To reiterate:  To make sure our understanding is correct we must

1) Not assume what the text does not prohibit.

2) Know the (complete) context of any passage.

3) Ensure our interpretation has harmony (uniformity) with the entirety of Bible.

So, if your first response to Camping's claim was as my own initially, "Mark 13:32 says 'Of that day or hour, no one knows'" then you've broken rule #1.  How?  Ask yourself this, "Does the text exclude anyone ever knowing?"  The fact is the text does not.  I'm going to give the translators credit and accept that "know" is the correct translation of the original Greek word and the correct tense of the word.  That tense is present... present to Jesus at the time he spoke it, not our present time.  It is possible that the day or the hour could be revealed later because the text does not have a present-perfect tense ("no one can ever know") nor a future tense ("no one will ever know").  There is a big difference and we don't respect that difference.  It took God Himself to remind me to look at that passage again, word for word and not only pay attention to what it says, but what it does not say.

I'm stressing this point the first and the heaviest of all because it was assumption that caused Orthodox Jews then and now to reject Jesus as Messiah.  It was the things they assumed from the prophecies that were never explicitly prohibited.  We have to be very careful of this.  The prophecy stated Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but it never stated Messiah would stay there.  Jesus started his ministry from Nazareth in Galilee and so many rejected he was Messiah because they assumed that he should have started from Bethlehem as the scriptures said.  But the scripture wasn't wrong, the assumption was wrong.  In other words, the scripture did not exclude the possibility of Messiah being born in Bethlehem, moving a number of times and then settling in Galilee (which is what happened).

Scripture also declared Messiah would rebuild the temple and re-establish the David's monarchy.  At the time of Jesus' ministry, the temple still stood... so how could he be Messiah?  The assumption made (then and now) was Messiah would fulfill all of those things in one arrival.  But it is in fact just an assumption.  The text never excludes the possibility of Messiah coming once, dying, resurrected and then returning again to fulfill the remainder of prophecy.  It simply doesn't exclude it. It's not until John's revelation that we see Messiah fulfilling the remaining prophecy.

I can't emphasis this enough: be careful of what you read and the assumptions you make.  Check and double check that you are only reading the words on the page, not reading into them.  Be willing to lay down what you think you know and as proverbs says, "Lean not on your own understanding".

Now, we need to see if our understanding of Mark 13:32 is in harmony with the entirety of the book and we come across Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. (NASB)"

Uh oh.  There's a problem.  Amos 3:7 has not only an exclusion but an expressed absolute.  "Nothing".   There are no exceptions to "nothing".  Since the Bible can not contradict itself, then something else must not be correct.  Either one or both passages need to be reexamined in their original language, or more likely, we assumed something from Mark 13:32 that we should not have.  What are consistent examples we see in the rest of the Bible?  The LORD did reveal the day of destruction to Noah; He revealed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham; He revealed the destruction of Babylon to Daniel; He revealed the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersal of His own people to any number of prophets.  The consistency of examples agree with Amos 3:7, not our assumed meaning of Mark 13:32.

I'll be honest:  I don't like Harold Camping. I caught his radio program as a brand new believer and found his treatment of callers entirely too harsh.  I put that out there so that you can know I have not written any of the above out of personal bias for him.  In preparing for this post, I studied his background and his methodology over and I was prepared to pick apart his allegorical method of biblical interpretation but then God Himself stopped me somewhere in that.

Harold Camping and I, for the most part, agree on how to correctly read the Bible except in the area of using the Bible allegorically for a "spiritual meaning."  An example of allegorical reasoning would be to look at Deuteronomy 22:10 which says "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together (NASB)" and derive from that people of differing races shouldn't marry.  Allegorical interpretations lead people to say things such as "well, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways" --- which is wholly incorrect.  You can make any allegory you want to make out of any portion text, sure.  The safest practice is not to assume anything in the Bible is an allegory unless the text tells you it is (there are numerous places of that), since the text also tells you the correct interpretation of that allegory.

But it turns out that I don't need to spend countless hours showing how Camping's allegorical conclusions are questionable at best.  Camping could be right in his method and his prediction and it still be in harmony with the entire Bible but for one thing.  Re-reading Amos 3:7, we see the LORD reveals His plans to prophets.  We also see that anytime the LORD speaks in allegories or dreams, it is the prophet who interprets them.  Therefore the real question is, "Is Harold Camping a prophet?"  I have no doubt he's saved and despite my dislike for him I have no doubt his heart for God is real and sincere.  But is he a prophet?

Contrary to modern assumption, there's more to being a true prophet from the LORD than just giving out predictions.  The first rule of a prophet comes from Deuteronomy 13:1-3

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known ) and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams ; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (NASB)

In this text we find an important lesson:  Just because a prediction comes true, does not mean this is a prophet of the LORD.  Prophets of the LORD call people to repentance and to turn back to Him, not away from Him.  Dr. Camping preaches a gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins, even though some of his other doctrine is highly suspect.  He's good on that point.

