• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

Could you bring in the link that debunks the 60 fulfilled prophecies mentioned.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Existence_Of_Jesus
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Birth_narratives_of_Jesus
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Biblical_Inerrancy
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Septuagint
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Eschatology
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Shoehorning
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Unauthorized_Version:_Truth_and_Fiction_in_the_Bible


That should about cover it.

I could cross reference it with other texts if you so wish. But I figure that would be a good start.


ETA: Please note DOC that neither your sources nor mine are substitutes for thinking about the issue. You must realize that what Tricky has stated (As has many others) a book which predicts outcomes at the end of that book does not make a prophecy. It makes good literature. For you to prove that the books is anything more than just a book, you must provide convincing evidence for the extraordinary claims made in that book.

1.) Prove christ was born of a virgin
2.) Prove that he truly died and truly came back.

Actually, if you can prove either of those things, you'd win your point. Seriously, I do not challenge you for proof as a "gotcha". I challenge you for it, because I would like to know. I think anyone here would admit error and become christian if you had definitive phyisical proof of either of those events. Not hearsay, not what some book says, and not what some other people say. Real, honest-to-goodness proof.
 
Last edited:
Matthew 28
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that he seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Mark 16
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it was very great.
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24
1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

John 20
1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came ot the sepulchre.
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
(he finds Jesus' clothes, Simon Peter catches up and sees the same)
10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Now, let's stop and think for a minute. Never mind that this is actually Monday morning, not Easter Sunday.

The accounts disagree on who comes to the sepulchre.

Matthew says two Marys. Mark says two Marys and Salome. Luke 24:10 says two Marys, Joanna, and other women that were with them. John says Mary Magdalene all by herself.

Matthew mentions an earthquake that scares the guards away. Nobody else mentions guards or earthquakes.

Matthew says there was an angel sitting outside the tomb. Mark says there was a man sitting inside. Luke says there were two men inside, but nobody noticed them at first. John says nobody was there at first, until the disciples (who are not part of the other three accounts) came and went, at which point there were two angels inside.

So, was it one man? Two men? One angel? Two angels? Inside? Outside? Take your pick. Even assuming one of them is true, and even with the benefit of hindsight, the Bible couldn't rise above 25% accuracy with four mutually-exclusive accounts.

Here is what the "Catholic Encyclopedia" 1966 says on this matter under the subject "Resurrection of Christ" page 407.

"It may be said, first of all, that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. Even up to the point of the appearance of the risen Lord to the Apostles themselves, the Gospels independently give witness to a standard sequence of events: the discovery of the empty tomb by women, the appearance of the angel(s) and the message given by him (them) for the Apostles, the appearance of the risen Christ to secondary witnesses (women and /or relatively unknown disciples), and, finally, His appearance to the Apostles. That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas , such as that found in 1 Cor. 15.1-7, where only "official" witnesses are named."

________

Also, there is a person in this forum, who had a thread dealing with his belief that 3 of the gospels were mostly copied from the Gospel of Mark. If this was true, then there would be no inconsistencies. These minor differences prove that the 4 gospels were independent. Also remember that the account of the Christ's life was told mostly orally at first until written down. Remember (unlike modern times) a very large percentage of the people were illiterate, so writing everything down wasn't that important at the time of the events. Also none of the "original" Gospels have survived so there is always the possibility of a copying error. But given all this, as was stated, the sequence of major events occuring after the resurrection is standard.

And if you had lets say 4 people observing the Super Bowl in person and then they went home each to his own state (all different states) and orally told what they saw happen during the entire game to people who couldn't read about it or see it on TV. And then those people told all their friends about it so on and so for 30 years you would get 4 different accounts about the game at the end of 30 years. But everyone would get it right as to who won, and other major things; but the details of the game would be almost certainly different.

As the above statement in the article states: "That the Gospels should so consistently present this sequence is impressive , especially in view of the fact that the sequence does not seem to be part of the early kerygma or to the early creedal formulas.''
 
Last edited:
Quote of Doc
Even Christ said not everyone who has my name on their lips has me in their heart.

Oh, excuse me, Christ was not the first to say it but was obviously agreeing with the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the people honoring God with their lips only.
Doc, Isaiah is not relevant. You still need to show Christ said it, otherwise people will call you a liar once more.
 
Last edited:
And if you had lets say 4 people observing the Super Bowl in person and then they went home each to his own state (all different states) and orally told what they saw happen during the entire game to people who couldn't read about it or see it on TV. And then those people told all their friends about it so on and so for 30 years you would get 4 different accounts about the game at the end of 30 years. But everyone would get it right as to who won, and other major things; but the details of the game would be almost certainly different.
But they would remember who played, something of which the bible is unsure.
 
Last edited:
Doc, Isaiah is not relevant. You still need to show Christ said it, otherwise people will call you a liar once more.

He was certainly relevant to Christ or Christ wouldn't have quoted him, and to be honest I really don't give a rat's behind if someone wants to call me a liar after reading my response in post 255. I'll repeat it here:

"Oh, excuse me, Christ was not the first to say it but was obviously agreeing with the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the people honoring God with their lips only.

Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me.

But Jesus did say something very similar when He said in Matthew 7;21

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

_____

When I speak off the cuff, and from memory about something I might have read years ago, sometimes this might happen. If you don't like it then you can stay out of my threads.
 
But they would remember who played, something of which the bible is unsure.

I doubt it, after 30 years they might remember the quarterback or maybe one or two other players but that would probably be it. I wouldn't even be surprised it all four accounts had different ending scores if nobody bothered to write them down.
 
He was certainly relevant to Christ or Christ wouldn't have quoted him, and to be honest I really don't give a rat's behind if someone wants to call me a liar after reading my response in post 255. I'll repeat it here:

"Oh, excuse me, Christ was not the first to say it but was obviously agreeing with the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the people honoring God with their lips only.

Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me.

But Jesus did say something very similar when He said in Matthew 7;21

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

_____
Doc, you are missing the point. You now claim Christ was not the first to say it. I don't care if he was first second or 200th as long as you can show he said it.
When I speak off the cuff, and from memory about something I might have read years ago, sometimes this might happen. If you don't like it then you can stay out of my threads.
Is this your way of saying you were wrong ?
 
there is a person in this forum, who had a thread dealing with his belief that 3 of the gospels were mostly copied from the Gospel of Mark. If this was true, then there would be no inconsistencies.
If the Bible was the inerrant word of a perfect God, there would be no inconsistencies. I don't think the inconsistencies demonstrate that three of the gospels weren't cribbed from a common source. If three people were copying an essay for a religion class, each would be likely to disguise the plagiarism in his own way, which could lead to just such inconsistencies.

These minor differences prove that the 4 gospels were independent.
The question of how independent they were is probably best left to another thread. I was only addressing your "99.99% consistent" claim, and I don't think such a high figure is justified.

And if you had lets say 4 people observing the Super Bowl in person and then they went home each to his own state (all different states) and orally told what they saw happen during the entire game to people who couldn't read about it or see it on TV. And then those people told all their friends about it so on and so for 30 years you would get 4 different accounts about the game at the end of 30 years. But everyone would get it right as to who won, and other major things; but the details of the game would be almost certainly different.
Major things? You mean, like earthquakes?

The Bible isn't consistent on who saw what. That's pretty basic stuff. One of the gospels says that Jesus appeared at the tomb, but his close friend didn't recognize him. It sounds to me like even the so-called eyewitnesses are a far cry from what you could call "reliable."

In your super bowl analogy, suppose thirty years later, some of the accounts DO disagree about who won. Suppose everybody writes down his version of events, and the tortoise fans remember it as a tortoise victory, while the hare fans remember that the hares won.

Then, 100 years after that, some hare-brained sports historian comes along, and has to decide which version becomes official super-bowl history. "Richie the Rodent," a well-known (and much-respected among the hare fans) oddsmaker is known to have predicted a victory by the hares. Magazine articles containing this prediction are quoted throughout the land. Which versions of events do you think the historian will select for his "official" stamp of approval?

Are you going to be impressed, under the circumstances, that Richie the Rodent got it right?
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting the bible might not be 100% true

I never said I was a literalist. Even Billy Graham is not a literalist. But I believe from all the evidence I've seen that Christ is divine and the only hope for this dead and dying world is Christianity.
 
Last edited:
I never said I was a literalist. Even Billy Graham is not a literalist. But I believe from all the evidence I've seen that Christ is divine and the only hope for this dead and dying world is Christianity.

Well folks, there it is. We're stuffed.
 
Don't despair. There's still the vanishingly-small possibility that DOC could be...mistaken?
 
Don't despair. There's still the vanishingly-small possibility that DOC could be...mistaken?

Well yes I forgot that. Relax everyone, we're not stuffed. Now all we need to find is the actual hope for this sick sad world of ours...

Should be a cinch for a bunch of smart folks like us, right?

Right?

ETA: It occurs to me that I should add something to this post.

Given that I assume that there is no ultimate "meaning" to our existence on this sick sad world beyond that which we ascribe to it, I believe it is up to all of us to make it as bearable as possible. That is why I devote so much energy towards making jokes. If I can leave nothing to this world except laughs, I will have done good, in my opinion. I think we should forget Jesus and instead worship Groucho and his brothers.
 
Last edited:
Also, there is a person in this forum, who had a thread dealing with his belief that 3 of the gospels were mostly copied from the Gospel of Mark. If this was true, then there would be no inconsistencies. These minor differences prove that the 4 gospels were independent.
If the bible is the word of an omniscent god, it would not contain four different gospels. It would have one, consistent, historically-accurate account of the life of Jesus. Backed-up with references.

IOW, all this jabbering about the various gospel stories misses the big picture - which is WHY are there various gospel stories that we mere mortals have to reconcile?
 
Last edited:
Doc, you are missing the point. You now claim Christ was not the first to say it. I don't care if he was first second or 200th as long as you can show he said it.

Is this your way of saying you were wrong ?

Actually after further looking into it I found out I was right. The Lord (Christ) did say it first to Isaiah.

Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near
with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.

Now I know why Christ remembered it, He actually said to Isaiah even before He was incarnate.

Excuse me I'm tired, and I really didn't read all of the Isaiah before the above quote so I hope its in context. But I'd be willing to bet it is.
 
Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near
with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.



So your proof that Jesus said these words is that someone said he would say them before he (Jesus) was born and you don't see a problem with that?
 
Actually after further looking into it I found out I was right. The Lord (Christ) did say it first to Isaiah.

Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near
with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.

Now I know why Christ remembered it, He actually said to Isaiah even before He was incarnate.


Oh, my. Jesus remembered it because he'd said it to Isaiah originally? You realise what a theological mess you're getting in with that? Was Jesus god, or the son of god? Did he remember it because he/his father said it, or because he is an all-knowing god? Is Jesus the same as god? If so, why did he not know everything that god did?

ETA: You're making this up as you go along, aren't you? Why don't you go off and think it through, and come back when you've got your story straight?
 
Last edited:
Doc, you are missing the point. You now claim Christ was not the first to say it. I don't care if he was first second or 200th as long as you can show he said it.
Is this your way of saying you were wrong ?
Lothian, just so it's clear. It is obvious that you have proven DOC wrong in this instance.

DOC will now use variations in meanings and deifnitions or outright ignore your point to avoid admitting error.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom