Re: The Whole Bible Revealed in Zechariah (was Re: NT truth (formerly inerrancy?))

From: <>
Date: Thu Jan 08 2004 - 02:30:42 EST

I had asked Don:

"Is there any reason we should not take the visions of Zechariah 3 and 4 as
prophetic of the whole Bible?"

To which he replied:

> Inasmuch as those chapters make no
> explicit reference to Scriptures whatever,
> I'd conclude at first reading that the
> visions were not prophetic of the Bible
> or Scriptures at all.

My suggestion was that the Scriptures were the ANTITYPE intended by God when
He gave the typological prophecies in Zechariah 3 and 4. Let me replace the
word "Bible" with "antitype" to show you why your statement makes no sense
to me:

Inasmuch as those chapters make no
explicit reference to the ANTITYPE whatever,
I'd conclude at first reading that the
visions were not prophetic of the ANTITYPE
at all.

The vast majority of prophecies declared to be fulfilled by Christ in the NT
made no explicit reference to Christ. Indeed, one of the primary purposes of
typological prophecy is to transfer symbolic imagery from the Type to the
Antitype, as with the Passover Lamb and Christ. To suggest, let alone
demand, that the antitype should be explicity stated along with the type
misses the meaning and import of typological prophecy altogether.

Another problem is that you seem to be responding without even glancing at
the evidence I presented. It is impossible to make proper judgments without
looking at the evidence. I invite you to take five minutes to scan my
article. It would save us both a lot of time:

Of particular importance is the graphic near the bottom, which shows the
full supernatural integration of the prophetic types. It really is
astounding in beauty, simplicity, and grace, (grace unto it!).

> What the Bible never does in any
> unambiguous way is to say that such
> Scriptures were the Word of God.
> Yet today most Christians call a
> collection of writings--namely, the
> Bible--the Word of God. There's
> no scriptural justification for this.

Before addressing your main point, I need to clarify a significant
oversight. The lack of an "unambiguous" declaration does not justify the
assertion that there is "no scriptural justification." As I mentioned in the
previous post, ambiguity is fundamental to God's Word. It is what must
happen when Infinite Intelligence reveals itself to Finite Minds, when
Eternity meets Time, when Sovereignty meets Free Will. Take, for instance,
the fully scriptural doctrine of the Trinity. There is no "unambiguous"
declaration of this doctrine as such in Scripture. The lack of an
unambiguous statement regarding the relation between Scripture and the Word
of God therefore proves nothing. Christians from the earliest times have
received Scripture as the Word of God, and the ancient witness of God's
Church is certainly relevant to this question.

Concerning you main point: I don't really know what you mean when you say
that the Bible never refers to any Scriptures as the Word of God. Hundreds
of Scriptures are refered to as the "word of the Lord" (which is equivalent)
within the text of Scripture. Apparently I am missing your intent. Could you
clarify this for me?

Thanks Don,

Good chatting,

Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
Received on Thu Jan 8 02:29:51 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 02:29:52 EST