-Jay-

So in other words, The Lord loved the Hebrews because The Lord loved the Hebrews. All righty then. How is this any different from the followers of any other religion claiming they're special because their god(s) think they're special?

OK. I slightly misunderstood your comment about overturning. Well, your flensed claims on the Babylonian prophecy aside, the position you seem to be taking appears to turn on the notion of remote prophecy fulfilment - to wit, just because a prophecy hasn't been fulfilled yet doesn't mean it won't, even in instances (such as Babylon, which became the biggest city in the world after the Medes had their way with it) where the conditions of the prophecy have already been disconfirmed. The only way that works is by interpretting the wording of the supposed prophecy so loosely that it could almost mean anything.

You didn't address my original point anyway:

The fact remains that there is not a single Biblical prophecy that can't be explained in terms of either:

A) reasonable (if perhaps optimistic) extrapolations of contemporary events
B) ex post facto writing about historical events that is styled to look like prophecy

If you can provide an example of a prophecy that cannot be explained in terms of either A) or B) above, then please do so.

regards,

NinJay

shirley knott

I predict that lee will not be able to respond to your request, NinJay, because lee is unable to produce a distinction between prediction and prophecy.
He seems to believe that the concept of prophecy is somehow a prior valid and applicable, we just have to find instances. I disagree, and challenge him to produce any prophecy at all, under his definition of prophecy.
Until he can do so, his entire attempt at an argument is a non-starter.
I refuse to grant the legitimacy of claims to prophecy when we have no ground or warrant for distinguishing alleged prophecies from predictions. Still less will I grant legitimacy to claims to prophecy when such alleged prophecies will be used to beg the question of the existence of the supernatural, which such a grant of legitimacy would support.
It is up to those who assert that prophecies exist to provide unambiguous examples of same.
They have not. They can not.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Jack the Bodiless

What I find quite remarkable about Biblical prophecies is this:

If a prophecy IS apparently fulfilled, then "lucky guess" would generally be a reasonable explanation (if the event isn't too outlandish to be guessed). And yet, I have never seen any example where "it was probably a lucky guess" is required.

So far, in every single case I've ever seen where the "prophecy" was definitely made before the event: the Bible always fails. Not once has the Bible been correct, even by chance. The ONLY "prophecies" which the authors managed to get right are those apparently written AFTER the event prophesied.

Judging by their 0% success rate so far, if a Christian prophet says "the Sun will rise tomorrow"... it won't. The nearest he could get would be "I hereby claim that yesterday I prophesied that the Sun would rise this morning, and behold... it did!".

Johnny Skeptic

But according even to most fundamentalist Christians, you have misinterpreted the Babylon prophecy. Why should anyone accept the word of you and a relative handful of people who might not even outnumber the number of people who believe that the earth if flat, and that men have not landed on the moon? You have not posted even one single expert fundamentalist Christian source who agrees with you. This is unheard of in serious debates, trying to impress people with a narrowly held position even among your own group. Can you produce even one single Bible commentary that agrees with you? Well of course you can't. I checked five Bible commentaries a couple of years ago, and they all disagree with you. Since you like Wheaton College, why don't you contact a professor there and ask him what he thinks of your challenge? Readers can bet that you will not do that because you do not wish to embarrass yourself.

For the benefit of readers who have not checked out a number of Bible commentaries like I have, consider the following:

In his 'Believer's Bible Commentary,' William MacDonald says the following:

MacDonald has done his homework well. He knows that a number of pieces of the puzzle do not fit, and that some future events must take place in order for them to fit.

Consider the following:

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

The article says that "Some [Bible scholars] believe that [Babylon] will be rebuilt on the very real estate once occupied by ancient Babylon." How is it that you know more about the Babylon prophecy than the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians scholars and laymen do?

It is interesting to note that if God really wanted to issue challenges to skeptics, he would show up in person and deliver them to everyone, thereby eliminating a lot of doubt. Similarly, if God really wanted people to believe that he can predict the future, he would show up and demonstrate that he can predict the future.

That is cute. Not only do Persians live in Iran, not in Iraq, but according to a web site at http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...pages/651.html, "Arabs constitute the majority in Iraq and the second largest group of Iraqi migrants to Chicago." At any rate, even if you were right that Persians live in Iraq, it would be easy to import some Arabs from other places. Of course, you already knew that, which invites the question "Why did you make a ridiculous argument like that?" I've got it, you wanted to be evasive in spite of the fact that you know that Arabs are as easy to find as Jews are, but your evasive tactic did not work. Part of Isaiah 13:19-20 says that no Arab will ever pitch his tent in Babylon. That part of the prophecy would be easy to overturn, and has most likely already been overturned many times.

