Fortune-telling - Bible vs. I Ching??

Q:  You seem to have wisdom from the Bible and some unusual views about it, yet you also work with the I Ching, a fortune-telling oracle, which is forbidden in the Bible.  How do you reconcile these conflicting points of view?  D.S.

A:  The oracle of Solomon's Temple is shown as the innermost part of the sanctuary (I Kings chapters 6-8).  In these days, rather than being situated in a building, the oracle is within us.  "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," according to Joel 2:28-29.  In the New Testament, prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:10).  The criterion is the Spirit -- that the "oracle," guidance, or "prophecy" be Spirit-inspired.  "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (II Cor. 3:6).

For the last 3,000 years, the I Ching has been used to provide answers to questions that can only be truly answered as the reader follows an inner-inspired path for himself, for herself.  Hence, my use of the oracle in The Nu I Ching is different than most.  Rather than predicting future events, or dictating a course of action, each reading directs one inward to where the answers and guidance originate.  It is internally-focused, helping the reader develop a practice of listening to the inner guidance that resonates within us all, a path that is often shut off by various means.  The Nu I Ching assists in re-opening these routes of inner listening and wisdom.

Traditional versions of the I Ching are based on a seriously flawed rendition of the original system of 64 hexagrams.  Those who are familiar both with common versions, and with The Nu I Ching, readily see the vast difference between the two.

That being said, The Nu I Ching stands on its own without any oracular aspect at all.  It uncovers I Ching history that predates the most scholarly history that I have found referenced anywhere, and it reframes what (only a few) others have said about the original 64 hexagrams, with its numeric formula (4 x 4 = 16 x 4 = 64) which duplicates that of our DNA.  This carries enormous implications as to its potential usefulness, which has been overlooked for millennia.