D.M.R.

I currently am at odds as to what my belifes are, but I saw a website which, at first glance, seemed to prove all biblical prophecy true, down to every last detail.

I didn't give it more than one quick overview, so it is entirely possible that it is flawed, as things like that tend to be, but this one seemed to stand out among all the others. It just struck me as unbelievably seamless.

It also seemed to deal with topics that were not addressed on the main page, or any of the other pages.

I would very much appriciate it if you would give it a look, and give any insight that you may have regarding it.
www.abundantbible.org

or if that dosent work...
www.soapopera.com

or if that dosent work...
www.yahho.com
(That's how I first got to it, by accidentally misspelling yahoo.com)

Thank you very much in advance.

Echo

This site contains dozens and dozens and dozens of links on a huge variety of bible-related topics. Even the section on prophecies is massive and contains multiple links. Asking for general feedback is probably not going to get you anywhere.

You're going to have to be FAR more specific about what particular topic you would like to discuss.

Quatermass

Her'a an amazing prophecy from the site:
People would be taking drugs
Sounds like it may apply to the folks behind abundantbible!

D.M.R.

Well, what I was refering to specifically was what was discussed on the main page(towards the bottom/middle), and in the "prophecy" link. The stuff about Israel, it's history, etc., basically all the stuff that the main site gets into is what I'd like to discuss. It gets extraordinarily specific, which is one of the things that makes it stand out so much.

3DChizl

I have not been to the site yet, but I wanted to mention that I think the Christian and Jewish people of the world want Isreal to be a fulfilled prophesy and that they are intentionally trying to do so.
edit
You said: OK, been there 10 minutes and found this which ties in to one of my favorite subjects lately!
The site is not too good with detail if it only took a few minutes to come across something so contriversial within the Christian faith presented as casual fact. Here is what it said: emphasis added
Here is a link to the <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000899" TARGET=_blank>
Melchizedek thread</A>
For a short version of two different Christian views on M. go here.
I'd be real careful snooping around this fundie site!

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]

[ November 13, 2001: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]

Echo

DMR,

I'll just pinpoint a few general problems I see with the prophecies on this page.


1) They are vague, vague, vague. Laughably vague. Don't tell me "there will be earthquakes." Tell me exactly when, where, at what time, an on what date? That would be impressive. "There will be earthquakes" is not.

2) Some of these predictions concern commonplace events that anyone could predict, and some appear to be simply educated guesses. "People will disobey their parents"? Gee..how amazing. "There will be a great military power to the north of Israel"? Imagine that.


3) Imprecise wording. "The church in the last days will be lukewarm". What constitutes lukewarm? If I predict that a "devastating" tornado will hit the American midwest next year, and one twister touches down and knocks over one barn, does this count as fulfillment of my prophecy of a "devastating" tornado?

4) Subject to multiple interpretations. I could interpret Zech 14:12 as a prophecy of nuclear weapons and I could interpret Dan2:44 as a prophecy of the EEC, but I could just as easily interpret them in a half dozen other different ways- all equally fitting.

5)No time limits are given for these predictions. Don't just tell me "there will be X" or "there will be Y" and then not give me a deadline after which I am justified in concluding the prophecy was not fulfilled. If I tell you "Christianity will die out in the US" and then 50 years later it is stronger than ever, you'd think I was pretty stupid if I said "well the prophecy didn't fail, it just hasn't happened *yet*"

deank

The best way to read the bible:

Old Testament: You are Jewish, and your ethnic group has had a hard time throughout it's history.

New Testament: You are a 3rd century gentile becoming attached to a Jewish religion.

If you read the bible from these perspectives it all does make sense. The old testament describes how your ethnic group is God's chosen ethnic group that will always be protected. It also includes ways to keep good hygiene, keep order in your community (via morals, laws), and to stay away from potentially dangerous food.

The new testament is about how anyone, including you, can now have the same privileges once available only to Jews. You are waiting for Christ to return so you can go to heaven.

Read the "worldly" history of each time period, then read the bible passages. It will be come incredibly clear that human motivations have shaped the Bible rather than any supernatural revelation.

boneyard bill

I really don't have the energy or the interest in tracking down all of the citations on the web site, but if you're really interested in the subject you should do so. I once listened to a guy on TV talking about Biblical prophecy and I looked up his citations. I couldn't see where the passages he referenced said anything like what he claimed they said. I feel quite certain that somewhere in the New Testament Paul says that Jesus will return in the lifetime of his audience, but I can't cite Chapter and Verse.

However accurate the Bible is about the future, it certainly has some problems with the past. Luke and Matthew both give a geneology for Jesus but the two accounts don't agree. We are all familiar with Luke's story of Christ's birth in a stable, but Matthew says he was born in a house. Mary Magdalene is present in every account of the discovery of the empty tomb, but aside from that the details differ widely from gospel to gospel. John disagrees with the synoptics on which day the Last Supper occurred. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew occurs, in Luke, on a plain.

There are countless other contradictions including questions of doctrine and theological questions. It is simply impossible to take the Bible literally. There are too many things written by different people at different times. If they were all inspired by God in a literal sense, they should not contradict each other but they do.

