19 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasTo prove that some prophecy is false you will have to find one where the God says in the Bible, 'this will happen THEN'. You will have to prove that it should already have happened and that it did not.
So, just to be sure we agree of the very definition of what a real prophecy is, I ask the question very clearly:
(1) When god says "this will happen", that is a prophecy. True or false?
(2) And when "this" is not happening, then the prophecies is faulty. True or false?
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by Henry23So if I find a verse where god says "xxx will happen" and then xxx doesn't happen at all, then it is a false prophecy?
To prove that some prophecy is false you will have to find one where the God says in the Bible, 'this will happen THEN'. You will have to prove that it should already have happened and that it did not.
I've been into a numerous discussions when I have been challenged for a proof, and when I deliver a proof it turns out that the other, christian fundamentalist, says, "it's not a proof, because I misunderstood me / I have an other definition / you didn't understand me correctly so it is not really a proof at all" I want to avoid just this. Therefore I want you to tell me, in before, that we agree on what a prophecy really is. I don't intend to be difficult.
Do we have trouble with these three questions?
(1) When god says "this will happen", that is a prophecy. True or false?
(2) And when "this" is not happening, then the prophecies is faulty. True or false?
(3) And if I can find such a faulty prophecy, then the proof is valid. True or false?
Do we agree, on these?
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't think you understood my previous post:
So if I find a verse where god says "xxx will happen" and then xxx doesn't happen at all, then it is a false prophecy?
I've been into a numerous discussions when I have been challenged for a proof, and when I deliver a proof it turns out that the other, christian fundamentalist, says, "it's not a proof, because I misunderstood me / I have an other defi ...[text shortened]... a faulty prophecy, then the proof is valid. True or false?
Do we agree, on these?
No, we don't agree on these.
To prove that some prophecy is false you will have to find one where the God says in the Bible, 'this will happen THEN'. You will have to prove that it should already have happened and that it did not.
It's not enough to find a prophecy where God says, 'this will happen...' That will not be helpful in our case. You will have to provide a prophecy that has a time attached to it, as in 'And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times."' (Mark 14:30)
Don't use the above prophecy though, since it was actually fulfilled:
Mark 14:72 And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.
Another reason you can't use the Mark 14:30 prophecy is because both prophecy and fulfillment were recorded after the events already happened. We're interested in prophecies that were recorded before the event.
By the way, if your truly consistent you won't only ask me, 'what will you do if I present a false prophecy?' you'll also ask yourself, 'what will I do if I find proof of a genuinely fulfilled prophecies?' Or are you afraid of the implications of that question?
19 Jul 08
Originally posted by Henry23Okay, but I will use the three points anyway:
I don't think you understood my previous post:
No, we don't agree on these.
[b]To prove that some prophecy is false you will have to find one where the God says in the Bible, 'this will happen THEN'. You will have to prove that it should already have happened and that it did not.
It's not enough to find a prophecy where God says, 'this will happ ...[text shortened]... illed prophecies?' Or are you afraid of the implications of that question?[/b]
(1) When god says "this will happen", that is a prophecy. True or false?
(2) And when "this" is not happening, then the prophecies is faulty. True or false?
(3) And if I can find such a faulty prophecy, then the proof is valid. True or false?
only because you wanted the prophecy should be completed in a given amount of time. In my example it will.
I understand that you want the proof to be as rigorous as I want it to be. An prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled is not much of a proof. You can say 'yes but it will be' and I say 'but it hasn't yet 'and we have a stall.
In my example there is a time limit attached to it, so I think you will agree that the proof is valid.
Okay, here it is:
Proof that there is prophecies that didn't turn out as god said it would.
In Joshua 3:10 there is a prophecy that says that god will drive out the Canaanites.
In Joshua 17:12-13 you can read the the prophecy above didn't work. The Canaanites wasn't driven out.
I cannot give you the verses in plain English, nor in the original languages, because I don't have access to them. What I have is in Swedish, the 2000 year of translation from the original texts. I believe they are properly translated in accordance with modern knowledge of the historic events and linguistics. I think you have to look it up yourself in your favourite bible translation. I would be happy if you cut and pasted them into this thread so even other englishspoken audience can read. Me myself have some difficulties with the ancient language in King Edward texts.
(1) In 3:10 we can read a prophecy from the mouth of god. There was a time condition implied, like 'before we get there'.
(2) In 7:12 they got there but the Canaanites was still there.
(3) The prophecy in (1) is inconstistent with (2), hence the prophecy didn't turn out. I've found a prophecy that is false.
I think this proof is quite solid. Some fundamentalistic christian with a weak faith is certainly trying to explain this is terms of 'faulty interpretations' as I have forseen earlier. But in that case, it is impossible to proove anything, whatsoever. Becasue a fundamentalists mind is set from the beginning, he cannot admit anything is wrong in the bible.
I also think that you have honour enough to see a proof when you see it. This chicken race of ours is a chicken race only if anyone lose his honour. I don't yours is still intact. Noone has lost, we have both of us won something. New insights.
Comments...?
20 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo comments...?
Comments...?
Proven then.
Okay. I'm happy to have destroyed the myth of that the prophecies in the bible are all true. Even those that are given by god himself.
And this is perfectly according to science. There is no way to foretell the future with certain accuracy. Astrologers try, and fail. Nostradamists try, and fail. Magicians try, and fail. And christian fundamentalists try, and fail. The bible tries, and fails too, and this is what the latest part of this thread is all about. There is no way a prophecy can work, unless you don't trick with words, definitions, argumentation, or rhetorics.
