.

    Name:  rubikscube_2.jpg
Views: 64
Size:  10.4 KB

    All the best

    David

    PS

    Attachment 863
    This image is an optical illusion. It deceives the eyes. We have been warned of those wolves that come to devour the weak and lie as the serpents who use cunning words to deceive. Therefore, as Jesus said to his disciples; (Matt 10:16) Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by David M; 04-10-2013 at 07:38 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    What about a Rubik's cube presentation as to understanding the Bible?
    Name:  rubikscube.jpg
Views: 63
Size:  7.5 KB
    As I see the Bible, we have a distinct number of doctrines. All the doctrines understood correctly make up the one Truth which is when all the faces on the cube; one face per doctrine, are all made up by their representative color. If there is one square with the wrong color showing on any one face, that shows a verse or passage showing an aspect of that doctrine is out of place.

    For this illustration, on the cube shown we have six faces. Each face represents a fundamental doctrine. If you have a list of more than six, you will have to devise a Rubik's cube to accommodate that number of faces. I have replied to L67 prior to this post and given four doctrines for him to consider.

    There is only one solution in which all the faces show only one color. That is when we have the complete truth. Until then, we are all apt to have one or more segments out of place. Some have more segments out of place than others, but we can all come to the same truth eventually if we all work together towards finding the solution. If we do not try and contribute towards a solution, then we will not personally find a solution . Even if one person can find a solution, it does not mean that others on their own will be able to find the solution. If we work separately, we shall all have to keeping turning the cubes on our own and then we might never find the solution and give up in the trying.

    Name:  rubikscube_2.jpg
Views: 64
Size:  10.4 KB

    All the best

    David

    PS

    This image is an optical illusion. It deceives the eyes. We have been warned of those wolves that come to devour the weak and lie as the serpents who use cunning words to deceive. Therefore, as Jesus said to his disciples; (Matt 10:16) Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
    Good morning David,

    It's really cool to be exploring "theoretical hermeneutics" with you. Rather than merely applying an unexamined hermeneutical method to interpret a particular passage (applied hermeneutics), we are talking about the very nature of interpretation itself. This should lead to some good insights.

    I can see why the analogy of a puzzle is appealing, but I find it very unlikely. First, no solution has ever been found despite two thousand years of effort by millions of people! This strongly suggests that it is an unsolvable puzzle, just like the old geometry problem of trisecting an angle. And like that problem, all sorts of cranks invented all sorts of very convoluted methods despite the fact that it had already been proven to be a mathematical impossibility. So the first question we must ask is this: Is there any reason at all to presume the Bible is like a puzzle with a single solution?

    If the Bible really is like a Rubik's cube then when the solution is found it should be super-obvious just like when a person solves the cube. This is how we know no solution has ever been found. Now there certainly are some partial solutions that are closer than others, but I've never seen a complete solution. Indeed, I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed to have a perfect understanding of every verse of the Bible. And of those who claim to have generally "solved the puzzle" a brief examination quickly proves that they are grossly deluded. Case in point: Harold Camping claimed that his "harmonization" of the Bible was better than any that had every been found, but when you looked at it you could instantly see that it was based on grossly twisting words to force-fit them into his scheme (which was later proven totally false since his failed prediction of the rapture on May 21, 2011 was based on it).

    And there is yet another thing to consider. Even if the Bible were a puzzle like Rubik's cube, the analogy of the Necker Cube would still hold. It describes the actual state of affairs. Folks really do see different solutions when they look at the Bible. So the Necker Cube is a very accurate analogy because it corresponds very well to the reality.

    I think we should explore your presupposition. Can you give me any reason to think that the Bible is like a Rubik's cube with a single solution? I think the answer is clearly "no" for two reasons. 1) It's been around for nearly 2000 years and no one yet has found the solution, and 2) After much study I am pretty confident that there are real contradictions that could be "solved" only by twisting words and so making the Bible meaningless.

    This is a fascinating topic. Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard
    I had a feeling there was a post I had not replied to which I meant to come back to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,

    It's really cool to be exploring "theoretical hermeneutics" with you. Rather than merely applying an unexamined hermeneutical method to interpret a particular passage (applied hermeneutics), we are talking about the very nature of interpretation itself. This should lead to some good insights.
    Unless the other type of conversations cease in which unfounded accusations are made, there is not much chance of continuing this discussion. It really has to stop, or I stop. Not because I am quitting on biblical argument grounds, but because from the shear tedious barage of monotonous rhetoric that I am subjected to. A similar reply to the comment just made is a sure way, all conversation is over. I shall answer the questions to follow without expectation of continuing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I can see why the analogy of a puzzle is appealing, but I find it very unlikely. First, no solution has ever been found despite two thousand years of effort by millions of people! This strongly suggests that it is an unsolvable puzzle, just like the old geometry problem of trisecting an angle. And like that problem, all sorts of cranks invented all sorts of very convoluted methods despite the fact that it had already been proven to be a mathematical impossibility. So the first question we must ask is this: Is there any reason at all to presume the Bible is like a puzzle with a single solution?
    I do not see the Bible as a puzzle or that God intended it to be. I have likened the Bible to a jigsaw puzzle and that is quite a good analogy for piecing all the pieces of the Bible together. The Rubik's cube was a thought that popped into my head after seeing the Neckar cube. Neither of which is a perfect analogy. Puzzles are not good analogies and the Neckar cube I saw as an optical illusion. Illusion as we know is; "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality".

