FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-02-2003, 08:58 AM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Missouri
Posts: 112
Default "Prophecy" as a basic logical fallacy

There are many prophecies in the bible. Many of them are of the type "In the last days, [something will be true]."

For instance, Matthew 24:6:

Matthew 24
6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.

This has the logical form -

A implies B

Where A: "it is the last days"
and B : "you will hear wars and rumors of wars"


However, many Christians point to "wars and rumors of wars" as evidence that we are indeed in the last days. That is to say,

B implies A

This is, of course, a basic logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent." A implies B does NOT imply B implies A. The only implication we can take from A implies B is:

not-B implies not-A

EVEN IF we assume the original statement is true. Therefore, many people who claim to be using the bible for God's work are misrepresenting it in a very basic and fallacious way.

Richard Morey
RichardMorey is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 06:49 PM   #2
himynameisPwn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very interesting. I never even thought of it that way. It always just made me gag because prophecy is so inspecific, at least there is a logical basis to refute it, even though its so simple I'm sure I was probably thinking something along those lines, just never put it into such a clear thought. Thanks. Verbalizing something to me is often the hardest art of a thought.
 
Old 05-03-2003, 06:43 AM   #3
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by himynameisPwn
Very interesting. I never even thought of it that way. It always just made me gag because prophecy is so inspecific, at least there is a logical basis to refute it, even though its so simple I'm sure I was probably thinking something along those lines, just never put it into such a clear thought. Thanks. Verbalizing something to me is often the hardest art of a thought.
If I agree that this quote from the Gospel of Matthew does not reveal anything new, I must disagree with your statement that " prophecy is so unspecific". Prophetic books of the OT have amazing details as to the description of the Messiah for example. I have yet to find an explaination as to how some of those details portray a crucifixion , a method of execution which did not exist at the time those prophecies were written.
As far as prophecies of the last days, Revelation is so detailed that it still mingles the minds of most scholars. It is the interpretation of the symbols and metaphores which seem to give the impression that prophecies are not specific.
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 09:59 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Missouri
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
I have yet to find an explaination as to how some of those details portray a crucifixion

Actually, I know of only one which seems to describe crucifixion itself. Psalm 22:16 -

"Yea, dogs are round about me; a company of evildoers encircle me; they have pierced my hands and feet--"

But if you read the verse in context you realize the psalmist is talking about himself. Immediately following this, verse 20 and 21 say:

"20 Deliver my soul from the sword, my life from the power of the dog! 21 Save me from the mouth of the lion, my afflicted soul from the horns of the wild oxen! "

There are a number of "afflictions" in this chapter, and it seems that Christians have picked the one that suits them. The Messiah had no reason to be afraid of the sword, the dog, the lion, or the oxen. I have no idea why the psalmist said "pierced my hands and feet" but it is more reasonable to say it is a coincidence.

And regarding many (or all) of the "specific" prophecies, you have to understand that we are dealing with people who KNEW the scriptures. The people who wrote it wanted to add validity to their claim, and what was stopping them from either manipulating events (God did it, right? Why not man? Man can do that kind of thing too), writing things that didn't happen, or even being so sure that their leader was the Messiah that they had false memories of events? False memories are VERY easy to create in people; this is a documented fact of modern psychological science. People haven't changed in 2000 years.

But then, I am rehashing things that have already been said. There are more rational explanations for these prophecies - but this is neither here nor there to people that believe.

Richard Morey
RichardMorey is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 11:08 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 84
Default

I seem to recall that the "piercing my hands and feet" fragment was a mistranslation, relating to being devoured by lions and not to crucifixion.

I'll take a look and get back to you.
TheUnbeliever is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 01:18 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Quezon City, Philippines
Posts: 1,994
Default

What are these supposed messianic prophecies in the OT that you speak of, and its alleged fulfillment in the NT?
Secular Pinoy is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 01:31 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,288
Arrow

Well done, Richard. I hadn't noticed that fallacy before.

As for the messianic prophecies, they can't really be used to prove anything. Both the prophecy and the event itself are documented in the same book. There is a lack of external evidence for nearly all the events in there. The book could have been modified during the dark ages, as the Catholic Church was the only entity to have possession of it, and there's no hard evidence that the prophecies were actually written before the events they predicted.
Defiant Heretic is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 05:04 AM   #8
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,364
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by himynameisPwn
Very interesting. I never even thought of it that way. It always just made me gag because prophecy is so inspecific, at least there is a logical basis to refute it, even though its so simple I'm sure I was probably thinking something along those lines, just never put it into such a clear thought. Thanks. Verbalizing something to me is often the hardest art of a thought.
My post was intended to respond to this comment above that " prophecy is so inspecific". Not to confirm or deny that prophecies are true. Ot prophecies are detailed when it comes to messianic prophecies. Isaiah brings forth the origines of the Messiah in detail. Also the specific detail pertaining to " no bones being broken". That is just one example of how specific prophecies can be.
That one expresses skepticism about the veracity of OT prophecies I have no problems with it.... but the statement above, I had to express disagreement.
Sabine Grant is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 02:42 PM   #9
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Missouri
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sabine Grant
My post was intended to respond to this comment above that " prophecy is so inspecific".
...snip...
That one expresses skepticism about the veracity of OT prophecies I have no problems with it.... but the statement above, I had to express disagreement.
Well, what is prophecy and what isn't? Often verses that are taken as prophecy are actually statements about events contemporary to the writer, or are a symbolic/metaphoric retelling of past events. Often "specific" prophecies are not prophecies at all. When context is taken into account, often prophecies disappear in a puff of smoke.

Just as an example, read Isaiah 7:14.
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

This is commonly used as a prophecy for the Messiah in Christianity. But read the entire chapter (or better, the entire book) and you see that it fits perfectly well in the context, and Isaiah was talking about current events and to Ahaz, not about some event centuries in the future. Christians have ripped the verse from its context to use it. When you have a book as large as the OT, it is bound to have somethings you can use. So the prophecy wasn't vague, you're right - it just wasn't a prophecy that had anything to do with the Messiah.
RichardMorey is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.