I’m interested here, in prophecy that deals with large, multi-generational themes from religious writings. I’m not looking for heavenly, or metaphysical, prophecies because they are not verifiable, and I am not looking for isolated, short term prophecies because they could be seen as coincidental even if they are accurate. I am looking here at “big religious prophecy“, and I am looking at them in the overall context of contradiction.
There are many forms of religious and relational contradiction. They should not be confused with the verifiability by the scientific method. As we have already discussed, relationships do not work that way. There are plenty of relational contradictions in most ancient religious prophecy; but not so in the bible. By way of a quick example the discussion between Ravi Zacharias’ and an Eastern Regions Professor here is pretty good. The Professor’s argument is that Hinduism’ plurality is not illogical if one follows dialectic logic and not non-contradictory logic; so God can be personal and/or impersonal according to the Eastern (dialectic) mind, if not according to the Western (non-contradictory or scientific) mind. OK, but then I can only follow Hindu logic by choosing eitherEastern logic or nothing else. Do you see the problem? One cannot argue for a dialectic approach to reason using non-contradictory logic as the basis of your argument. More specificallyone cannot argue against a non-contradictory approach to reason using non-contradictory logic. This is only a contradiction because Hinduism claims to be a system of all embracing knowledge acquisition, if it is all embracing, why does it preclude non-contradictory logic? It is a fatal flaw, a real contradiction. The cosmoview has given itself a blow to the heart (or perhaps the head). So when I am speaking of contradictions, I am looking for these fatal flaws, not mere flesh wounds. Looking for surface contradictions is premature when discussing cosmoview. They are way to numerous and way too disparate for a meaningful discussion. A rule of thumb would be this. If you can show that a cosmoview’s contradiction is brought on by it’s own tenants (as in the example above) then it is a fatal flaw, a real contradiction. If it is merely coincidental then it is not necessarily fatal to the cosmoview.
Now the Bible is so full of prophecy and so desperately lacking in contradiction that is it a good place to look, which is one reason (certainly not the most significant) why I believe it to be true. What we are looking for, in prophecy, is something very old that is prophesying, in some detail, what has already happened. And we find in Daniel’s prophecy exactly that. Daniel’s prophecy is perfectly timed for a decent analysis. It is easily shown to have been written before the Greek civilization and it prophecies into the Greek, Roman and Byzantine civilizations, and right into the heart of Western Secularism.
So I’m going to write a series on Daniel… I just don’t know how many there will be in the series… It seems that I’m nowhere near as good a prophet as Daniel.
And I’d like to start here:
So who’s up for a little eschatological philosophy?