Prophecy re-visited

Hi,this is my first posting on EVC, though I've been browsing for months. I'd like to re-open the prophecy discussion, as I feel that previous debates on this matter got sidetracked into other areas and never reached a conclusive end.My point is this: Christians often point to Bible prophecy, as evidence of the divinity of the Bible. I am willing to examine prophecies (not just Biblical, but of any kind), as long as they are falsifiable, i.e. can be shown to be have or have not come true. I have established certain criteria that a prophecy must meet, to classify as a valid (falsifiable, true, call it what you wish) prophecy. These are:

1. Precedence. Prophecy must have been made before the event prophesised (obvious, but important).
   ​
2. Probability. Prophecy predicts events that are unlikely to come true in the timeframe and circumstances prophecised. E.g, "it will rain next week", or "in the next war people will be killed", don't cut it.
   ​
3. Specificity. Prophecy must predict specific events, rather than generalisations. In other words, .there can only be one interpretation of the prophecy. E.g "next saturday the football team in red will win the game" doesn't cut it.
   ​
4. Timeframe. Prophecy must have specific time-limit, i.e. cannot be open-ended.

For a prophecy to be considered as fulfilled :

1. It must be fulfilled in its entirety, e.g. if prophecised event #1 has occurred but prophecised event #2 hasn't ocurred, the prophecy isn't considered fulfilled.
   ​
2. Independent evidence must exist, testifying to the fulfillment of the prophecy.

I consider entry criteria 1-4 and validation criteria A & B to be reasonable, in line with common sense and applicable to any kind of prophetic claim (not just biblical).If someone doesn't agree with these criteria, then please tell me which and why you don't agree with and we'll discuss it.If anyone agrees with these criteria, then please give me a biblical prophecy that meets them and we can talk about it.enjoy,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

sorry Mike, I didn't understand your post, I'm afraid you wandered into Brad McFall territory there. The criteria mentioned are not tailor-made for the Bible but apply to any kind of prediction, be it from the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, the guy down the street, etc.At the end of the day, if you don't accept the criteria, can you tell me why and which ones? Alternatively, could you give me your own set of rules when you're dealing with prophecy claims from religions other than your own?if you don't have any such rules, then will I be right in assuming that you accept anything anyone says as true prophecy !? friendly advice: a career as a defence lawyer would probably be a bad choice for you, given the lack of cohesion in your last post.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Oh, I beg to differ. We'll see on the day! P.S if they do, does it mean I'm a prophet?!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

That's exactly what I'm trying to establish. How do we accept / reject a prediction as a prophecy. Surely, even Christians must have some standards, as they readily dismiss prophecies made by other religions?!P.S 2-1 for Wales, Earnshaw scoring in the last minute!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

that's where the Probability criterion comes into place. that's why a prophecy must meet all criteria specified in the opening post to qualify. So, I presume you agree with the Specificity criterion. As my sample 'prophecy' stands, it will come true as long as any team in red, anywhere in the world, wins a footbal game on Saturday. By narrowing it down to players and goals scored, we effectively apply the Specificity criterion and avoid multiple interpretations.The whole point of this thread is to see if people agree with what a prophecy should be, if not, then they should define what a prophecy should be, if yes, then they can give me a Bible prophecy that meets the standards.enjoy

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I think that the Specificity and Probability criteria are independent of each other but must be viewed as part of a whole set of rules for identifying a prophecy.For example, the 'prophecy' that Wales will beat England meets the Specificity criterion, i.e. there's only one interpretation, that is the Wales-England match, but breaks down at the Probability criterion, as a Welsh victory may be considered (by some of us anyway ) a probable outcome .I'm afraid I don't understand why :

quote:

---

The only other important aspect of specificty is the ability to identify failure as well as success.

---

IMHO, the ability to identify failure or success is determined by whether the prophecy meets all the criteria mentioned. A prophecy may be specific enough, but if -for example- it has no time limit, then we'll never be able to identify it as failed.P.S I agree with you that Christians use double-standards when it comes to examining other peoples' beliefs. I was kind of hoping that there would be someone on this thread who would deny / refute this.This message has been edited by Legend, 10-06-2004 08:44 AM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

To explain more, the less specific a prophecy the more possible fulfilments. The more possible fulfilments the more likely the prophecy will succeed by chance. So it does boil down to a probability consideration in that respect

---

which is why I think that all criteria should be met for the prophecy to qualify. If we start saying 'this fails on criterion 1 therefore we should be stricter on criterion 2', the debate becomes dependent on subjective standards for strictness and, therefore, messy.I agree that it is important to be able to identify both when the prophecy is a failure and when it is a success. I think that the criteria above enable this. I also think that these are fair criteria, as they allow both 'believers' and 'unbelievers' to prove their point.Overall, do you agree with the criteria suggested? Do you think something should be changed or added?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

that would be covered by :

quote:

---

B. Independent evidence must exist, testifying to the fulfillment of the prophecy.

---

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

That's fine by me. Open a new thread and we'll talk about it.Now back to the point. I'm making two assumptions, feel free to correct me if they are wrong:

• one of the reasons you believe the Bible to be the word of God, is because of its power of prophecy.
• at some stage in your life, you read said prophecies and decided that they are true, valid and impressive.

