Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John A. Broussard · 06-11-2005, 12:30 PM

According to many who believe that the bible is divinely inspired, and literally true in all respects, is that a proof of inerrancy lies in the biblical prophecies.

I'm inclined to agree--that even a handful of correct prophecies would go a long way to demonstrating some miraculous quality in the source.

However, much as I have tried, I have yet to find a single, unambiguous reference in the bible to any 20th century event.

Now, it may be that those events don't rank along with the second coming, or the rebuilding of Babylon or the sinking of Tyre, or whatever. But I think there's substantial agreement among theists, atheists, agnostics, and other god-believers and non-believers alike that some rather important events occurred in the past century.

Two world wars, the conquest of smallpox, the airplane, even the medium that we are using at this moment, the Holocaust . . . I'm sure most of you could add many more.

So the question is: "Why don't biblical prophecies at least mention in passing that a weapon will be invented which will kill over a hundred thousand people in a single second--which is doing even better than Samson with his jawbone of an ass?"

It doesn't have to give date, place, name of inventor or perpetrator, just a rough time period. An umbiguous prophecy about anything will do. Something like: "Lo and behold, some million or so movements of the sun around the earth, man will make the need for divine miracles to cure leprosy unnecessary."

sgary · 06-11-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

It doesn't have to give date, place, name of inventor or perpetrator, just a rough time period. An umbiguous prophecy about anything will do. Something like: "Lo and behold, some million or so movements of the sun around the earth, man will make the need for divine miracles to cure leprosy unnecessary."

How about a parable, will that do? I'm talking about the one in: Matthew 24.32 ...."the fig tree"..., it starts out with not just hearing but, "Now learn".

The nation of Israel is often refered to as a fig tree, and they became a nation again in 1948, is that modern enough?

sgary

Wallener · 06-11-2005, 09:38 PM

There is nothing in the passage to suggest it will be fulfilled in the 20th century. Or in any other century, for that matter. He's not asking for something that happened in the 20th century, he's asking for something that was *predicted* to happen in the 20th century.

Chili · 06-11-2005, 10:27 PM

John, your question is absurd. The NT is not prophetic and the OT prophesy ended with the arrival of the messiah. Are you part of that evil age that is looking for a sign or what?

John A. Broussard · 06-12-2005, 02:31 PM

I guess the theists just have to admit that there are no prophecies in the bible that foretell any 20th Century events, though they insist that both the OT and NT are inerrant, at least in part because the prophecies are all accurate, unambiguous and clearly identifiable.

It was worth a try to have them come up with even one.

WinAce · 06-12-2005, 05:18 PM

The answer is that, of course, the Bible--nor any other ancient book we know of--contains actual predictive prophecy. It never did. The only reason a vast amount of people believe it does, is because its authors--as well as a bunch of latter questionable characters--used all the con artist techniques mentioned in my Prophecy for Dummies guide to great effect. Stuff like making conveniently after-the-fact "predictions" (and pretending they were written earlier), as in the case of Daniel; shoehorning obscure, symbolic verses into modern events that, when read in hindsight, resemble them somehow; predicting the obvious, like "there will be wars and rumors of wars," and so on.

Alji · 06-14-2005, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

John, your question is absurd. The NT is not prophetic and the OT prophesy ended with the arrival of the messiah. Are you part of that evil age that is looking for a sign or what?

So what do you call 'The Book of Revelation'?

Why does the NT leave out the Essenes, unless the Christians were really Essenes and concocted the life story of thier leader to fit the OT prophecies.

Chili · 06-15-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alji

So what do you call 'The Book of Revelation'?

Why does the NT leave out the Essenes, unless the Christians were really Essenes and concocted the life story of thier leader to fit the OT prophecies.

Revelation is not futuristic or there would be "no ears to hear" the prophetic message. It is prophetic only until it is ours by nature in the same way as the Gospels must be ours before they are no longer prophetic.

They are prophetic to us only until we come full circle and there find that they were prior [intuit] to us by nature all along (and this was true long before Jesus came around to show us how to get there). Let me take you to Aristotle who at the very end [last paragraph] of the Posterior Analytics claims that intuition (nous) is the origen (arche) of knowledge (episteme).