I have given a fool proof evidence, and all of the christians that before believed in the prophecies of the bibel is silence. Henry23 is silence (I've waited 24 hours for a comment), Drimachus (see Thread 97092 page 6) is silence, I'm glad that noone dispute this proof, it is water tight.
So if noone has anything to say more than already been said, then my mission is complete. Thank you, friends.
20 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot so fast. I only read your post now. I clearly don't spend as much time on the internet as you.
No comments...?
Proven then.
Okay. I'm happy to have destroyed the myth of that the prophecies in the bible are all true. Even those that are given by god himself.
And this is perfectly according to science. There is no way to foretell the future with certain accuracy. Astrologers try, and fail. Nostradamists try, and fail. Magicians try, and fail. ...[text shortened]... nything to say more than already been said, then my mission is complete. Thank you, friends.
I'll investigate your claims, test your proof to see if it's as water tight as you think, and then get back to you.
Watch this space...
20 Jul 08
Originally posted by Henry23Well, my source is the bible itself. If you hold the bible true, then you must hold this prophecy as false. If you hold the bible as false, then the prophecy is still false. I don't see that there is anything false with the proof at all. But, by all means, try to find the flaw.
Not so fast. I only read your post now. I clearly don't spend as much time on the internet as you.
I'll investigate your claims, test your proof to see if it's as water tight as you think, and then get back to you.
Watch this space...
Now, this is not personally against you, not at all. It is your statement "There are no faulty prophecies in the bible" I dispute. If you had said, there are "almost no faulty prophecies in the bible", then this is not a proof, just a confirmation.
I would like to hear from our friend Drimachus as well. Perhaps he has chickened out.
21 Jul 08
1 edit
I have given a fool proof evidence, and all of the christians that before believed in the prophecies of the bibel is silence. Henry23 is silent (I've waited another 24 hours for a comment), Drimachus (see [ThreadId]97092[/ThreadId] page 6) is dead silent, I'm glad that noone dispute this proof, it is water tight.
But I'm still curious, how can anyone with a sound intellect make such a cocky statement that all (not only some) prophecies are true? It's like begging of problems. I gave Henry, not one, not two, but even more opportunities to chicken out, with face intact. But did he take the chance I gave him? Nooo... He still thought that all (not only some) of the prophecies of the bible were true.
Even Drimachus is quiet as a mouse. He who says in the other thrad that the bible is 100% prophecies, and all of the are true. You simply must have lots of faith to claim something like that.
And this is the idea of the Nostradamus prophecies as well. They are all as vague as the prophecies of the bible, but still held as true by the nostradamists, and defended with the same rhetorics as the christian fundamentalists.
Can't we just skip the crap and agree that the bible is written by human hands, with human imagination, and human faults...
23 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasMy guess is that you wont get any answer.
Still silence...
Sometimes, espeically in the OT, God makes a statement, a promise or a prediction through one of the prophets and because someone does something wrong, the plan changes. This is probably what happened in Joshua.
I think God had promised Moses that He will see the promised land, but because Moses was disobedient in some small matter, he was barrred from seeing it and died before the Israelites reached the land.
Just my opinion on the matter.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Rajk999The best suggestion for a defence so far.
My guess is that you wont get any answer.
Sometimes, espeically in the OT, God makes a statement, a promise or a prediction through one of the prophets and because someone does something wrong, the plan changes. This is probably what happened in Joshua.
I think God had promised Moses that He will see the promised land, but because Moses was disobedien ...[text shortened]... rom seeing it and died before the Israelites reached the land.
Just my opinion on the matter.
But at the time a prophecy is given, god should know this, or else it is only a guessing.
Do you suggest that every prophecy is a mere guessing? I do. Some strike, some don't. Like betting horses.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasFirst comment:
Okay, but I will use the three points anyway:
...
Comments...?
You ignored the requirements I clearly set and went with your inadequite requirements nonetheless. I think we all know why you did that... because you knew you couldn't really prove prophecy wrong according to any fair assessment or according the the necessary requirements I set.
24 Jul 08
Second comment:
One of the first laws of hermeneutics (the science and art of interpretation) is the Context Principle. The most important part of the Context Principle for interpreting Scripture says, 'Scripture interprets Scripture.' Even though the need for this is obvious I'll illustrate it to you.
In one of your post you say: '...I cannot give you any evidence.' In another post you say: 'I have the evidence you want.' Therefore you contradict yourself and are a liar!
How did I come to that conclusion? Simple: I quoted you out of context.
So I think we'd agree that taking something out of context and interpreting it to mean something the author never meant would be silly and wrong.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI do dispute your 'fool proof evidence' and will shortly refute it. You'll soon see that your 'evidence' is not fool proof at all; in fact, I think that even a fool would be able to refute it.
I have given a fool proof evidence, and all of the christians that before believed in the prophecies of the bibel is silence. Henry23 is silent (I've waited another 24 hours for a comment), Drimachus (see [ThreadId]97092[/ThreadId] page 6) is dead silent, I'm glad that noone dispute this proof, it is water tight.
But I'm still curious, how can anyone ...[text shortened]... agree that the bible is written by human hands, with human imagination, and human faults...
It's interesting that you declared your proof to be 'water tight' before it had even been tested. Clearly you have already made up your mind even before hearing my argument against your 'proof'. Is this another case of 'I've already made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts.'?
I also want you to remember how self-assured you were and then when your 'proof' has been refuted consider how wrong you were.