If your challenge had any merits, surely at least one prominent Christian would be making it, but such is not the case. How do you account for that?

lee_merrill

I don't much care what you or I label it as right now, the point is that those who want to disprove the Christian claim now have it in their power to do so. Increasing numbers of failures, especially knowing what is at stake if Babylon is rebuilt or reinhabited, indicate there is supernatural intervention.

lee_merrill

They have other concerns, you may be aware of them, and I don't know if they are so motivated to attempt this, certainly they don't now style themselves the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar like Saddam did. But maybe some day someone will take up my challenge, who has the motivation, the outcome will be (I would say) interesting. There are other cities too, such as Hazor, such as the heart of ancient Edom, with similar prophecies.

lee_merrill

My. Look it up, please.

I know that. The restriction was that it would not be rebuilt.

No, that is my challenge.

It seems you do not recall the outcome of that discussion, where I reached virtual agreement with the principle proponent of the skeptic view.

lee_merrill

Jews have rather a special claim to being special. Notably a prophecy that they would return to their homeland, which has since been fulfilled.

Isaiah 11:12-14 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth [check]. Ephraim's jealousy will vanish, and Judah's enemies will be cut off; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim [check - no division of tribes now]. They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west [check]; together they will plunder the people to the east [coming up, mark your calendars]. They will lay hands on Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites will be subject to them [see future news reports].

Reinhabiting Babylon is quite specific, nothing loose about this to speak of.

Well, explain then the prophesied continuation of the Jewish nation, and the predicted vanishing of various other nations, on this basis.

Details found here.

And I did address your question, a prediction that people can reasonably overturn at any time is not an extrapolation, nor is it ex post facto.

Nope. It's not...

Johnny Skeptic

Why would you issue a challenge to someone who you know is not motivated to accept it? Even if the Iraqis one day might be motivated, since you have refused to deliver your challenge to them, how are they going to become aware of it? Why are you discussing the Babylon prophecy with skeptics who have no authority to accept it? Why have you refused to contact any Iraqis and ask them for their opinion? Probably because you are well aware that they will laugh at you just like the Muslim did at a Muslim web site that you contacted over a year ago. You departed from that web site very quickly after a Muslim demolished you.

Can you produce one single Bible commentary or any prominent fundamentalist Christian scholar who agrees with you? Well of course you can't.

Consider the following:

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

The article says that "Some [Bible scholars] believe that [Babylon] will be rebuilt on the very real estate once occupied by ancient Babylon."

Following is more evidence that indicates that you have misinterpreted the Babylon prophecy:

William MacDonald's Bible Commentary

MacDonald has done his homework well. He knows that a number of pieces of the puzzle do not fit, and that some future events must take place in order for them to fit. Surely the writers of Bible commentaries have a lot more credibility than you do. Would you be willing to contact a professor at Wheaton College and ask him for his opinion of the Babylon prophecy? Well of course you wouldn't, even though you have said that you like Wheaton college. Your intent since you first started debating the Babylon prophecy at the IIDB over a year ago has been to keep the Iraqis, who are the challengees, and all experts, including fundamentalist Christian experts, out of the debates. Any Christian who believed that he had good arguments would not always refuse to provide corroboration from other sources and expect people to accept his own uncorroborated personal opinions as evidence. Your own personal opinion is not credible evidence. I am sure that many of the undecided crowd do not find your misplaced pride in your own personal opinion to be appealing.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Since there is not any credible evidence that God inspired Isaiah to write the Babylon prophecy, why should the Iraqis pay any attention to it? If your answer is that the Iraqis would pay attention to it because they believe that if Babylon was rebuilt a considerable number of Christians would give up Christianity, you will need to provide corroboration for your guess. Not even close to 1% of fundamentalist Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon was rebuilt. Even if 10% of fundamentalist Christians would give up Christianity if Babylon was rebuilt, you would still need to convince that Iraqis of that. You need to contact the Iraqi embassy in Washingon, but readers can bet that you won't because you already know that you will embarrass yourself. Establishing direct contact with the Iraqi government is the only way that you will be able to make any progress because the only opinions that make any difference are the opinions of the Iraqi government.