RE: If... if... if...
You strike me as someone who does not like a response that uses the word “if”. Unfortunately, the use of this word cannot be avoided if you ask the question “but how?” as you did.
RE: How is the average Joe to know whether the abstruse teachings of some self-proclaimed and even miracle-working prophet are contrary to the - sometimes very confusing - Word of God?!
I don’t know why you would say that the word of God is confusing when it clearly teaches how to differentiate the SOURCE of a miracle. I just cited a few verses for you. Tell me why they are unclear.
Regarding how the average Joe can know, it is the same principle that applies to any knowledge, whether
it is in the field of economics, health or even politics. There is no such thing as knowing without
WANTING to learn and trying to find out which source of information is more trustworthy and whose presentation of the evidence is valid. The Bible tells us to Love the Lord Our God with (among others),
our MINDS. There is no substitute for using our minds and our capacity to think.
For instance, in politics, one source tells us that Joe Biden is actually influence peddling his position through his son, Hunter. Another source tells us that it isn’t true ( even Joe himself and close to 50 former intelligence people tell us that it is Russian disinformation ).
How is the average Joe to know which is true and which is false?
Well, as I see it, Your question regarding understanding Biblical teaching applies to gaining satisfactory knowledge about Joe Biden’s issue of influence peddling. It applies in NUMEROUS issues, from whether or not Anthony Fauci was partly resonsible for the pandemic, or whether or not Democrat policies are responsible for increase in gas prices and inflation.
In other words— THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR WANTING TO KNOW and with that DESIRE, looking at the evidence
to see which ones are valid. Gaining satisfactory knowledge requires thinking. There is no other way IMHO.
RE: The average Joe who doesn’t read Hebrew or Ancient Greek or Latin has no chance outwitting and out-arguing them! And they can ALL point to miracles.
The average Joe does not have to know Hebrew, Greek or Latin. The ancient texts have been mostly translated into their own language for them to read and learn.
RE: So, if every even obscure sect can point to some miracles they claim for their own, the only means we average Joes have to “out” the purveyors of demonic delusions is to detect, identify, and expose contradictions to the “true” Word of God as revealed in - which version of the Bible, again?
I don’t understand your question regarding “which version” of the Bible.
The meaning of the verses that I cited as examples are THE SAME regardless of which version of the Bible you look at ( or which translation for that matter). It does not matter which ancient manuscripts (e.g. the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian texts ) are use to translate them into the modern tongue — be it by Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox. Maybe you can tell me which version does not contain the verses that I cite regarding miracles, then we can discuss it. But as of now, your question contains an assumption which I do not accept.
RE: To re-iterate, your proposed solution for dividing false from true prophets is not ab initio invalid - it’s just impractical for ordinary people lacking advanced degrees in Theology.
I have to disagree with this. One does not need an advanced theology degree to understand the teaching
in scripture as translated into the modern tongue.
BTW, regarding ab initio validity, I will concede that our discussion is dependent on one assumption — the acceptance of the Judeo-Christian worldview. I respond based on this assumption based on the assumptions made by the author of the article and based on the initial questions asked ( to which you entered the discussion... I was responding to Post #25). Now, if one does not even accept the Judaeo-Christian pre-supposition, then the question has to go back to whether or not the Judaeo-Christian God exists and other questions that flow from it. That is a topic for a different thread.
Could, might, should, maybe, possibly, most say, some have indicated
All weasel words and phrases.
Re. "if":
Yes, usage of the word "if" rather than just giving a "yes/no" answer or stating facts does suggest equivocation. Using "if" provides "wiggle room," which I don't like.
[...] don’t know why you would say that the word of God is confusing when it clearly teaches [...]
Yes, you're right: There is no confusion about the meaning of the Word of God! No theologians or Biblical scholars have any disagreements about that! No experts have ever quibbled about, e.g., the placement of a single comma - which can totally change the meaning of a given verse. (E.g., the Jehovah's Witness claim Christ said to the Good Thief on the cross next to him: "Verily I say to you this day, you shall be in Heaven with me..." rather than "Verily I say to you, this day you shall be in Heaven with me...") All scholars are in total agreement about the meaning of the Word of God!
/mordant sarcasm
Yet in the subsequent paragraphs of your response, you admit that there is indeed confusion and dissent.
You recommend "study" to "gain satisfactory knowledge." But the average Joe can never hope to attain even a fraction of the arsenal of knowledge (or pseudo-knowledge) that, e.g., the Mormons have accumulated over more than a century to bolster their (in my humble opinion - which I, as a layperson, can't hope to actually prove) false interpretation of the Bible. How can I hope to compete and win against an established organization that has had literally hundreds of years to refine and polish their (false) doctrines?
In the realm of Science & Technology - in contrast - the "proof is in the pudding." Either a rocket successfully launches, or it fails. Either a space probe successfully swings by Pluto, or it fails to do so. In that realm, we laymen can thus rely upon the simple evidence of our eyes and ears to determine whose interpretation of physical laws is correct.
(The court is still out on the issue of, e.g., Global Warming - i.e., in this instance, the issue is too complex AND doesn't permit experimentation. "Reproduceability" is unfortunately out of the question because we have only one Earth, and therefore can't conduct a "controlled experiment.")
I don’t understand your question regarding “which version” of the Bible.
Your counter-arguments aren't valid, because the various translations do, indeed, depart from each other on important points. We laymen thus have no means of determining which version to accept and rely upon. As pointed out above, the JW version (due to the [mis-]placement of a single comma) is used to bolster their arcane interpretation and subsequent bizarre theology. The Mormons likewise have a translation that in subtle fashion bolsters their sect.
I re-iterate: Unlike in the real world, where we can determine which faction correctly interprets reality by successfully landing on the Moon - in the realm of theology, where we have only 1) sacred scriptures and 2) miracle-working to determine if a given prophet is true, the laymen cannot rely on "1" - and "2" (miracles) don't happen any more.
Regards,