The next test of a prophet is Deuteronomy 18:22

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously ; you shall not be afraid of him." (NASB)

As we read through other parts of the texts, we understand the LORD's prophets never fail in prediction.  Not once.  100% fulfillment.  That is the sole reason Harold Camping is not a prophet of the LORD.  He predicted the rapture to occur sometime in September of 1994 (ironically using Mark 13:32 as an excuse not to know which exact day in September) and we all know September 1994 came and went with no rapture of the church.  The thing did not come about, Camping spoken presumptuously and so we do not need to fear or give credibility to any other prophecy he makes.

In spite of my disagreement with him, I find I am thankful for Camping in many ways.  The man does have an obviously God-given gift for understanding mathematical relevants found in the Bible and he probably is correct in dating the earth to closer to 11,000 years old rather than 6,000, since most scholars assume the heritage lines in Genesis, Matthew and Mark are direct lineage.  There's more evidence from the Bible alone to suggest that's probably not the case.  Harold Camping has also spent an impressive amount of time going over the Bible in its entirety and I respect that.  Mostly, he has shown where we Christians are weak... because all it takes is one atheist to bring up Amos 3:7 in comparison to Mark 13:32 and we're left stumbling for an answer.  And it's not that the text was wrong.  We hadn't done the due diligence in critical thinking, asking ourselves "wait, why do I think this means...?"   Is it because Doctor, Reverend or Pastor so-and-so said as much?  Because traditionally that's what the collective thinks?   No.  You can know this book for yourself, so long as you are searching for the absolute truth and trusting in God Himself to open your eyes to its words.

I thank Harold Camping for the challenge and I certainly welcome anyone who disagrees with something I said to call it out.  I really don't care if I'm wrong.  I do care to know how to tell the difference between right and wrong.

To be sure, many people can read the same passage and derive different conclusions.  The fact that this phenomenon is possible does not mean that is the intent of the Bible, nor does it mean all conclusions are true and equally valid.  How can any individual be sure their understanding is the correct one?  It starts with the recognition that only what the author intended is the correct interpretation.  I don't know anyone who takes the trouble to write a book with the intention that each reader decides for themselves what it means.  No sane person I know does that.  If someone writes a book, then the author has something to convey.  That's pretty basic.  When you're separated from the author by decades and languages...what then? You have to put aside your way of looking at things and get into the writer's way and you do that by comparing it with the rest of the body of work because the author will be uniform in all their manner.

Uniform.  Important word to note. Find the the uniformity first, because all other questions of ambiguity are solved against that.

If you haven't read the post Basic Truth you should browse it before continuing. It is the foundation of my next statement: The correct interpretation of any small part of the work is in harmony with the entire body of work.  There can't be contradictions.  I find that "contradiction" needs explaining too.  A contradiction isn't something that appears in-congruent, nor is a contradiction two opposing or paradoxical statements.  Originally a "contradiction" meant two or more things which could not both simultaneously be true.  If I said "Bryan is in the room" and "Jim is in the room", both statements are not contradictions even though they don't completely agree.  There's no reference to timing so it is possible one was in the room at another time period.  The statements "Only Bryan is in the room" and "Jim is in the room at the same time as Bryan" are contradictions because both can not be true simultaneously.  The absolute declaration "only" has eliminated all possibility of the other statement.

I defined contradiction to set up my next statement: The Bible can not have contradictions.  If it in truth does, then it can not be from God and we may as well throw it out and live whatever way makes sense in our own eyes.  It must be perfect and without contradictions of any kind if it is to be authoritative.  And you find there are no contradictions in it.  There are people who misuse or misunderstand what a "contradiction" is when they make that claim.  There are several passages that don't seem to agree and actually seem to oppose one another, but they do not contradict.

One final thing to define is assumption.  An assumption is a conclusion drawn from the text which has not been literally stated in the text.  I find that assumption is the biggest obstacle to truly understanding the Bible and what's worst most of the time we don't realize we're making them.  To begin seeing the Bible the way the Author intended, you must be aware of what assumptions you're making when reading the text and lay those assumptions down.

You will not be able to correctly apply any scripture if you don't know the big picture of it all, cover to cover.  That means reading it start to finish as often as possible, rather than select verses here and there.  The reason for that is context.  Context isn't just the verses before and after, but where that chapter fits into the entire book; where that book fits into the entire history, and so forth.  I have a concern for individuals who only read select passages here and there because they end up believing anything a person says, so long as they give enough verses to back it up.  It's not a matter of if you can find a verse to support your position.  The matter is does that position fit in absolute harmony with the entirety of scripture.  The entirety of it.