"The purpose of a revelation," Martin Luther said, "is to reveal." It was his comment on the Book of Revelations. He didn't find that it revealed much of anything and he knew the Bible about as well as anyone. After all, he translated it into German.

Muad'Dib

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, NRSV (all emphasis mine):
Note that he says "We who are alive" rather than "those who are alive."

There is no way around the fact that Paul expected the imminent return of Christ at the time he wrote 1 Thessalonians, although in his later letters he seems to moderate that view somewhat.

uncle_onion

I looked at the site in question. I wrote to them about something that they posted. Look at their response and ask yourself is this a rational person talking?

I wrote:

Hi



Saw your site. You wrote : 8. There would be an increase in earthquakes-Mt 24:2,3,7; Mk 13:8; Lk 21:11. This prophecy is correct. That’s 8 out of 8.
Note: Research from the U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center reveals that in 1986, the total number of earthquakes was 12,718. In 1990, it was 16,612. In 1994, it was 19,371. This will culminate during the Battle of Armageddon, AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS. At that time, there will be an earthquake that will shake the world. The cities of the nations will fall.

I have contacted the above and they stated that earthquakes have not increased?



Uncle onion

They wrote back:


Thank you for visiting our site. May we suggest that before you accuse someone of publishing false information (lying) that you do a little better research and don't rely on what other people tell you. Do your own research!



Attached to this email is a word document with the statistical charts right off of the Governments website. Look for your self. I have highlighted in red the yearly totals. You may search out the information from their website to verify the charts at the following URL: http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html



If they are not increasing then please tell us, exactly what it is you think they are doing?



Thank you



************************************************** ****************************

I wrote back:

I Contacted them a year ago and they told me categorically that Earthquakes are NOT increasing. Ask them yourself and they will tell you (as they told me) that because we have more detection equipment now we recognise more earthquakes. I suggest that you do your own research and ask their opinions of their research and not form your own opinions.



Uncle onion


Them:

-----Original Message-----
From: ineedjesus@worldnet.att.net [mailto:ineedjesus@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: 16 November 2001 22:40
To: uncle_onion@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: question





That's rather peculiar reasoning. If they have more detection equipment and are detecting more earthquakes. Then it would stand to reason that had they possessed the same eauipment during previous years, then those numbers would also be higher. So then, since they did not have said equipment, please explain to us exactly what they are basing their comparisons with since there are supposedly no readings from previous years to compare them?



What kind of time frame are they saying that the quakes are not increasing in? Six months, a year, two years? What? Also, we did not base are statements on their website alone. We also spoke to several people there and found conflicting stories.



We can line up geologist on both sides of the isles to confirm both sides. However, we chose to print the official findings of the agency. Which is as I sent you. And which, I might add is current through 5-2001. If they want to say that these numbers are not accurate, then they should take them off their website and post new findings. Until then, our statement stands!



And just for the record, We really do not put much faith in anything they tell us or post. However, we related their figures because they are the only supposedly reliable source of stats.



I really do not mean this issue to become a point of contention between us. And I think I was a bit sharp with you in my previous email. Please forgive me.



God Bless you.



****************************************

Me:

I don’t want to labour the point here.



You wrote:



“That's rather peculiar reasoning. If they have more detection equipment and are detecting more earthquakes. Then it would stand to reason that had they possessed the same eauipment during previous years, then those numbers would also be higher. So then, since they did not have said equipment, please explain to us exactly what they are basing their comparisons with since there are supposedly no readings from previous years to compare them?”



Ask them yourself as I have. They will tell you that the equipment has become more sensitive and therefore erecords more. Ask them yourself and they will tell you that earthquakes are not increasing.





“We can line up geologist on both sides of the isles to confirm both sides.”





Then why do you only quote ones that agree with you. Is that not dishonest?



However, we chose to print the official findings of the agency. Which is as I sent you. And which, I might add is current through 5-2001. If they want to say that these numbers are not accurate, then they should take them off their website and post new findings. Until then, our statement stands!



And just for the record, We really do not put much faith in anything they tell us or post. However, we related their figures because they are the only supposedly reliable source of stats.



Then why do you put it on your web site?



I really do not mean this issue to become a point of contention between us. And I think I was a bit sharp with you in my previous email. Please forgive me.



No problem but I would like an answer back please.



**********************************

Now they start geting nasty:

I've got a great idea for you. Since you like asking them stuff. Why don't you ask them why they don't correct their website? Why are they supposedly saying one thing but posting another?

************************************************** ************

I wrote back:
For your information, here is the relevant part of their web site





Q: Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has earthquake activity been increasing?

A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years. A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 4,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by telex, computer and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years, and we are able to locate earthquakes more rapidly. The NEIC now locates about 12,000 to 14,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 35 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes. According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 18 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year. However, let's take a look at what has happened in the past 32 years, from 1969 through 2001, so far. Our records show that 1992, and 1995-1997 were the only years that we have reached or exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes since 1971. In 1970 and in 1971 we had 20 and 19 major earthquakes, respectively, but in other years the total was in many cases well below the 18 per year which we may expect based on the long-term average.

See NEIC's Earthquake Statistics webpage for the tables of earthquake counts by magnitude and year.