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    If the Bible really is like a Rubik's cube then when the solution is found it should be super-obvious just like when a person solves the cube. This is how we know no solution has ever been found. Now there certainly are some partial solutions that are closer than others, but I've never seen a complete solution. Indeed, I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed to have a perfect understanding of every verse of the Bible. And of those who claim to have generally "solved the puzzle" a brief examination quickly proves that they are grossly deluded. Case in point: Harold Camping claimed that his "harmonization" of the Bible was better than any that had every been found, but when you looked at it you could instantly see that it was based on grossly twisting words to force-fit them into his scheme (which was later proven totally false since his failed prediction of the rapture on May 21, 2011 was based on it).
    Harold Camping not only got his predictions wrong, but from both our points of view he has got other things wrong. I really see not need to refer to these people. You and I both know we can dismiss these people and get on with our own search. At the same time, you can dismiss everyone else you keep referring to.d

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And there is yet another thing to consider. Even if the Bible were a puzzle like Rubik's cube, the analogy of the Necker Cube would still hold. It describes the actual state of affairs. Folks really do see different solutions when they look at the Bible. So the Necker Cube is a very accurate analogy because it corresponds very well to the reality.
    As I have explained already above, the Neckar cube is an illusion, it is not reality and you are using to try and represent reality. I feel myself getting into a philosophical discussion which is not somewhere I wan to go. Philosophical discussions never get anywhere, The Bible definition sums this up; (2 Tim 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think we should explore your presupposition. Can you give me any reason to think that the Bible is like a Rubik's cube with a single solution? I think the answer is clearly "no" for two reasons. 1) It's been around for nearly 2000 years and no one yet has found the solution, and 2) After much study I am pretty confident that there are real contradictions that could be "solved" only by twisting words and so making the Bible meaningless.
    Yes, the Bible has a single solution ending at the time of the "new beginning" about which we do not know what is in store. I am not sure the Rubik's cube type structure is the best analogy; I do not know what is. Can any matrix structure hold each verse in place where it all fits together. The only solution is perhaps as we have it now in book form.


    Whilst I continue to think if there is a better analogy or rearrangement of the Bible in to say the Bible Wheel or a simple table with just columns, I have a nagging feeling that any solution like this is impossible, The Bible is not put together where everything is in chronological sequence, The Chronological Gospels when it is published would be a good exercise for us to study and give us common ground to work on. All personal opinions as to the source of that work should be put aside and deal with the information presented. Who know, we might all learns something new and our attitudes can change. Putting all the message of the Old Testaments prophets in chronological order would be another good exercise and we might have someone else's work to use as a beginning and make corrections to as the exercise continues.

    Any such work would require a lot of time, commitment, co-operation and understanding. All contentious forms of communication would have cease. Whether all that is possible, is the question that must be answered first. Time would be best spent, by first contemplating whether something can be started and can progress, than starting something which wastes time and does not achieve anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This is a fascinating topic.
    That is because it is like Gematria, which deals in numbers and those numbers can be illustrated in geometrical structures in two and three dimensions. I see the fascination, but is not a subject I have studied or attach great value to. If the Bible could be proven to be one big geometrical structure that fits perfectly together, then that might tell us things to make us all change some of our opinions.


    David

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,150
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    I had a feeling there was a post I had not replied to which I meant to come back to.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Good morning David,

    It's really cool to be exploring "theoretical hermeneutics" with you. Rather than merely applying an unexamined hermeneutical method to interpret a particular passage (applied hermeneutics), we are talking about the very nature of interpretation itself. This should lead to some good insights.
    Unless the other type of conversations cease in which unfounded accusations are made, there is not much chance of continuing this discussion. It really has to stop, or I stop. Not because I am quitting on biblical argument grounds, but because from the shear tedious barage of monotonous rhetoric that I am subjected to. A similar reply to the comment just made is a sure way, all conversation is over. I shall answer the questions to follow without expectation of continuing.
    Good morning David,

