Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cayne-Abel · 01-09-2007, 10:34 AM

On another forum, someone brought up the subject of prophecies of the Jewish people. Here is his post - can you guys provide specific rebuttals to it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex of Burg

I'm curious as to what you make of Bible prophecy. Rather than list a bunch of different prophecies I'm just going to show a couple and let you give me your take on it. Rather than trying to interpret each word I ask that you instead take in the gist of what is being said and then give me your thoughts. Thank you, I appreciate it - I love good discussions.

In Ezekiel 37:21-22, the prophet said that God would one day bring the people of Israel back to Israel, as a united nation. This might have been a shock for Ezekiel. He lived about 2600 years ago. At that time, the people of Israel had already divided themselves into two separate kingdoms. And, both kingdoms had been conquered by foreign invaders, who forced many of the people, including Ezekiel, into exile. But, when Jews reclaimed sovereignty in 1948, they did so as a united people, creating one nation - Israel.

Ezekiel 37:21-22
and say to them, `This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.

To me the emergence of Israel as a nation 2600 years after the Jews had been forced into exile is amazing. I can't figure any scientific reason or logic as to how this was predicted.

hatsoff · 01-09-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

On another forum, someone brought up the subject of prophecies of the Jewish people. Here is his post - can you guys provide specific rebuttals to it?

Ezekiel 37:21-22: This is a nice example of clever prediction, but take note of selective fulfillment. There is no "one king" over all. The prophecy failed in that respect. It was probably a combination of several factors, not the least of which was coincidence, that led to some other parts of the prophecy coming true.

ModernHeretic · 01-09-2007, 11:01 AM

Well, the most obvious objection is that the propecy is rather vague.

"Sometime, in the unspecified future, Israel will be a nation again."

Good guess, and after 2600 years, it happened to come true. What's amazing about that exactly?

Now, if he had said something like "In the year 1948, the British will issue the Balfour Declaration, which will give the Jewish people a homeland in Israel", then I'd be impressed.

Also, as the above poster noted, there isn't a king ruling over the nation of Israel.

IIRC, this is supposed to be a messianic prophecy, and the "king" in the passage is supposed to be the Messiah.

pharoah · 01-09-2007, 11:30 AM

Another big problem is that this prophecy promised to reunite the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. However, most of the people of the kingdom of Israel assimilated into other cultures during their captivity, so their identity as a separate culture is lost to history.

An even bigger problem is that this "prophecy" was already fulfilled long ago! Cyrus returned the Jews to Palestine and gave them their independence. So why don't apologists point to this return as a fulfillment of the prophecy?

Because it didn't last.

CreamFilledGiraffe · 01-10-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

On another forum, someone brought up the subject of prophecies of the Jewish people. Here is his post - can you guys provide specific rebuttals to it?

Consider:

What percentage of the world's Jews have been re-united in Isreal?

What connection other than the name do ancient and modern Isreal have?

If a group of Jews were going to establish a nation what name would they give it?

Jack the Bodiless · 01-10-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pharoah

An even bigger problem is that this "prophecy" was already fulfilled long ago! Cyrus returned the Jews to Palestine and gave them their independence. So why don't apologists point to this return as a fulfillment of the prophecy?

Indeed, this is a common pattern: it seems that such "prophecies" were all made around the time of the Babylonian Exile, and apparently refers to the hoped-for end of that period.

It's interesting to read what the Book of Revelation has to say about the re-emergence of Israel.

...Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Gorit Maqueda · 01-10-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CreamFilledGiraffe

Consider:

What percentage of the world's Jews have been re-united in Isreal?

What connection other than the name do ancient and modern Isreal have?

Er.. is that a typo, a pun, subtle sarcasm or just dislexya?

luminous · 01-10-2007, 02:08 PM

For a prophecy to be worth something, it has to be falsifiable. Since believers would not accept anything as proof of its failure, the prophecy is worthless.