Given that the above are true, you should be able to answer the question: ' how did you decide that said prophecies are true, valid and impressive? 'You must have applied some reasoning, in order to reach a conclusion about this. Furthermore, you must apply some kind of reasoning every time some Muslim, Hare Krishna, alien abductee, whatever, present you with a prophecy that they claim is valid. What is this reasoning? I showed you my reasoning that I apply to predictions from any source, in Message 1. What is your reasoning, your standards?You seem to be implying that I have some ulterior anti-christian motive for establishing some criteria. I assure you that these are criteria I am willing to apply to anyone claiming predictive powers, no matter what their religious convictions, race, creed, etc, are.However, my motives are irrelevant. If you do claim that the Bible is the word of God (partly) because of its prophetic powers, you should be able to define what a valid prophecy is.Here, let me make it easier for you: Legend Prophecy #1
I hereby predict, that in the next 48 hours a dark cloud will appear and a dozen people will perish.
Do you accept this as a valid prophecy? If yes and it comes to pass will you accept me as a prophet?If you reject this as a valid prophecy, on what grounds are you rejecting it ?which is it?In anticipation,This message has been edited by Legend, 10-07-2004 05:36 AM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

well, with some of them (e.g. Daniel) there are indications that they were written at a later date than that advertised, but -mostly- we don't know.However -specific examples aside- I don't think a prophecy should be accepted as such, unless it's been made before the events prophecised, hence.... the Precedence rule.Otherwise, we're all prophets!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I suppose we'd have to look at the dating evidence surrounding the specific prophecy. In the case of the Bible, most of this evidence is circumstantial and it's up to us to put some weight behind it.For example, the absence of any mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in at least two of the Gospels (if I remember correctly) is a good indication -at least to me- that they were written before 70 AD.In the Book of Daniel, the fact that he gets world affairs wrong around the 6th century BC, surprisingly accurate around the 2nd century BC and wrong again after that, is a strong indication that the book was written (or modified) around 2nd century BC. what this Deuteronomy verse says to me is that we must have some way of establishing whether 'what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true'. That's the reason behind the criteria in Message 1.I don't think that the lifetime of a prophecy should be within the lifetime of the prophet, but rather within or before the lifetime of the people trying to establish whether 'what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true'. I hope that makes sense....

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Mark, Matthew and Luke all refer to the future destruction of the temple, as prophecised -amongst other things- by Jesus. Many scholars make the point that none of the gospels mention the actual destruction of the temple, which historically happened around 70 AD. Obviously, such a mention would have enhanced the gospels' credibility as confirmation of the fulfilled prophecy. The absence of such a mention is used an an argument for dating the gospels before 70 AD.The allegories in Mark 12:1-9 and Matthew 22:1-10 are just that, allegories, standing perfectly well on their own. I can't see how they can be related to a specific event. Well, if that was the case that would invalidate at least all the Messianic prophecies (Isaiah, Zechariah, Psalms, etc) as none of these prophecies came true within the prophets' lifetimes.Also, the New Testament repeatedly refers to Old Testament prophecy fulfillment, hundreds of years after the death of the prophets. Furthermore, many Christians claim that many prophecies are in the process of being fulfilled right now. So, it seems that even if that view was held by ancient Hebrews, it's not held anymore. That's why I think that a prophecy should be considered within it's own timescales, not within the prophet's lifetime.P.S BTW, is that your cat?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Both parables, in context, are veiled threats against anyone thinking of mistreating him or his disciples / prophets. Also, Matthew 22:1-10 is a warning to potential followers (not having a wedding garment, etc.) I suppose you could see it as a moral teaching against greed and ingratitude, but I doubt the Pharisees and Saducees saw it that way.Again, I fail to see how they relate to the destruction of the temple, or any other specific prophecy. Following the rules that God gave for judging prophets would be pretty cool, as it would invalidate Bible prophecy in its entirety! However, Christians today don't follow these rules (not surprisingly), so how could I?Furthermore, in this thread I'm trying to establish some independent, objective criteria for defining prophecy, wherever it comes from and putting the Christian God's word in there would immediately make it one-sided, excluding prophecy from any other religion. Mike the wiz would also accuse me of bias (again) and we don't want that, do we!? P.S Shadoe is a beautiful cat. We got two of our own, very curious too.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Fair enough. The parables, like some prophecies, are open to interpretation. They may explain the fall of Jerusalem (with hindsight) but they fail to point at it explicitly. I've heard interpretations relating the Matthew parable to the second coming (the wedding) and saving by grace / works (the wedding garment). I'm sure there are many more out there.Looking at the parables in context, they are given as a reason why the authorities were reluctant to lay hands on him, at that stage. Both parables make it very clear that those who mistreat God's (king / landlord) prophets (servants / heralds) come to a sticky end, i.e. get killed.I still think that the parables, due to their nature, are pretty much event-independent and with post-reasoning can be made to fit into most events and situations.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Maybe, but they're still irrelevant ! What do my motives have to do with what people accept as prophecy ?! If, as you hinted, you wanted to discuss evidence of evolution, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, even if your intentions were to disgrace the ToE. I would still be able to tell you why I accept or reject certain pieces of evidence. All I'm asking is that you do the same with prophecy. Even if I was Hitler, Attila the Hun and the Ebola virus, all rolled into one, shouldn't you stil be able to justify your beliefs to me ?! So, based on this, isn't it fair to say that you accept criteria #3 (Specificity) and (B} (Independent evidence must exist) ?Also, isn't it fair to say that you add a new rule, say #5 : prophecy must be revealed from God ?If you accept this as fair, say so and we can discuss that extra rule. What's trust got to do with it? We don't know each other from Adam. Still, I'd be happy to justify my position in a debate with you, Buzz, whoever, even if your motives were to discredit me. Can't you do the same ? Like I said in my first post:

quote:

---

This is my first post, though I've been browsing for months.

---

Again, I'm asking : When you read the Bible, you decided that the prophecies in it were valid, true and impressive. How did you decide this ? Did you decide this because the prophecies,

1. met your standards for truth, validity and impressiveness.
2. were in the Bible.
3. other - ??

In anticipation,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."