    I understand that we have had some frustrating interactions, but your comment seems out of place here because my comment was quite positive. I didn't make any accusations, founded or unfounded, in the comment to which you are replying.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I do not see the Bible as a puzzle or that God intended it to be. I have likened the Bible to a jigsaw puzzle and that is quite a good analogy for piecing all the pieces of the Bible together. The Rubik's cube was a thought that popped into my head after seeing the Neckar cube. Neither of which is a perfect analogy. Puzzles are not good analogies and the Neckar cube I saw as an optical illusion. Illusion as we know is; "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality".
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Harold Camping not only got his predictions wrong, but from both our points of view he has got other things wrong. I really see not need to refer to these people. You and I both know we can dismiss these people and get on with our own search. At the same time, you can dismiss everyone else you keep referring to.d
    I think it is very enlightening to refer to people like Harold Camping because he believed that his fringe doctrines were absolutely true for the same reasons you believe your doctrines. He said that his "harmonization" of Scripture was the best he had ever seen and therefore his interpretation was true and he would not change his mind unless someone could show him he was wrong. This shows why that kind of thinking is so dangerous. There is absolutely NO WAY anyone could prove him wrong with mere words. It didn't matter how much evidence he was shown because he would just make up more "explanations" proving to himself the truth of his own beliefs. He was utterly lost in a delusion of his own making. The only reason he ever admitted any error at all is because he predicted the Rapture would happen on May 21, 2011, and it did not. But even then, he twisted words and said that it did happen "spiritually" and that the literal physical end of the world would happen on schedule on Oct 21, 2011. When that data came and went, it still took him a few months before he could admit that he was wrong. This shows the overwhelming power of delusion caused by the hermeneutics of "harmonizing" the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    And there is yet another thing to consider. Even if the Bible were a puzzle like Rubik's cube, the analogy of the Necker Cube would still hold. It describes the actual state of affairs. Folks really do see different solutions when they look at the Bible. So the Necker Cube is a very accurate analogy because it corresponds very well to the reality.
    As I have explained already above, the Neckar cube is an illusion, it is not reality and you are using to try and represent reality. I feel myself getting into a philosophical discussion which is not somewhere I wan to go. Philosophical discussions never get anywhere, The Bible definition sums this up; (2 Tim 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    Again, you simply missed the point of the analogy. The Necker Cube is NOT an illusion. There really are two distinct yet individually coherent 3D interpretations of the 2D data. This explains why sincere believers can come to such different conclusions using the same data. And since this has been going on for 2000 years, I would think you would be happy to understand why.

    Your appeal to 2 Time 3:7 does not apply since we actually are coming to a knowledge of the truth. I can prove that the Bible is like a Necker Cube. Just think about it for a second. Preterists strongly believe their interpretation is the most coherent. Futurists strongly believe their interpretation is most coherent. The argument has been going on forever. That proves that the Bible is functionally like a Necker Cube, whether or not it is literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    I think we should explore your presupposition. Can you give me any reason to think that the Bible is like a Rubik's cube with a single solution? I think the answer is clearly "no" for two reasons. 1) It's been around for nearly 2000 years and no one yet has found the solution, and 2) After much study I am pretty confident that there are real contradictions that could be "solved" only by twisting words and so making the Bible meaningless.
    Yes, the Bible has a single solution ending at the time of the "new beginning" about which we do not know what is in store. I am not sure the Rubik's cube type structure is the best analogy; I do not know what is. Can any matrix structure hold each verse in place where it all fits together. The only solution is perhaps as we have it now in book form.
    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?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think it is very enlightening to refer to people like Harold Camping because he believed that his fringe doctrines were absolutely true for the same reasons you believe your doctrines. He said that his "harmonization" of Scripture was the best he had ever seen and therefore his interpretation was true and he would not change his mind unless someone could show him he was wrong. This shows why that kind of thinking is so dangerous. There is absolutely NO WAY anyone could prove him wrong with mere words. It didn't matter how much evidence he was shown because he would just make up more "explanations" proving to himself the truth of his own beliefs. He was utterly lost in a delusion of his own making. The only reason he ever admitted any error at all is because he predicted the Rapture would happen on May 21, 2011, and it did not. But even then, he twisted words and said that it did happen "spiritually" and that the literal physical end of the world would happen on schedule on Oct 21, 2011. When that data came and went, it still took him a few months before he could admit that he was wrong. This shows the overwhelming power of delusion caused by the hermeneutics of "harmonizing" the Bible.
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Again, you simply missed the point of the analogy. The Necker Cube is NOT an illusion. There really are two distinct yet individually coherent 3D interpretations of the 2D data. This explains why sincere believers can come to such different conclusions using the same data. And since this has been going on for 2000 years, I would think you would be happy to understand why.
    I see what you mean, the cube structure that was shown is an optical illusion. That was an added point. People can make of it what they want. It was no intended as my reply to what you had written.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your appeal to 2 Time 3:7 does not apply since we actually are coming to a knowledge of the truth. I can prove that the Bible is like a Necker Cube. Just think about it for a second. Preterists strongly believe their interpretation is the most coherent. Futurists strongly believe their interpretation is most coherent. The argument has been going on forever. That proves that the Bible is functionally like a Necker Cube, whether or not it is literally.
    That is a good example to illustrate your point and I will go along with that. It still does not negate the fact that only one of those two positions is true. Preterism can be a subset of Futurism, but I cannot see it the other way around.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.


    All the best,

    David

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •