That is the claim in the scripture, that prophecy is revealing to us the mysteries of God, and I certainly think that is true. It isnt only true for Jesus, or for the Israelite, I see it true from me, and my life, and the world around me. The Bible is riddled with prophecy, its said to be made up of 1/3 prophecy... It is actually quite amazing, the power of God revealed from his word.
Below I am just going to post our conversation, and continue from there.
Tart wrote:RedEye wrote:I suggest you go back and read what I asked of you. First, I wanted you to start a new thread so we don't derail this one. You chose not to. Second, I wanted your single best candidate for a prophecy. That was to avoid this game of you dropping each failed attempt and immediately moving on to another, making an endless amount of work for me. Again, you want to ignore my request.Tart wrote:My best shot? There are more prophecies we can look at, but first...RedEye wrote:Since you have left it up to me I suggest these:Tart wrote: Good that you recognize being bias... You are right, we all have biases and I think if we come from a perspective that is not bias in concluding judgement about the scripture, that it is sufficient in demonstrating its Word.
Ya, so lets look at the prophecy... What is your criteria for prophecy?
viewtopic.php?t=2142&lofi=1
Of course it is false prophecy. It fails multiple criteria. There are no specifics given on when this prophecy will come to pass --- it is completely open-ended because we can never know if Jerusalem will be destroyed again (as it was about 70CE). There is also no agreement among modern scholars on the location of most of the landmarks referred to in this passage — the Tower of Hananel, the Hill of Gareb, Goah, and so on. That makes it impossible to verify against present day Jerusalem (which has expanded to the north of the ancient city). Jerusalem has been captured and desolated several times from 2600 years ago and its current state still cannot be described as fully restored. Arab Muslims still control some areas of Jerusalem.Lets start with Jeremiahs prophecy about Jerusalem (Jeremiah 31)... You believe this is false prophecy?
38 “The days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The measuring line will stretch from there straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.�
Was this really your best shot?
If you remember I asked you to do this job. Instead you left it up to me. Now you complain because you don't like for there to be any rules. (The criteria were not imagined up by me. I even provided you a link to them and as you can see I am not the author). It is not unreasonable that a specific date be given otherwise an alleged prophecy becomes vague and open-ended as I have explained. Here is another link if you don't like the first set of criteria:1) When did specific dates become requirements for prophecies? They arent... Look up "prophecy", get a definition, there is nothing that states it needs to name a specific date. Id suggest that your "criteria" (that you probably imagined up in your head) is a means of discrediting prophecy on standards that doesnt define prophecy... Its almost like a No True Scotsman fallacy, (but no true prophecy fallacy), on "criteria" you come up with to do so.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... e_prophecy
I have already explained why. How do we know that Jerusalem won't be destroyed again in 10 years time via a terrorist attack (sneaking in an atomic bomb for example). We can't know. Therefore a prophecy which states that Jerusalem will never again be destroyed is useless. To validate it would require us to know the future right out to eternity. Since that is impossible, the "prophecy"can never be validated.Are you really telling me a prophecy cant have a "never again" element? Why would anyone need to accept this "criteria" from you?
Very droll. If we have no way of determining these locations within the city, how do you suggest we determine the truth of the specifics of the "prophecy"? Do we guess?Actually this prophecy of "never again" is an extremely improbable prophecy that seems to be fulfilling...
2) when did prophecy become dependent on where scholars can agree upon exact locations? Maybe the prophecy should have read:
this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The measuring line will stretch from there straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.�, but only if scholars can agree on the location"
~Jeremiah
The landmarks (place locations) are the issue not the location of Jerusalem itself.We can certainly locate the location, even if scholars dont agree on the exact location of the landmarks. This is Jerusalem they are talking about, and we know where Jerusalem is, all the way back to that time.
I've given you a number of reasons. Until you argue against them (other than dismissing out of hand reasonable criteria for what constitutes a valid prophecy) I don't need any more.What is a valid reason this prophecy is false?
So first of all, i think this subject is relevant to this topic... We can tell that it is authored by an "All Knowing" God by true prophecy... But if you continue to insist to move to another topic, fine. Id like to do a head on head, but it seems to be closed for some reason
Second, why shouldn't we conciser all prophecy? The Bible has been said to be composed of 1/3 prophecy... That is a lot of prophecy! Any true prophecy would be a good example...
And finally, why should we accept your criteria for prophecy? How is this not a classic "No True Scotsman Fallacy"? The criteria you are giving isnt only irrelevant to prophecy being prophecy, its not even independent...
Every list of criteria you are giving is coming from bias, and one sided sources, whom would have an interest in disqualifying prophecy... The sources you give for criteria are building a list, becuase they want to discredit prophecy.
For example, here are some quotes from your criteria...
"Different persons with different interpretations, and even vastly different expectations originating from diverse world views, should all reach virtually the same conclusion."
Yet this list isnt accepted by different persons with different interpretations. This list is proposed and accepted by non-believers... Why should we accept it? It seems like the only people who "reach virtually the same conclusion" about this criteria is nonbeliever...
"The event must be independently confirmed to have happened."
Shouldnt your list of criteria be held to the same standards that you set for prophecy? It should be independently confirmed...
"Definite empirical evidence must be publicly available to document that the prophecy predates its fulfillment." "Otherwise, knowledge of the outcomes could have influenced the selection process..."
How do we know your criteria hasnt been influenced in the same way you criticize the prophecy being influenced?
I could go on more, but i think you get the point...
Why should anyone accept your criteria from these biases, non independent sources, while you yourself would only accept prophecy that is independently verified?
It seems to me that these lists you give are created to disqualify prophecy from being considered as prophecy. It is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.. How is it not?
"The prophecy must be clear and unambiguous." ~No it doesnt. Prophecy can be prophetic even if this criteria isnt met.
"The event must be a complete fulfillment of the prediction."~No it doesnt, prophecy could still be fulfilled in furture dates, and it would still be prophecy.
"The event must be shown to have actually happened."~Yes the event must have actually happened, objectively... But "showing" or convincing someone that an event happened, does not actually make a prophecy true or not.
"The prophecy must have happened before the event."~Yes this is true, however it goes on to say
"The prophetic statement must be proved to precede the fulfillment event in time. Definite empirical evidence must be publicly available to document that the prophecy predates its fulfillment"~No, proving a prophecy doesnt create that prophecy or fulfill that event.. This is criteria on "you have to convince me about it", which is completely irrelevant to whether or not a prophecy is actually true..
"The event must not have been artificially created by a person who knew of the prophecy, with the intent of fulfilling it."~Yes and no... It should not be self fulfilled, but fulfilled in destiny, whether the person knows about it or not could be considered irrelevant
"The prophecy must not have been a logical guess."~The claim is that the Prophecy in the Bible is a revelation from God, we have no evidence of people making their best guess...
I could go on, if you'd like, should we discuss the criteria, and you and I come to accept reasonable criteria, and agree upon it? Id be happy to discuss each point listed, and discuss why it should or shouldnt be accept as criteria.
But this list is a list created as a fallacy, and much of it is irrelevant to whether prophecy is true...
