diana

In addition to Shirley's excellent point, I'll add this observation:

By your reasoning, if I win the lottery tomorrow, I didn't make a prediction or a guess, but a prophecy. The odds are so stacked against me that it couldn't possibly be luck or chance if I won. Could it?

Actually, that would prove I was better than all OT prophets that ever lived, because I predicted when the prophecy would come true, even.

I'm intrigued by the distinction between prophecy and prediction. I'm hoping your refine your definition a bit.

d

Johnny Skeptic

It is a question of God's intent in predicting future events. If his intent is to protect people, then he would have predicted when and where hurricanes would occur. Since God does not do that, we know that he does not intend for prophecy to protect people. If his intent is to demonstrate his ability to predict the future, first of all, there is not a necessary correlation between the ability to predict the future and good character. Second of all, the best way to demonstrate that you can predict the future is to show up in person, make an unmistakable predection, and stay around until it is fulfilled and be available to have discussions with any possible dissenters. There would be very few dissenters if God predicted that he would instantantaneously create a large building in Central Park in New York City and did that. Since God has refuses to show up and discourage dissent, it is reasonable to assume that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future.

As far as I know, it is not possible for God or anyone else to derive any benefits from his refusal to do the above. The lack of any discernable, reasonable, or stated intent on God's part suggests that either he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future, or that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

shirley knott

But we already know Genesis is false in every meaningful respect. Regardless of whether some half-bit prediction about Babylon is "fulfilled" or not.

Countless predictions fail to come to pass every day. BFD.
The significance of failed predictions is zero, zip, nada, does not apply.
So it matters a great deal whether we call the predictions in Genesis predictions or prophecy. If they are merely failed predictions, big whoop.
If they are prophecy, well, that smuggles in the very element which one is attempting to demonstrate, and thus begs the question.

And what on earth (or off) counts as 'evidence of supernatural intervention'?
What the heck *is* supernatural intervention?
What is the supernatural? Is the concept even valid? Does it have referents? How do you know?

BTW, the Tyre prophecy is sufficient to sink Genesis, as Tyre remains populated to this day.
Countless other "prophecies" doubtlessly also fail.
The babylon prophecy has failed, despite your desperate attempts to flail about for some interpretive exegesis that might preserve it.

But we know Genesis is false not because of some failed "prophecy" or other, but because nothing in Genesis is coherent with the real world of facts and values as we know and encounter it.
There was no Eden.
There was no global flood.
There was no Ark on which all animal species that survive passed the duration of the flood.
There was no tower of Babel.
There was no Exodus from Egypt.
etc., etc. etc., ad infinauseum.

And, of course, there is no Christian God. The concept is fictional. Bad fiction at that.

Deal with it.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

lee_merrill

But I didn't mean just an unlikely event without further qualification. Now I see little use in wrangling over these words, so I'll just adopt the dictionary definitions, I mean what these words mean in common usage--and now let's move on, please.

lee_merrill

Well, I can't speak for the Iraqis, but anyone who wants to show the Bible is not inspired and infallible has a way to do this, by having Babylon reinhabited, or rebuilding Hazor, or the heart of ancient Edom.

And I thought this was a prophecy of note that would bear examination:

Jews have 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].

Also note Hitler trying unknowingly to overturn the prophecy that there will always be Jewish people, if he had gotten the atom bomb, it might have been expected he could succeed. Others have tried this too.

Psalm 83:4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more."

Let us note, they all failed, just as Saddam did in his efforts at Babylon, just as Alexander did in the same aim.

Psalm 83:16-18 Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your name, O Lord. May they ever be ashamed and dismayed; may they perish in disgrace. Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord--that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Johnny Skeptic

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?

Exactly, that is why you need to contact the Iraqi government and ask them for their opinion of your challenge. I am sure that the Iraqi government has some excellent rebuttals to your arguments.

But why should anyone trust your own uncorroborated personal opinions regarding what Babylon prophecy means. Even the vast majority of fundamentalist Christian scholars and laymen disagree with you. Can you produce one single expert fundamentalist Christian source that agrees with you? If not, why should anyone pay any attention to your own uncorroborated personal opinions? Over a year ago I checked five Bible commentaries, including a Bible commentary that is edited by noted fundamentalist Christian scholar and author F.F. Bruce, and they all disagree with you.

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."

I assume that you have appointed yourself as the sole arbiter of which Bible scholars are right.

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.

Please be advised that if an original premise is false, all subsequent arguments have to be false no matter what they are. Your original premise regarding the Babylon prophecy is most likely false.

Your premise that skeptics have many ways available to them to discredit the Bible is not valid because God has far more ways that are available to him to discredit skeptics. What does God or anyone else have to gain from his refusal to show up in person and defend the Bible?

It is a question of God's intent in predicting future events. If his intent is to protect people, then he would have predicted when and where hurricanes would occur. Since God does not do that, we know that he does not intend for prophecy to protect people. If his intent is to demonstrate his ability to predict the future, first of all, there is not a necessary correlation between the ability to predict the future and good character. Second of all, the best way to demonstrate that you can predict the future is to show up in person, make an unmistakable predection, and stay around until it is fulfilled and be available to have discussions with any possible dissenters. There would be very few dissenters if God predicted that he would instantantaneously create a large building in Central Park in New York City and did that. Since God has refuses to show up and discourage dissent, it is reasonable to assume that he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future.

As far as I know, it is not possible for God or anyone else to derive any benefits from his refusal to do the above. The lack of any discernable, reasonable, or stated intent on God's part suggests that either he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future, or that if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible.

diana

I thought we were discussing the dictionary definitions. Definitional arguments occur when we discover how fuzzy or circular or otherwise inconclusive "dictionary" definitions are. (All definitions from onelook.com Quick Look.)

Prophecy:
Shirley makes a crucial point here: divine inspiration is the only thing that separates "prophecy" from "prediction." If we must presuppose divine inspiration to know something is prophecy (as opposed to mere prediction), then we cannot use any supposed prophecies as proof of the divine inspiration of the bible. It's so circular it makes me dizzy.

For comparison, here's the Quick Look definitions of prediction:
Another problem with simple acceptance of the dictionary definition of "prophecy" is that it makes the notions of "false prophets" and "unfulfilled prophecy" meaningless--since prophecy is defined as something we have via divine intervention.

It's a bit of a snarly problem for you, lee. In my limited experience, asking us to simply overlook it and move on is probably the worst thing you can do. Might I recommend you acknowledge you've painted yourself into a corner and commence immediately rethinking your position.

d

Johnny Skeptic

Please quote the pertinent Scriptures. Of course, there is not not really any need to discuss Bible prophecy since if God actually wanted people to believe that he can predict the future, he could easily provide unmistakable proof that he can predict the future by showing up in person, making a prediction, and causing it to immediately come true, such as predicting that he would instantaneously create a large building, and instantaneously creating a large building. How is it any less reasonable for skeptics to challenge God than it is for God to challenge skeptics? Skeptics would certainly like to establish personal contact with a God if he exists. On the other hand, if the God of the Bible exists, he does not wish to make personal contact with skeptics. Since skeptics are willing to have personal discussions with a God if he appeared in tangible form, and God is not willing to have personal discussions with skeptics in tangible form, God is the unreasonable party here.

-Jay-

Which is, I note, an optimistic extrapolation of contemporary events from the perspective of the writer.


Your nonsense about Babylon has been demonstrated to be incorrect.

Lee, whether or not a prediction (or prophecy? Which one?) can be overturned (to use your term) is completely, totally, unequivocally distinct from whether or not it fits either of these conditions:

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

Do you not understand this? You've answered precisely nothing, Lee.

regards,

NinJay

Johnny Skeptic

That is obviously false. God promised Abraham and his descendants ALL of the ancient land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8). Today, Jews DO NOT occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan.

Consider the following from the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia:

"Canaan, in the Old Testament, designation of the land to the west of the Jordan River, later known as Palestine, and the name of the reputed ancestor of the Canaanites, the original inhabitants of that land. The Israelites gradually conquered and occupied this territory during the 2nd millennium bc or earlier. It was probably the Canaanites who gave the Israelites the language now known as Hebrew."

How do you explain the fact that Jews have not always occupied the ancient land of Canaan since God promised it to them? If your answer is that the possession of the land was conditional based upon good behavior, you will need to produce evidence that that is actually God's position and not just the position of a Bible writer.

You believe that Jews are God's chosen people. Chosen for what, may I ask?

No rational God would ever choose questionable copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans. He would know that the best possible way to communicate with humans would be tangibly, in person, to every generation. In addition, he would know that what would have happened is exactly what has happened, some examples being unnecessary wars among Christians over who has correctly interpreted the Bible, and unnecessary disputes about slavery.