Let’s start our discussion on the truth of the Bible I would suggest we start with
Matthew 24:34.
I would be very interested on your comments on this page.
A replies:
About Matthew 24:34
I rather like Lewis’
explanation where he points out that immediately after making the
statement, Jesus admits ignorance as to when the second coming shall
actually take place.
Hooge:
From your viewpoint it would be nice, but it does not “hold up”.
(1) Repeating what I said on my the page
… the day and hour are the limits that Jesus gives to predicting “of that
day”. Knowing accurately within a week, month or even a year is possible.
The generation would be no problem for Jesus, God.
(2) Yet “my Father only” knows — are not Jesus and Father the
same? — so Jesus would know the hour and the day, and therefore, easily, the
generation of these things happening. Contrary to what Lewis says Jesus was not
ignorant as to when the second coming shall actually take place.
A:
It has been suggested that “this generation” refers to the generation existing at the time of the conditions described in Matthew 24:29-30.
Hooge:
(1) I don’t see how this “suggestion” changes anything about
“this generation” in Matthew 2424. This verse still states very
clearly “this generation” — the one when Jesus was alive. Other
verses in the Bible support “this generation — see the web page mentioned
above.
(2) Furthermore, “This generation shall not pass away, till all these
things be fulfilled.” includes verses 29-30 and the all the verses before
these in Chapter 24.
A:
I won’t take your time to give Lewis’ and Bruce’s full attempt
to remove the ‘error’ in this verse. Lewis points out that the
explanation tends to “…strengthen a disbelief already based on other
grounds…”
The decision as to whether it is reason enough to throw out the whole of the Bible still
rests with the individual.
Hooge:
It is a real error not an “apparent error”.
The error is critical! If the verse does not mean what the words say in
context, what about all the other verses in the Bible — do they really mean
what they are saying?
A:
Incidentally, is there any answer to the problem in this text that you can
forsee that would cause you to say “Oh, now I understand. My faith in
the Bible has been restored!”?
Hooge:
Yes, there is an answer! If it can be conclusively shown that Jesus words
were true — that Jesus’ second coming and all the other things mentioned in
Matthew 24 happened in the generation that Jesus lived, or that
“generation” means something else — then my faith in the Bible would
be restored.
In return, I would ask you, Al, what must be shown about this text that you
can forsee that would cause you to say “I don’t know how I can justify my
belief in the future second coming of Jesus and the other events in Matthew 24
since Matthew 24:34 falsifies it!” ?
A:
I have always had difficulty with the notion of inerrancy of the Bible. If
it is inerrant from the point of view of the writer, it is certainly not
inerrant from the point of view of our understanding what the writer meant.
Witness all the commentaries of the Bible attempting to explain what the
writer really meant. In view of the New Testament revelation of God, I have
often been tempted to think that the Old Testament writers got it wrong in
many places.
Hooge:
Because of all the disagreements between believers about what verses say is
one indication that the Bible is not an authentic message from the God of the
Universe. In Matthew 24:34 the writer (under the supposed guidance of this God)
meant what the words say. By simply reading it we understand what it says. If
not, you do not have a solid basis for the rest of the Bible sayings — are any
verses dependable? Are verses interpreted in such a way that they mean what you
and others would like them to say? Speculation of other possible reasons for the
words does not alter the meaning of what the words say!
A:
Perhaps the differences arose before the Bible was one book instead of a group of
separate documents written by separate authors and recopied a number of
times as the older documents deteriorated.
Hooge:
Are you saying that the Bible is not a perfect message from the God of the
Universe? That it is flawed as liberal Christians often say it is? If so your
basis of belief has no validity at all.
The comparison of the Bible with the JFK reports There is a major difference
— the JFK reports are not considered “Holy” whereas the Bible is —
see the page (instead of repeating it here all over again) that shows the
difference between the reliability of a “Holy” book and the
reliability of one that is not claimed to be “Holy”. One religionist
asked me to outline the difference
In conclusion.
The Bible says that all these things, including Jesus’ second coming, was to
happen in the generation in which he lived. It can be safely concluded that we
cannot look forward to any further second coming of Jesus. If Jesus’ second
coming did not happen at that time then the Bible is not “Holy”, but
false with respect to this issue. If Jesus actually spoke the words that are in
the Bible, then he was either ignorant or he was a deceiver or both.
Next e-mail:
Hooge:
With your silence on Matthew 24:34 am I to conclude that you
agree with my last e-mail on this verse — that Jesus’ second coming and all the
other things mentioned in Matthew 24 happened in the generation that Jesus lived
— as the verse clearly states?
Next e-mail:
Hooge:
Back to the present discussion — Matthew 24:34 and the rest of Matthew 24 —
a critical issue about the reliability of what the bible says.
You can’t just ignore the verse and chapter — how do you explain it to
yourself?
How can you NOT say that Jesus’ second coming and all the other events that
were to accompany it, must have happened in the generation to which Jesus says
it was?
So these events are not about the future but about past events that have
happened a long time ago — in the generation that was living at that time?
If this verse and chapter does not falsify what is generally believed about
the second coming of Jesus then a rational discussion of the Bible as some kind
of word of God is not possible. Since your discussion with me is from the stance
of a Christian that believes the Bible is a message from the God of the Universe
any discussion about the supernatural or related topics pivots on the
reliability of your beliefs in the Bible.
If your beliefs are based on “leaps of faith” without evidence then
there is no point in a rational discussion. A leap of faith is a personal thing
that I leave for the person that makes it. Matthew 2434 and the chapter itself
is one such point.
Back to Return of Jesus neatly 2000 years ago
Naturalism and Religious Experience 