I appreciate the points that have been made throughout this thread. I would like to suggest a few thoughts for your consideration. And I would appreciate your comments.
1. Inspired Discrepancies. For example, compare the prophecy concerning Peter's three-fold denial of the Lord:
Matthew 26:34, 75 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice... And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
Mark 14:30, 72 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, [even] in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice... And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
The two narratives contradict one another. Over the years people have attempted to harmonize these accounts using all manner of logic and reason, but the fact still remains - they contradict one another. And there are other places in the Bible where different accounts disagree.
Some have wrestled with this problem and have concluded that it doesn't really matter since the main points agree, and just because unimportant details don't agree doesn't change the overall truth. And I concur with this logic. The details that differ do not contradict salvation truth. But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible contains discrepancies.
How should we relate to these discrepancies? Well, here's my take on it. I like to call them inspired discrepancies, because I believe God must have allowed them to exist (for certainly He could have prevented them) to test our faith and committment. I like how Ellen White put it:
GC 527.2 "While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them. And those who refuse to accept and obey God's word until every objection has been removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never come to the light."
2. Miller's Mistake. Another type of inspired discrepancy is recorded in Rev 10. We applaud Miller's study methods, and rightly so, but have we forgotten that he made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of religion? In fact, even a casual reading of his sermons reveals that he was dead wrong on many important aspects of the Revelation. Not to mention that he resisted salvation truths discovered after the Great Disappointment.
How should we relate to this information? Again, I believe God allowed Miller to make mistakes and errors to test the flock and to prepare them to fulfill the remnant roll in the last days. Here's what Ellen White wrote about it:
GC 353, 354 "Yet God accomplished His own beneficent purpose in permitting the warning of the judgment to be given just as it was. The great day was at hand, and in His providence the people were brought to the test of a definite time, in order to reveal to them what was in their hearts. The message was designed for the testing and purification of the church. They were to be led to see whether their affections were set upon this world or upon Christ and heaven. They professed to love the Saviour; now they were to prove their love. Were they ready to renounce their worldly hopes and ambitions, and welcome with joy the advent of their Lord? The message was designed to enable them to discern their true spiritual state; it was sent in mercy to arouse them to seek the Lord with repentance and humiliation.
"The disappointment also, though the result of their own misapprehension of the message which they gave, was to be overruled for good. It would test the hearts of those who had professed to receive the warning. In the face of their disappointment would they rashly give up their experience and cast away their confidence in God's word? or would they, in prayer and humility, seek to discern where they had failed to comprehend the significance of the prophecy? How many had moved from fear, or from impulse and excitement? How many were halfhearted and unbelieving? Multitudes professed to love the appearing of the Lord. When called to endure the scoffs and reproach of the world, and the test of delay and disappointment, would they renounce the faith? Because they did not immediately understand the dealings of God with them, would they cast aside truths sustained by the clearest testimony of His word?
"This test would reveal the strength of those who with real faith had obeyed what they believed to be the teaching of the word and the Spirit of God. It would teach them, as only such an experience could, the danger of accepting the theories and interpretations of men, instead of making the Bible its own interpreter. To the children of faith the perplexity and sorrow resulting from their error would work the needed correction. They would be led to a closer study of the prophetic word. They would be taught to examine more carefully the foundation of their faith, and to reject everything, however widely accepted by the Christian world, that was not founded upon the Scriptures of truth."
3. The Hebrew Mind. It has been suggested that many parts of the Bible reflect the way the Hebrew mind works. Which is true. But I believe we must be careful how we apply this to the prophetic parts of the Bible. John, for example, wrote down what he saw in vision. To suggest that he arranged the revelation according to his hebrew way of thinking is to suggest that the Revelation does not accurately reflect the chronology he actually saw in vision.
To implicate John in this manner is to question his integrity as a person and as a prophet. I believe John wrote down exactly what he saw and in the exact order God revealed it to him. I do not believe John edited what he was shown to suit his hebrew way of thinking. Nor do I believe John attempted to interpret the Revelation according to his perspective. What he wrote is exactly what he saw. And he who warned others not to add or subtract from the Revelation is certainly not guilty of it himself. Rev 22:18,19.
For example, some have suggested that John was shown helicopters at the end of time, but since he had no concept of helicopters John chose to describe it, according to his hebrew point of view, as a locust-scorpion like creature. Rev 9:7-10. To imply this idea is to discount the prophecy. Like Daniel, the composite creatures John was shown in vision symbolize truth. But to say John was just trying to describe a helicopter misses the whole point.
4. Inductive vs. Deductive Study. It is a common practice to read the Bible to find further evidence to support what we already believe to be true. Thus, we often use inductive thinking to interpret other passages of the Bible. This is not too far from relying on preconceived ideas. Which is not a bad study principle as long as our preconcieved ideas are biblically sound. Truth is built upon the foundation of truth. It does not exist in a vacuum.
However, inductive study methods can also prevent us from discovering new light. We must guard against this pitfall as we seek to uncover the hidden treasures contained in the Word of God. What might at first glance appear to contradict or undermine old light may in reality open doors that have hitherto been closed.
I believe dual application principles of prophecy fall into this category. The idea that one prophecy accomodates two separate yet similiar eras does not derail one or the other. The historical application is not in the least compromised just because the same prophecy also describes future developments (and vice versa).
[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]
