John A. Broussard

What follows is chiefly a discussion of bible prophecies, since there do seem to be many contained in that work (over a thousand, according to one theist posting in this forum).

These points, however, could apply to prophecies in general, as well.

1. Forever prophecies are not worth considering. Since it would take forever for the prophecy to be fulfilled, there's no way of knowing their truth or falsity.

2. Prophecies cannot be verified unless they are clear and unambiguous. Poetic language can be esthetically satisfying but thoroughly misleading since open to so many interpretations. To say that Babylon will never be rebuilt is meaningless from any predictive viewpoint. What, specifically, is meant by rebuilding. What is meant by "Babylon," for that matter, has to be delineated in the original prophecy. Ad hoc additions to the prophecy to repair the ambiguities are, of course, also meaningless.

3. Most important, there has to be proof that the prophecy was made before the fulfillment of the prophecy. This would seem to be self evident, and yet it is frequently ignored by those who endorse the prophecy. Original documents, clearly dated prior to the event prophesied, are essential. With copies, it must be clear that later interpolations didn't creep into the document. Even engravings and stone carvings can be forged, as the recent ossuary hoax demonstrated.

4. Prophecies should not be confused with predictions. A prediction, by its very nature, does not claim to be an unfailing forecast of a future event. A prophecy, by its nature, does claim to be unfailing.

The above is far from an exhaustive critique of bible prophecies, though it should serve as a reasonable basis for discussion.

CJD

I don't think it really does. However, this .pdf article might.

Best,

CJD

CJD

Incidentally, judge, if you're reading, this article may prove interesting to you.

CJD

judge

Thnx

John A. Broussard

Thanks for the link.

Its title indicates that prophecies and predictions are the same. They aren't, as I have indicated in my OP.

Somehow or other the author confuses the two concepts. The point to the OP is to distinguish between the two.

CJD

The author, who obtained his doctorate at Harvard, and who specialized in the prophetic literature of the TNK, is hardly mistaken on this point.

He makes distinctions, alright. I paraphrase: Most prophetic utterances are not single, specific prognostications. Some are non-predictive statements; some are predictive, but historically fulfilled (i.e., forecasts, predictions); some are predictive, begun and continuing (e.g., the so-called "typologies" employed by the NT authors); and some are predictive, unfulfilled statements. All of them are conditional.

What you will get when you read the article is a good sense of how the prophets were heard and read in their own socio-grammatical context.

It's right and good to distinguish between the various prophetic utterances that we find in the nevi'im, and in so doing, we will see if in their original contexts, the prophecies themselves were judged by what you offered above (in #'s 1–3).

CJD

John A. Broussard

So long as prophetic utterances are not considered to be infallible, I see no reason for arguing about whether or not some are fulfilled.

The problem comes up when someone claims that a document (in this instance, the bible) is inerrant and bases the claim of inerrancy on the fulfilment of the prophesies contained in the document.

We have then drifted far, far away from predictions.

John A. Broussard

I forgot to pick up on this.

Are you saying that his qualifications make his conclusions irrefutable?

Please explain.

CJD

I was simply responding to your "Somehow or other the author confuses the two concepts."

Considering who he is ought to give you pause, and ought to first lead you to consider that you may be the one who is confused.

We live in a world of experts, John, simply because there are far too many things to know all that deeply. Sometimes we do well to humbly give these experts the benefit of the doubt, at least until we are sure we've got reason to differ. Reading an ancient book in its ancient context is no less in need of experts than reading a modern Hawaiian book would be for most of us on the mainland.

Regards,

CJD

John A. Broussard

Thank you for the clarification.

Unfortunately, an argument has to stand on its own merits. The author's scholarly qualifications are no more relevant to the strength of his argument than is his shoe size.

Accepting an expert's conclusions in such an amorphous field as prophecy is tantamount to simply accepting on the basis of faith.