Emp-JohnIV

I will list a small portion of the proficys that were wrong tomorrow, and it surprises me that a perfect god would ever be wrong.

Amlodhi

Hi Dylan,

Jagan has addressed your points admirably above. If you will read these OT passages carefully, in context, and in the intent of the original language, you will see that these "prophecies" refer to events contemporary to the writing.

Quite often, this is made so explicit that even apologists are unable to deny it. These explicit passages are sometimes immediately followed by seemingly "failed" prophecies. This occasionally results in the extraordinary practice of pulling individual paragraphs from their context and designating them as "prophecy" of some future event. IOW, one explicitly referenced paragraph pertains to the Babylonian captivity; the next paragraph must (obviously?) refer to some future event that hasn't happened yet; the paragraph after that goes back to talking about the Babylonian captivity.

With this method there are no failed prophecies. If a passage refers to a known contemporary event, it is an amazing prophecy. If it doesn't refer to a known contempory event (or it doesn't fit the details), it is pulled from the middle of the surrounding context and becomes an amazing prophecy of some yet to happen event. A true Win/Win methodology.


Amlodhi

Amlodhi

Hi Emp-JohnIV,

Indeed. But it surprises me not at all that a group of religiously motivated individuals, (who at every moment expected their god to intervene and vindicate them), would be wrong.

On that note, some on this thread might be interested to read this book:

When Time Shall Be No More, (the history and study of prophecy belief in modern American culture), Paul Boyer, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge Mass., 1992.


I look forward to your list,

Amlodhi