Quote:

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premisses by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. Now of the thinking states by which we grasp truth, some are unfailingly true, others admit of error-opinion, for instance, and calculation, whereas scientific knowing and intuition are always true: further, no other kind of thought except intuition is more accurate than scientific knowledge, whereas primary premisses are more knowable than demonstrations, and all scientific knowledge is discursive. From these considerations it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premisses, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premisses-a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration cannot be the originative source of demonstration, nor, consequently, scientific knowledge of scientific knowledge.If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge. And the originative source of science grasps the original basic premiss, while science as a whole is similarly related as originative source to the whole body of fact.

So the Book of Revelation is ours when we wake up to it.

Added especially for John: omniscience is ours in the real world and until we get there we must extrapolate from omniscience and take a chance on doing it right.

And a special welcome to you Alji. I see that philosophy is one of your favorites. I like it too, but do not know much about it.

John A. Broussard · 06-16-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alji

So what do you call 'The Book of Revelation'?

Why does the NT leave out the Essenes, unless the Christians were really Essenes and concocted the life story of thier leader to fit the OT prophecies.

Welcome aboard.

Don't be surprised if some of the posts are incomprehensible. A little wise picking and choosing will give you some good information in spite of that.

Revelation is, of course, almost entirely prophecies. It was a near miss at the time as to whether or not it would be included in the official version(s) of the bible. As it is, it seems to be a fundamental book for the new millenarian movement in America (and probably in your country too)--the Rapture.

The Essenes do look suspiciously like Christ precursors. I can give you a good forum to go to if you want to pursue that topic.

Chili · 06-16-2005, 07:27 AM

There always were those who could not take "that kind of talk." It makes
Revelation a bit scary and likely to make goat herders out of good people.

06-11-2005, 12:30 PM	#1
John A. Broussard Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,629	20th century biblical prophecies. According to many who believe that the bible is divinely inspired, and literally true in all respects, is that a proof of inerrancy lies in the biblical prophecies. I'm inclined to agree--that even a handful of correct prophecies would go a long way to demonstrating some miraculous quality in the source. However, much as I have tried, I have yet to find a single, unambiguous reference in the bible to any 20th century event. Now, it may be that those events don't rank along with the second coming, or the rebuilding of Babylon or the sinking of Tyre, or whatever. But I think there's substantial agreement among theists, atheists, agnostics, and other god-believers and non-believers alike that some rather important events occurred in the past century. Two world wars, the conquest of smallpox, the airplane, even the medium that we are using at this moment, the Holocaust . . . I'm sure most of you could add many more. So the question is: "Why don't biblical prophecies at least mention in passing that a weapon will be invented which will kill over a hundred thousand people in a single second--which is doing even better than Samson with his jawbone of an ass?" It doesn't have to give date, place, name of inventor or perpetrator, just a rough time period. An umbiguous prophecy about anything will do. Something like: "Lo and behold, some million or so movements of the sun around the earth, man will make the need for divine miracles to cure leprosy unnecessary."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2005, 09:38 PM	#3
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	There is nothing in the passage to suggest it will be fulfilled in the 20th century. Or in any other century, for that matter. He's not asking for something that happened in the 20th century, he's asking for something that was predicted to happen in the 20th century.

06-11-2005, 10:27 PM	#4
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	John, your question is absurd. The NT is not prophetic and the OT prophesy ended with the arrival of the messiah. Are you part of that evil age that is looking for a sign or what?

06-12-2005, 02:31 PM	#5
John A. Broussard Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,629	I guess the theists just have to admit that there are no prophecies in the bible that foretell any 20th Century events, though they insist that both the OT and NT are inerrant, at least in part because the prophecies are all accurate, unambiguous and clearly identifiable. It was worth a try to have them come up with even one.

06-12-2005, 05:18 PM	#6
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	The answer is that, of course, the Bible--nor any other ancient book we know of--contains actual predictive prophecy. It never did. The only reason a vast amount of people believe it does, is because its authors--as well as a bunch of latter questionable characters--used all the con artist techniques mentioned in my Prophecy for Dummies guide to great effect. Stuff like making conveniently after-the-fact "predictions" (and pretending they were written earlier), as in the case of Daniel; shoehorning obscure, symbolic verses into modern events that, when read in hindsight, resemble them somehow; predicting the obvious, like "there will be wars and rumors of wars," and so on.

06-16-2005, 07:27 AM	#10
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	There always were those who could not take "that kind of talk." It makes Revelation a bit scary and likely to make goat herders out of good people.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.