Prophecy re-visited

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."

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.So far as being able to show that a prophecy has failed specificity obviously helps in that. A time limit being the most obvious example - without one the only way to show that a prophecy has failed is to show that it never could happen even in the future. This is important because without a way of identifying failures there is no risk in prophecy. It's much easier to get away with unfulfilled prophecies than outright failures.

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."

Other than the suggestion I already made - which I suppose is more of a guideline than a rule, and also that probability considerations should take into account the effect of the prophecy itself (another guideline) I have noting specific to add at this time.

Another criteria.. when it gets gets 'fullfilled' there has to be outside verification for it actually happening, rather than some people writing to make it look like a prophecy was fullfilled.

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."

I think Buzsaw, Hangdawg and me - should make rules concerning evolution - and if evolution doesn't pass our rules - then we can decide that evolution didn't happen.I know you're fine with this because of my following statement;My point is this: evolutionists often point to dead ape species, as evidence of theTheory of Evolution.Furthermore - you can fully have confidence that me Buz and Dawg have a completely neutral position if we make some rules,--> why? Because surely we have no reason whatsoever to make rules, other then to ascertain if evolution happened. I fully expect that PaulK should make a topic immediately - him having full confidence in my neutral intentions. Here's my rule;1. No bones can be suggested as evidence of evolution, because of possible species we never knew about, having existed in the past as a result of the diversity of God's creation.Why is this rule perfectly fair? Well, again - because all I want to do is find out whether evolution happened, how I could possibly have any other intentions is just a bizarre idea, as I have even made rules to which evolution should pass.I don't see why you should disagree with this rule, as it is me who has to be convinced of evolution - not you.(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-06-2004 06:40 PM

quote:

---

Precedence. Prophecy must have been made before the event prophesised (obvious, but important).

---

Concerning the OT prophecies, how can we know if they were written before an event or unaltered?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

You ask the question "Why is this rule fair?". But you never answer it in a postitive way. You simply say that because you don't have other intentions there isn't any reason to think it isn't.That's not very helpful is it. Since we are attempting to, among other things, find out what has transpired in the past you need to explain exactly why we shouldn't use any evidence left by those past occurances. I feel that is a fair question, don't you?In the case of prophecy I'm prepared to defend any of the rules as they should be applied to any prophecy on any topic.Which rules don't you like again? And why don't you like them?

OK. Mike. Your argument is everyone must behave as badly as thee people on your side. But we're back down to the fact that your accusation of bias is based SOLELY on the fact that the rules don't give the results YOU want. We both know that you can't find anything wrong with hte tules and thus you are reduced to slanders.All you are showing us is your own lack of morality.

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 agree with the Precedence rule, I just wondered if there was a way to tell if the prophecy was written before the event, since we are looking at it so long after the fact.In Deuteronomy 18 it says: To me this means the timeframe of a prophecy should be within the lifetime of the prophet making the prophecy, wouldn't it?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

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."

Amoung the ancient Hebrews, the concept of a prophecy was not a prediction of the future, but rather a message from God via someone
'Called by god', to try to steer the nation of Isreal back to God from straying from God. It might come with a warning that 'If you continue on your path, bad things will happen to you', but it is not the fortune telling it has metaphorphed itself into in modern times.