Illusionist

i hear a lot about all of the "new and exciting!" evidence supporting bible prophecy fulfillment. does anyone have any comments or unbiased links on the subject? I think they are for the most part incredibly vague predictions, but still christians insist they are "unbelievably accurate".

Johnny Skeptic

Here are the Secular Web there are hundreds of articles that adequately refute a lot of Bible prophecies. I am always ready to debate Bible prophecy with Christians. Lee Merrill's favorite topics are various Bible prophecies, but he is having more trouble than he can handle in my thread on the Babylon prophecy. In addition, he refuses to debate the Tyre prophecy anymore. Maybe he will pick a new prophecy to debate in this thread if he reads it.

Even if God "can" predict the future, that doesn't prove that he is good. Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too.

Columbo

So says you.

Columbo

In my experience, there has been no proper genuine and all-refuting argument against biblical prophecies, and I've argued for them for a long time now. Maybe an "atheist's response" to a prophecy, yes.

Usually, it becomes that the none-believer will start interpreting the scriptures to match up with his argument.

The typical boring example is the suffering servant being a nation. *Yawn*.

I had such a tedious debate about that one. It seems a lot of obvious conclusions are never met. But rather that the atheist will try and make the premises look as bad as they possibly can.

If they say Christ is "Vague" about rumours of wars, then how does that refute the possibility that he indeed foreseen wars.

So it's not possible to actually refute biblical prophecies in some cases, as you haven't the information that would allow you to do that. In this case, it's not conclusive. You could only infer that Christ's statement is vague, and nothing more.

It's not true to say the bible is refuted pertaining to prophecies, unless you simply think it is in your opinion.

pharoah

I'd say that when you use things like "double fullfillment", "partial fulfillment", redefining words to suit your whim (a day can be day, week, Gregorian year, Hebrew year or 2000 years), then you can shoehorn any event to fit a prophecy. Under these elastic rules, it would be more incredible to me if you could find an event that hasn't been prophesied and fullfilled in the Bible.

spin

Such a position is usually based on a lack of understanding as to what a Hebrew nby) was. That a prophet was not a sideshow fortuneteller, but a "social" critic, ie someone who spoke out against particular aspects of society, of inequality, of not fulfilling one's responsibility towards a god, of abuses. Belching and farting against the powers that were was also a part of the job.

And christians shift the content from the context of the speaker to whatever suits their theological presuppositions.

Great example. The christian deceitfully ignores the context and much of the content and produces a revisionist rehash that ignores the fact that the servant is the faithful Jew, the people of Jacob in all their suffering. But with the misappropriation of Jewish religious literature the christian brushes all that aside.

Tedious obviously because you don't get your way.

I personally wouldn't say such a thing because I haven't reified the literary Jesus.

It depends on the "prophecy". Prophecies turned into mere predictions which refer to knowable contexts can be seen to be either fulfilled or not.


spin

Columbo

False dichotomy. Some are for God to reveal. Even Christ explained what many prophecies meant because nobidy knew. What makes you think you have the knowledge of God?

You forget that my "theological presuppositions" include the chore belief in God. Thus I and the Jew have more in common than you.

For if we can all be one in belief, in understanding scriptures, if we only agreed, then what is it to your benefit? Is it not to no end?

The prophecy of the suffering servant did come to pass in the form of Christ, and was accurate in foretelling this.

The fact that you can't falsify prophecy except according to a very simplistic method, leaves you unworthy of saying it is refuted.

There is no way an atheist can scientifically approach a Godly matter.

You can only say "it is fulfilled or isn't". If it is then you find a way for it not to be, as with the servant example. If it isn't then again - happy days for you. I guess it's called a win-win situation really. A bit of an atithesis of catch 22. And how can you arrive at any truth if you guarantee yourself a falsification?

The truth is that if the prophecy is established and then proven wrong then you have a refutation. Untill then, all unbelievers are arrogant in the assumption that they understand a book written for those who believe. This being a perverse attitude! How can you possibly understand having know the scripture that those in unbelief are blinded?

spin

That's merely your claim.

Not demonstrable, so without practical meaning.

As I said I haven't reified the literary Jesus. Why should I? Why should you?

Ultimately irrelevant. You're stealing the Jews' cultural heritage.

Why ask questions that no-one can answer?

That is your (and your group's) interpretation of the literature, nothing more.

Before you can talk about refutation you have to demonstrate. To do so, you have to meaningfully critique the methodology rather than assuming your critique.

How would you know?

I personally am not interested in what you call "prophecy". I have seen how obstinately wriggly a fundamentalist no-brainer defence of a particular "prophecy" can be. I see people who are willing to repudiate all scholarly analysis, cling to absurdity, make the most outlandish claims to defend a "prophecy", that it is often humiliating for the proponent who nevertheless cannot see the situation. Then again, other "prophecies" are of things that were by necessity to happen, the downfall of this power or that, some retribution here or there. These things were for the edification of the ancient listener.

All the discussions I have seen inevitably end in absurdity. That in itself should be a lesson to you.

When a person is not in a position to change hypotheses, they are in no position to be scientifically honest in their approach. Science requires you to change if the data says you are wrong. If you cannot do that, then you cannot partake in honest communion on the matter. You have already given up any possibility of objectivity when you cannot but approach the text with an attitude of religious bias. I'm allowed to change my position. I'm not committed to any one. If the evidence points to the veracity of the crux at hand then I have to accept that. You cannot do the same. Yours is not a position of arrogance, but of inherent failure.


spin

Sauron

Not really.

Usually what happens is that the skeptic takes the position of the pro-prophecy poster, carefully deconstructs it with history, archaeology, or biblical criticism, and quickly demonstrates the failure.

Everything after that point is just a series of stalling actions by the pro-prophecy person; many varied and creative attempts to twist and re-interpret the text, in order to avoid the impending checkmate. That's the point when the audience usually figures out that evidence doesn't matter to the pro-prophecy position and they lose interest. Can't blame them, really.


1.First you need to figure out what your actual position is here. You say "the *possibility*", but then you follow with "indeed". Which is it? A possibility that Christ foresaw the wars? Or a certainty?

2. Moreover, you have not presented any such evidence that "he indeed foreseen wars."


On the contrary. It's a failure. If someone steps forth and affirmatively claims to be defending the accuracy of prophecy, yet they argue to a draw, then they haven't proven their case.

It's quite true. It's been done several times in the Tyre and Babylon threads.

Johnny Skeptic

Even if Bible prophecies are divinely inspired and have come true, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to predict the future and goodness.