If no nation of Israel existed today, they would say that the prophecy is still valid because Israel will exist in the future. If no Jews existed anymore, Christians would say that they must exist somewhere in the world and will re-emerge to reclaim the land of Israel one day. And even if there was proof, although impossible, that no Jews exist anymore, the Christian will find a symbolic or other interpretation and the prophecy would still be valid to the Christian.

You can't win.

Jayrok · 01-10-2007, 02:29 PM

When people claim the nation of Israel being reunited in 1948 is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, I ask them when the prophecy is going to be completed? Namely the rest of the book of Ezekiel.

Hal Lindsey and the like are always talking about Ezekiel prophecy being fulfilled in the middle east, but he always stops short of explaining away the rest of the book.

When is God going to set up shop in Jerusalem and reinstate the sacrificial system where the people will have to offer animal sacrifices as sin atonement before God (Ezekiel 43)?

If this doesn't take place, then Ezekiel is basically a false prophet (Deu 18). If it does take place, then the NT is essentially false, since Jesus' act on the cross didn't atone for sin once and for all, after all. People will still offer sacrifices to God in Jerusalem according to the latter chapters of Ezekiel... this is after God "reunites" the Israelites back into their own land.

It seems either Ezekiel is correct or the NT is correct... or most likely, neither is correct.

CreamFilledGiraffe · 01-10-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorit Maqueda

Er.. is that a typo, a pun, subtle sarcasm or just dislexya?

I'd like to say it was subtle sarcasm but it was a brain-fart

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

01-09-2007, 11:01 AM	#3
ModernHeretic Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 357	Well, the most obvious objection is that the propecy is rather vague. "Sometime, in the unspecified future, Israel will be a nation again." Good guess, and after 2600 years, it happened to come true. What's amazing about that exactly? Now, if he had said something like "In the year 1948, the British will issue the Balfour Declaration, which will give the Jewish people a homeland in Israel", then I'd be impressed. Also, as the above poster noted, there isn't a king ruling over the nation of Israel. IIRC, this is supposed to be a messianic prophecy, and the "king" in the passage is supposed to be the Messiah.

01-09-2007, 11:30 AM	#4
pharoah Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,729	Another big problem is that this prophecy promised to reunite the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. However, most of the people of the kingdom of Israel assimilated into other cultures during their captivity, so their identity as a separate culture is lost to history. An even bigger problem is that this "prophecy" was already fulfilled long ago! Cyrus returned the Jews to Palestine and gave them their independence. So why don't apologists point to this return as a fulfillment of the prophecy? Because it didn't last.

01-10-2007, 02:08 PM	#8
luminous Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Illinois, USA Posts: 319	For a prophecy to be worth something, it has to be falsifiable. Since believers would not accept anything as proof of its failure, the prophecy is worthless. If no nation of Israel existed today, they would say that the prophecy is still valid because Israel will exist in the future. If no Jews existed anymore, Christians would say that they must exist somewhere in the world and will re-emerge to reclaim the land of Israel one day. And even if there was proof, although impossible, that no Jews exist anymore, the Christian will find a symbolic or other interpretation and the prophecy would still be valid to the Christian. You can't win.

01-10-2007, 02:29 PM	#9
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	When people claim the nation of Israel being reunited in 1948 is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, I ask them when the prophecy is going to be completed? Namely the rest of the book of Ezekiel. Hal Lindsey and the like are always talking about Ezekiel prophecy being fulfilled in the middle east, but he always stops short of explaining away the rest of the book. When is God going to set up shop in Jerusalem and reinstate the sacrificial system where the people will have to offer animal sacrifices as sin atonement before God (Ezekiel 43)? If this doesn't take place, then Ezekiel is basically a false prophet (Deu 18). If it does take place, then the NT is essentially false, since Jesus' act on the cross didn't atone for sin once and for all, after all. People will still offer sacrifices to God in Jerusalem according to the latter chapters of Ezekiel... this is after God "reunites" the Israelites back into their own land. It seems either Ezekiel is correct or the NT is correct... or most likely, neither is correct.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.